Perfection - How is it attained?

Perfection: what is it? And can it be attained or is it an impossible abstraction to achieve? Thanx!

Adept? wrote: Impossible to achieve.  Perfection comes only from the source.  It is unattainable to mankind.

What is that source?

GrimoireA3 wrote: Perfection: what is it?

It is a word that has two distinct meanings.

One meaning focuses upon flawlessness; this is what most in a specific faith tend to be drawn into and adhere to.

The other focuses upon maturity, sanity, soundness, healthiness, completeness, or (the one I like most) suitability; and it is what far too many tend to avoid.

I lean toward the latter focus. Why? Because it is the focus of about 80 to 90 percent of the words in the Bible mistakenly translated to he word "perfect" that are thus taken to mean "flawless".

This is purposeful. I'll leave it to you as to why this was done this way.

GrimoireA3 wrote: And can it be attained or is it an impossible abstraction to achieve?

That depends totally upon the meaning you assign to the word.

When you are biased toward believing it to mean "flawless", it shall appear to be unattainable. That is an insane trap and a good one to keep people in unnecessary shame and in hopeless activities.

When you are biased toward believing it means "maturity, sanity, soundness, healthiness, completeness, or suitability", it shall appear to be attainable. Of course, if you get into the mind set that one never stops a process, then you shall focus on the end and not the journey and that insane trap is equally damning.

However, if you were to realize a mature, sane, sound, healthy, complete, or suitable mindset as to the standard that you use to compare yourself, you'd realize the insane trap and merely dismiss it as having nothing to do with the reality you're engaging in and ideal you're comparing yourself to.

GrimoireA3 wrote: Thanx!

You're most welcome.

I use this question a lot: Would you rather depend upon a flawlessly immature person or a flawed mature, sane, sound, healthy, complete, or suitable person?

You define what "perfect" means to you and you shall suffer or be blessed accordingly.

http://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2015/12/perfect-in-sanity.html



Edited by coach - March/27/2016 at 6:59am

Actually you did ask what it was so I withdraw the question. I don't really know what it is, but I don't think it is an abstraction. I do think it is impossible to attain while on this Earth. As the Bible says, we are all sinners; even if one does not believe in the Bible I think the statement is true. I think we will leave this Earth imperfect beings and perhaps perfection will attained in what is to come. Who knows?

Umm...err...uh... No comment.

Adept? wrote: All matter is energy condensed.  The source of that energy is what many have termed "god"  The true knowledge of which is inconceivable.  Believe whatever you will.

Thank you Adept?,

I've never heard of the primary event, or the singularity, or the Great Author of the universe, or any description of the Godhead referred to as 'the source' before; not in any philosophy or comparative religion course I've taken. So I'm glad I asked the question because I learned something new.

Now, this formulates a new question, based on logic: the 'if/then' conditional.

IF perfection is impossible for man to become,
THEN, how does this affect the process of making 'good men better'?.

droche wrote: Actually you did ask what it was so I withdraw the question. I don't really know what it is, but I don't think it is an abstraction. I do think it is impossible to attain while on this Earth. As the Bible says, we are all sinners; even if one does not believe in the Bible I think the statement is true. I think we will leave this Earth imperfect beings and perhaps perfection will attained in what is to come. Who knows?

Hi Droche,

I'll answer this.

When I began Judo in 1968 we kids had to memorize (in both English & Japanese) that the ultimate goal of Judo as defined by the founder Dr. Jigoro Kano in 1882 was: "The harmonious development and eventual perfection of human character." And the practice of Judo provided a physical and tangible method of achieving that perfection. Which I did not doubt one bit then, or now.

Now - how do I define perfection? The removal of all vices from your value system.

I practiced the Judo value system all my life, including today: no booze, no drugs, no junk food, no promiscuity, no irresponsible behavior, keep your mouth shut, no smoking, be polite even under duress, have the ability to put thought into action, be stoic.

The consequence is all this will make you a dull boy. So moderation in all things might be the compromise.

