"All existence is perfect relative to nothingness".

[Eodnhoj7]

Discuss the statement.

[Dontaskme]

Discuss the statement.

Nothing is perfect

[Dubious]

I believe it's the other way around if measured against the other.

[Lacewing]

If perfection is understood as "completeness", then it seems reasonable to say that all existence is perfect in its completeness, as it is.

This view of perfection does not need to be compared relative to nothingness. Neither existence or nothingness need to be seen as the superior or preferred.

[Dalek Prime]

I believe it's the other way around if measured against the other.

Absolutely.

[Dalek Prime]

Discuss the statement.

In the billions of years before you came into existence, what were your concerns on nothingness? You didn't have a worry in the world, did you? And there was nothing missing from your nothingness, was there? You can't possibly say the same about your existence. And if you do, you're deluding yourself.

Btw, before you respond to this, if you do, I want you to seriously dwell on what I've said. Because I refuse to respond to inanities. And that's all I get when discussing this subject.

[Dubious]

I believe it's the other way around if measured against the other.

Absolutely.

In a way existence is the act of breaking perfection apart, "perfection" being forever totally beyond comprehension for anything which exists since one would have think retroactively into a state of non-being. If there is that which is an absolute impossibility it would be this.

[Dalek Prime]

I believe it's the other way around if measured against the other.

Absolutely.

In a way existence is the act of breaking perfection apart, "perfection" being forever totally beyond comprehension for anything which exists since one would have think retroactively into a state of non-being. If there is that which is an absolute impossibility it would be this.

Preaching to the choir, Dub. This is why I'm an antinatalist/antifrustrationist. The two states aren't even symmetrical. It is an asymmetry, which most don't get. There is a complete lack of pleasure as well as a complete lack of frustration. Many will then argue that pleasure should be weighted differently from frustration. But GE Moore and many others knew differently. I took the following from WP, as it is reasonably concise, as well as readily avalaible:

"G. E. Moore's ethics can be said to be a negative consequentialism (more precisely, a consequentialism with a negative utilitarian component), because he has been labeled a consequentialist, and he said that "consciousness of intense pain is, by itself, a great evil" whereas "the mere consciousness of pleasure, however intense, does not, by itself, appear to be a great good, even if it has some slight intrinsic value. In short, pain (if we understand by this expression, the consciousness of pain) appears to be a far worse evil than pleasure is a good."

I will say this, Dub. You are one of the few people I know who understands this, intuitively, outside the antinatalist community. And I believe to understand it, it must be understood intuitively., or one won't get it at all, as it is counterintuitive to the state of conscious existence (ie. An extant wants to exist because they have this state.) Which, in my case, is not true, because I 'get' the other state is slightly better, and I know I'll be in it, again, inevitably, regardless.

[Dubious]

Many will then argue that pleasure should be weighted differently from frustration. But GE Moore and many others knew differently. I took the following from WP, as it is reasonably concise, as well as readily avalaible:

"G. E. Moore's ethics can be said to be a negative consequentialism (more precisely, a consequentialism with a negative utilitarian component), because he has been labeled a consequentialist, and he said that "consciousness of intense pain is, by itself, a great evil" whereas "the mere consciousness of pleasure, however intense, does not, by itself, appear to be a great good, even if it has some slight intrinsic value. In short, pain (if we understand by this expression, the consciousness of pain) appears to be a far worse evil than pleasure is a good."

Life teaches this lesson very well in one form or another. The asymmetry in this as I see it is not so much the difference between pleasure and pain at any given moment – though in most cases consciousness of pain can be many times more intense than any euphoria experienced by pleasure – but in the asymmetry of its duration where only fleeting joys are left to make up for a lot of pain and frustration in the lives of many.

Thoreau may have meant something like this when wrote…

“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.”

I will say this, Dub. You are one of the few people I know who understands this, intuitively, outside the antinatalist community.

As far back as I remember, it’s the way I inherently view existence as a ripple in time which eventually flatlines often experienced as if time itself were somehow out of joint in the very act of being here. It’s only the habit of living which makes it feel less strange.

And I believe to understand it, it must be understood intuitively., or one won't get it at all, as it is counterintuitive to the state of conscious existence (ie. An extant wants to exist because they have this state.) Which, in my case, is not true, because I 'get' the other state is slightly better, and I know I'll be in it, again, inevitably, regardless.

Consciousness is a very strange entity far better understood in animals where it is mostly functional not tripping over itself trying to generate a future beyond the limited years of its host. Consciousness in humans is an entity in momentum that cannot fathom its own demise; in the West it strives to continue as a single crystal entity stamped with its own I.D. while traditionally in the East that Will inverts fearing its progression into other lives.

It’s among the Hindus where the asymmetry of existence and creation in general is most acutely felt, the Transcendent being dismembered into pieces of imperfection. Ultimately, of course, there is no such actual transcendence; there is only nature doing its thing, recycling itself proceeding by its own logic which, as discovered, can be exceedingly complex and mysterious!

Anyways, due to an unexpected accident this year my proximity to oblivion has statistically increased by a fair amount. The only thing I worry about in this scenario is the act of being resuscitated after having strictly forbidden it. Each life is in itself an accident, a game of Russian roulette with sperm cells. I don’t need another "accident" to keep me going especially when the going is much less than what it used to be which wasn't much to begin with.

[Dontaskme]

I believe it's the other way around if measured against the other.

There is no other.

.

[Dalek Prime]

I believe it's the other way around if measured against the other.

There is no other.

.

*Groan*

[Dontaskme]

Nothing exists without it being relative to something else.... A perfect puzzle alone and an imperfect puzzle all together.

[Dalek Prime]

Nothing exists without it being relative to something else.... A perfect puzzle alone and an imperfect puzzle all together.

Not at all. You just don't want to put your mind to it. I think you'd rather dwell on zen koans than think about possibly accurate answers.

[HexHammer]

Could you please stop posting here? All you do is spewing pure nonsense and babble.

[Dontaskme]

Could you please stop posting here? All you do is spewing pure nonsense and babble.

Welcome to your delusional self.

.