MR>> Who said I was referring to getting "close enough" to
 MR>> "perfection"?
 MB>  You must then define that to which you are close enough.
Close enough to what we want, maybe.
 MR>> Besides you, that is.
 MB>  Try every notable philosopher since Thomas Aquinas.  If one is to
 MB>  judge something good or evil, one most know noumenally of the most
 MB>  good, (and the most evil) to do it; else is it impossible.
Thomas Aquinas and every notable philosopher since him said that I was 
referring to getting close enough to perfection?!?
 MR>> What I want is a coherent definition of the word "perfect".
 MB>  Absolutely, positively, flawless, in every absolute, possible, way.
What does "flawless" mean to you?  I would probably define it as meaning
"not having characteristics which are undesirable to the speaker", or some 
similar string of words.
What do "absolute" and "positive" mean with regard to "flawlessness"?
 MR>> Until I hear such a definition, I try to keep that particular
 MR>> pseudo-concept out of my conversations.  Sometimes years of
 MR>> Perfectionist brainwashing makes me slip though.
 MR>> In the (local) cases of "square" and "word spelling" I think
 MR>> someone could come up with a reasonable definition of "perfect",
 MR>> however
 MB>  No,  only "accurate", or "sufficient", will suffice.  There is a
 MB>  difference (technically speaking of course) between something which
 MB>  is "accurate", and something which is "perfect".  We switch the
 MB>  words around plenty during colloquial banter; but if we are to remain
 MB>  "accurate", then "perfect" must be used technically.  This is the
 MB>  main reason there are many arguments surrounding the use of the term;
 MB>  and I by no means have remained innocent of colloquial usage of the
 MB>  word "perfect"; but do intend to qualify my usage during this phase
 MB>  of the discussion to only the most technical usage of the term.
Wait, so are you going to define "perfect" as "accurate" or "sufficient",
or are you saying that my hypothesized local definitions of "perfect" could 
be replaced by "accurate" or "sufficient", or other?  This does not seem 
clear.
 MR>> I'd rather find and use better words than that globally-sloppy
 MR>> "perfect" though.
 MR>> Mr. Rigor
 MB>  But, "perfect" is the most accurate terminology!  There isn't
 MB> anything more superlative than "perfect".  You can't use a better
 MB> word, because there aren't any.  Every other synonym of the word
 MB> "perfect" are subordinate in some esoteric way to the proper usage of
 MB> the term in its most technical sense.  So... please forgive, but we
 MB> are rather bound to use it, if indeed there is any method to carry
 MB> across the full import of its technical sense.  We might set up a
 MB> scale of words, with "Perfect" at the top, and "Atrocious" at the
 MB> bottom, for example, then whatever is penultimate to "Perfect" would
 MB> be second - something like "Flawless" or "Accurate" perhaps - and
 MB> on down the list we go.  But "Perfect" in its most technical sense
 MB> _must_ be at the top; that is ([nemo est quin velit]) its best
 MB> connotation.
While certain systems/valuations might have a unique maximally desirable 
element which we might (locally) call "perfect", it is by no means clear that 
ALL systems have this property, and I think that a lot of problems are caused 
by people applying a (pseudo-)concept of "perfection" to systems where it 
does not fit.
What is a "perfect" piece of dog shit?  Is it a "flawless" piece of dog shit? 
What sort of "flaws" might a piece of dog shit have?  Or is it merely an 
"accurate" or "sufficient" piece of dog shit?  Would not every piece of dog 
shit be "perfect" in that case?
Mr. Rigor
--- GoldED 2.50+
---------------