So my definition of perfection for man is the willing removal of all vice from one's value system.

GrimoireA3 wrote: ...So my definition of perfection for man is the willing removal of all vice from one's value system.

What is your definition of vice?

coach wrote: GrimoireA3 wrote: ...So my definition of perfection for man is the willing removal of all vice from one's value system. What is your definition of vice?

Hi Coach,

I actually anticipated that question.

Vice is the catalyst for entropy. Any action or viewpoint or ethic that causes harm or degrades you and your surroundings is a vice. A sort of second law of thermodynamics for ethics.


One suggestion I read in the Freemason literature which I really liked was "you have a moral obligation to improve yourself." So true. A nice maxim for perfection. The self-aware person knows the difference between right and wrong, and emphasizes the positives and eliminates the negatives.

My problem is that while I believe human character perfection can be achieved, but how does one tell when they've arrived? This is what makes it a continuous quest.

droche wrote: Grimoire, The removal of vice, however one defines it, from one's life is very laudable, don't get me wrong, however, will even the removal of vice remove sin (however one defines that) from a person? I am generally considered pretty straight-laced, to a fault, by some, but I still sin every day, in my estimation. I don't think I'll ever attain perfection in this life, perhaps not even in what is to come. There is a teaching in the Scottish Rite that we strive for perfection. That implies to me that we will not ever attain it on this Earth. Jesus Christ is considered perfection by many, but he is also considered by believers that he was not of this world. Even Him, when he drove the money changers out of the Temple in a fit of anger, was he being perfect? If I had done that I would look back and say, "Sheesh, I lost it." I don't know how He felt about it but... it seems to me to be out of character for Him.

Hi Droche,

Excellent rebuttal. And I purposely used my Judo experience to avoid religion and provide a secular source of ethics for the achievement of perfection. Theologians refer to this as 'secular humanism' which seems to be replacing religious ethics amongst developed nations.

Now for the religious view. Sin. According to the faith system I am most familiar, Roman Catholicism or more accurate - Western Rite Catholicism - the least number of sins I commit, the better. Kinda like a demerit system, and no Catholic knows he's going to get into heaven or heck until judgement. Perfection for a man is not even a consideration for a Catholic! Of the Holy Trinity only God the father is perfect (not Jesus). God made the angels 'perfect' yet Jesus was the word made flesh, imperfections and all.

Of the four Holy Gospels (I'm keeping this in a religious vein) Matthew saw Jesus as a teacher(?); Mark saw Jesus as a priest(?); Luke saw Jesus as God (?); and John saw Jesus as a man (?). But Jesus is seen as flawed in all four Catholic interpretations, i.e., not perfect. The Protestants and 'Christians' - all 30,000 denominations in America - interpret differently.

So there is no argument for perfection if you adopt the religious viewpoint of sin being a stumbling block to perfection. And that requires a 'personal' God and not the cosmological God as viewed by Deism.

coach wrote: GrimoireA3 wrote: ...how does this affect the process of making 'good men better'?. It shouldn't affect in one iota. When a man is improved, he is bettered.

Thanks Coach,

Yes bettered, but not perfected. Cannot good men become better than 'better', or is that the end of it?

But then again, is perfection the enemy of 'better'? Is striving for perfection utopic?

Grimoire,

Perfection isn't a thing it is a concept.

Take flying a perfect anvil would be useless. The idea of perfection changes based on the situation so we can never reach it. So the perfect man may still fall short in numerous given situations because his perfection wasn't suited for it.

Even morals there is not perfect answer. I asked people is it wrong to push ladies, most would say yes. However, what if the lady was about the be killed and you pushing her saved her life.

Life is so fluid that a set standard is a guide towards betterment but not perfection.

This and 10 bucks will get you a fancy coffee drink at Starbucks.

Side note: The Bible doesn't talk about heck it talks about hell. This is just a personal aggravation. It's not sinful for a Christian to talk about things within our Holy Book.

