>
>Mr. Rigor wrote to Mark Bloss about "Existence Exists"
 [lots of stuff deleted]
 MR> means clear that ALL systems have this property, and I think that a
 MR> lot of problems are caused by people applying a (pseudo-)concept of
 MR> "perfection" to systems where it does not fit. 
 
 In fact, NO systems have the property of perfection.  
 MR> What is a "perfect" piece of dog shit?  Is it a "flawless" piece of
 MR> dog shit? What sort of "flaws" might a piece of dog shit have?  Or is
 MR> it merely an "accurate" or "sufficient" piece of dog shit?  Would not
 MR> every piece of dog shit be "perfect" in that case? 
 MR> Mr. Rigor
 There are no perfect _anythings_, because "perfect" is an ideal that we
 conceive only nuomenally - it is not a phenomenon.  But it _must_ be
 out there somewhere - else we can just as well throw out phrases and words
 such as "better than", "improvement", "worse than", "deteriorate" and  
 "degenerative".  Perfection is just as illusive as God, and just as
 nuomenally conceived.
 
 It is precisely that it is not appearing, but indeed necessary, that it
 is called nuomenally conceived, and not phenomenally witnessed.
 
 In the purview of grammar, one can say that a sentence is structured "well",
 "better", or "accurate" - but it will NEVER earn the status of "perfect",
 since "perfection" is an impossibility, yet also absolutely necessary
 for there to be any differentiation between something well said, and
 something lacking.  Perfection is an infinity, since an infinity is
 never phenomenally grasped - it is only nuomenally conceived.  In fact,
 perfection is the Grand Infinity of all infinities.
 
 
 
... All we are saying, is give Pizza Chants.
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------