| |
'perfect'
'perfected'
'perfects'
'perfection'
Synonyms:
Etymology:
|
'Perfect' can be a noun, a verb, an adjective, and an adverb.
Its quantum usages impose upon it memes and memeos borne of
ensemble evolutionary noun and verb plural participlings:
'perfectings.'
: Perfect, perfected, perfection, perfects, etc.
Classically 'to perfect' means to mechanically and formally
alter some 'object' until it has achieved 'state-ic' perfection.
In this sense, what is perfect is final. Classically, one may
arrive at an ideal 'state' of perfection. We fathom essence of
classical reality: behold our strawman called 'SOM.'
Notice how classical 'perfection' violates SOM's own J. C.
Maxwellian second 'law' of thermodynamics.
Classical 'perfection' demands presence of 'state' and ideal
absence of 'change.' So, classical perfection, denies real evolution.
In summary, classical perfection is:
- assessable as 'perfect,'
- consensual,
- exempt from evolution,
- final,
- finished,
- ideal,
- immutable,
- incorruptible,
- nondegenerate,
- self-complete,
- self-consistent,
- static,
- stopped,
- unchanging,
- etc.
:
Pærfæct, pærfæcted,
pærfæcti¤n, pærfæcting, pærfæctings,
pærfæcti¤ning, pærfæcti¤nings,
pærfæcts, etc.
Quantonics chooses to remediate classical 'perfection' as
quantum
pærfæcti¤n.
Since Doug was a kid he reveled in saying, "Perfection
is imperfection." That's a sophism isn't it? Why did Doug
intuit that? Does 'evolution,' absolute change, absolute flux
give us a clue?
When Doug saw a really beautiful woman he immediately recognized
her beauty manifested n¤t from classical 'perfection,'
rather from slight asymmetries in her entire body. Perhaps most
noticeably a human face offers what Doug is speaking and writing
about here. Real beauty, taken as perfection, is n¤t ideally
symmetric. Humanities' greatest artists have grasped countless
Value aspects of imperfection in their omniffering kinds of artistic
endeavor. Ponder intentional use of discord and dissonance. Escher
tried his best to "do it wrong." Maureen McGovern can
sing 'perfectly' off key. Miles Davis tried to play "notes'
nots." Goddess
Gwyneth appears to be, but isn't and for Doug that IS what
makes her so incredibly beautiful in almost all ways. Nora O'Donnell,
Robin Wright, Anne Kornblut, Meg Ryan, Melanie Griffith, Chelsea
Clinton...all incredibly gorgeous and capable yet,
"pærfæctly
ihmpærfæct."
Da
Vinci is an ideal example of
pærfæct
ihmpærfæcti¤n
in hermaphroditic maleness and masculine opus.
To Doug, males in general are
quantum~impærfæct.
What is ultimate classical perfection? Ideal mechanical form
and symmetry. But take any human face. Take a pix of it front-on.
Cut pix vertically down its frontal center line. Take each half
and vertically mirror copy, both left complement and right complement.
Put two left complements together. Put two right complements
together. What do you see? You see what Doug is talking about.
Quantum
pærfæcti¤n
issi
quantum~impærfæcti¤n.
One
pair of complements will look uglier, even devilish. Other pair
will look clownish, silly. We're quantumly~asymmetric folks!
We would look ersatz, artificial, contrived, pseudo, faux
if we were ideally, classically, 'perfectly' symmetric.
All of reality is like that: quantum~chiral.
Quantum~pærfæctly~impærfæct.
Pærfæct
darkness
is quantumly two (or more) light fluxings phase~canceling one
another. Darkness isn't 'zero' light! Darkness issi compound
phase cancellation of multiple light energies. In terms of
pærfæct
quantum~flux, it takes at least twice as much
light to make darkness as it does to make light. Quantumly we
can also describe darkness as absence of 'light' flux, but that
issi n¤t absence of flux. We are immersed in isoflux and
we are immersed in flux which issi n¤t within our visual
bandwidth. Some life emerqants can see flux outside humans' visual
bandwidths. Which is classically 'perfect?' Which is quantumly
pærfæct
and how can
we describe omnifferencings among them? H5W?
Quantum~pærfæcti¤n
also
shows us how
"Pærfæcti¤n
is in eye of beholder." Isn't that interesting?
Quantum~pærfæcti¤n
too
is ensemble stochastic! Is that a tell? Yes! Why? Quantum~reality
issi stochastic!
Is that evidence for you, reader, that Doug's quantum versions
of
pærfæcti¤n
are
more real than classical notions of perfection? It should be.
Is one of your legs longer than other? Probably! Is one of
your ears lower than other? Probably! Is one of your eyes slightly
larger than other? Probably. Is one of your breasts larger than
other? Probably. Is one of your palm prints similar but n¤t
identical to other? Probably. Is one of your feet slightly larger
than other? Probably. Does one half of your brain think omniffering
your other? Probably. Does one of your lungs have greater capacity
than other? Probably.
We can extend that list indefinitely... What reigns in reality?
Classical symmetry? Quantum asymmetry? It is stochastically 'true'
that quantum~asymmetry reigns! It is n¤t classically 'true'
that either symmetry or asymmetry reigns since
we can find improbable examples which could lead us to believe
that classical symmetry reigns. However, it is always safe to
say (on Earth) that quantum~asymmetry, in general, reigns. (That,
however, issi n¤t 'ideal classical truth.')
It is interesting to observe intellectually how classicists
view quantum~think~king as imperfect, "sophism."
It is interesting to observe intellectually how quantumists
view classical-thing-king as
ihmpærfæct,
"dialectism."
If
ihmpærfæcti¤n
reigns as Doug cleigms what does classicism say
about that? Simply, "It's wrong."
If
ihmpærfæcti¤n
reigns as Doug cleigms what does quantumism say
about that? Simply, "It's better, and it can become
better."
Which of those two views do you prefer as better, as
capable, as having qua
to evolve improvement? Classical form holds still. Quantum quantons
relentlessly change.
Do you like classical perfection better?
Do you like quantum
pærfæcti¤n
better?
Doug - 12Jan2008.
|