GrimoireA3 wrote: coach wrote: GrimoireA3 wrote: ...how does this affect the process of making 'good men better'?. It shouldn't affect in one iota. When a man is improved, he is bettered. Thanks Coach, Yes bettered, but not perfected. {Q1:} Cannot good men become better than 'better', or {Q2:} is that the end of it?

A1: Yes.

A2: Once again, it is not a destination. It is a process embraced by far too few.

GrimoireA3 wrote: But then again, is perfection the enemy of 'better'?

No. Perfection is a process that brings about betterment. Again, it all depends upon how you define the word.

GrimoireA3 wrote: Is striving for perfection utopic?

No. It is the character of a person who aspires toward personal improvement, one step at a time.

droche wrote: Grimoire, I highly suspect you used a secular example of perfection because you didn't want to raise any hackles,

I was trying to be both objective and give a neutral secular example before going into religious explanations, which can become emotional.

droche wrote: but really, if we take the spiritual, the concept of a higher form of being out of the equation, can we even begin to conceive the concept of perfection? It would seem to me that if we take that out of the equation, we are headed in the opposite direction of perfection.

But I haven't taken a higher form of being out of the equation.

Secular humanists believe there is a God. But they don't adhere to any religious doctrine of morals or dogma or laws.

Religion does not have a monopoly on God, spirituality, nor morality. Pagans, Satanists, Wiccans, Voodooists, heretics, and their ilk can be quite spiritual, though you might disagree with that spirituality.

And I have yet to mention atheism. Deists are not atheists. The atheist claims that God has never existed in the first place, and that man and the universe came about through natural physical and chemical processes randomly over vast eons of time not through the exertions of any God.

The Deist believes God exists, God created man and the universe, but then God left and man is now on his own devices. God still exists, but he's far away in some other universe, galaxy, or dimension doing his thing. That is called the 'Cosmological God'.

droche wrote: I know a lot will disagree with me but I take comfort in Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the great Soviet author who lived under an atheistic regime. When he fled the Soviet Union and came to this country, he said that a big reason why the Soviet system failed was because it lacked a spiritual basis. This was a system that boasted Utopia for the people. When he said that, many of his fans left him in droves. But he lived it first-hand and I think he was on to something.

Communism and socialism are untenable (doesn't work when put into practice) for several very good economic and social reasons, atheism being one of them.

droche wrote: There is a teaching in the Scottish Rite that we strive for perfection. That implies to me that we will not ever attain it on this Earth.

That is beautiful. Scottish rite is right (pun intended)

Academic fence sitting is common within any ideological or political systems of thought. America is 'striving' for democracy for example, as a convenient way of avoiding commitment.

Since I am not a Freemason I am not violating any code of ethics by contradicting the Scottish Rite - I think they're wrong and we can become perfect. Again, that is just a strong opinion.

Adept? wrote: I'd call that the opinion of a religious person who felt he; and the people, were in need of such a system.

Here's the phenomenon: If there was no need of religion for the human condition, then it wouldn't exist. Religion does provide a need to some people (but not all people).

Adept? wrote: Historically speaking... there has been copious amounts of torture, murder, and outright war in the name of god/religion.

Yes, because Church & State were not separated. The American patriots separated church & state in 1789, yet before that your religion was your politics and nationality. In the 1600s the Massachusetts Bay Colony was a religious colony and Cotton Mather held trial on you for heresy. Here in Boston in 1640s Mary Dwyer was hanged in Boston Common for being a Quaker, and dozens of Baptists were also hanged in the common (for being Baptist). In 1690s Salem a hundred and ten men & women (and a dog) were hanged for witch craft.

So you don't have to go too far back in time or distance to find people being killed for religious reasons (equal to sedition or betrayal or being a traitor).

The six Holy Inquisitions, i.e. counter-reformation, was a much a political event (like firing squads for traitors) to prevent the spread of Protestantism over Europe as it was to stifle heresy.

Today in 2016 there are religious adherents who still do not separate church from state. They practice 'canon law' (religious law) like Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and the Vatican. So that is why secular nations like the USA (common law, not canon law) and Europe are getting whacked by people who do not separate their religion from their race or politics or nation. Quite the motivation.

So how does one eliminate religion???

Adept? wrote: Why can't we all just coexist together in harmony?  Live and let live.

 

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." -- Socrates

As long as violence or war serves as political leverage for national policy, there will be no harmony in our life time.

GrimoireA3 wrote: coach wrote: Once again, it is not a destination. Oops, reached an impasse here. It has been proven to be a destination. So we gotta agree to disagree.

Understood. In the context I referred to this originally, it is not. That's the definition I chose to assign to it.

But it is clear that you are claiming that it must be a destination and that it cannot possibly be an engaged in process.

GrimoireA3 wrote: coach wrote: No. Perfection is a process that brings about betterment. Again, it all depends upon how you define the word. Again, you cannot redefine a word to suit your argument - rule of debate. So again we must agree to disagree.

You are mistaken if you believe we are engaged in a debate. I am not debating, although you may be. I am sharing my view. What you view as a "redefining", I view as an assignment of an already accepted and promulgated definition. You don't have to accept that assignment, but it is an accepted definition.

GrimoireA3 wrote: coach wrote: No. It is the character of a person who aspires toward personal improvement, one step at a time. Thank you. It is journey taken one step at a time, from good to better to best, that one arrives at the destination of perfection.

In the context I made comment upon initially, it is not a destination. It can be a destination, depending on the meaning you assign to it, but it isn't necessarily one. Out of context though, it's just non-sense tail chasing.

Edited by coach - March/28/2016 at 11:18am

GrimoireA3 wrote: Perfection: what is it? And can it be attained or is it an impossible abstraction to achieve? Thanx!

most employers have it. I'll give you my Boss' cell number and you can ask him.


Edited by BroScubaSteve - March/28/2016 at 2:52pm

BroScubaSteve wrote: most employers have it.

Is that true under Masonic teachings? That the employer has a special affinity towards the perfect?

GrimoireA3 wrote: BroScubaSteve wrote: most employers have it. Is that true under Masonic teachings? That the employer has a special affinity towards the perfect?

Sorry. That's a secret.

droche wrote: I'm not sure what they mean by "employer." To the best of my knowledge, there is no Masonic teaching that directly refers to an employer. My interpretation of Masonic teachings as would regard an employer would be to be straightforward and honest with an employer, and give him a fair day's work. Of course, one should also expect an employer, especially if he is a Mason, to be straightforward and honest with his employees and give them a fair day's wages. This discussion of perfection reminds me of calculus. You know, a function approaches "0" but never quite reaches it. I think it is the same with perfection. One case where the spiritual meets the physical in this universe.

I was mentioning my Boss for comedic effect. It had zero masonic reference behind it. Unless your reply was also in jest and it went over my head.

coach wrote: Sorry. That's a secret.

You can tell me. I'm perfect.

coach wrote: Sorry. You might be perfect along other lines, but if you want to know Masonic teachings, become a Mason.

Touche' - perfect answer! So true! Thanks again coach.

Now I must purchase one of your books.

BroScubaSteve wrote: Moral Perfection is in the eyes of the beholder. It is an opinion unlike the scientific definition of perfection.

Good for you. Seems to be the bottom line. Example, when a Buddhist monk seeks enlightenment he studies the Sutras or meditates over an assigned paradox (a 'koan'). Then he must pass a verbal test in front of several senior 'Enlightened' monks by correctly and creatively answering several pointed questions about their faith, or solving the 'koan'. The determination that one has become 'enlightened' is purely subjective, based on the opinions of the review board. So it seems with becoming morally 'perfect'.

BroScubaSteve wrote: Men may agree in principle that they have approached perfection, but there is no way to actually touch and or tell if they actually got there.

I think you captured the essence of this dilemma. Good for you!







[/QUOTE]