Impermanence

[Immanuel Can]

Static time? Impermanence becoming permanent?

It has to happen. At some point, things have to become "not impermanent." Otherwise, "impermanence" is a permanent state.

I'm just suggesting that the claim "Everything is, and always will be, impermanent" is an irrational claim. It literally cannot be true, because it self-falsifies and self-defeats.

Thus, we have no reason to think it's true.

[attofishpi]

If all things are impermanent, then impermanence is not the permanent state of things.

One day, things will be permanent, and impermanence will not be the state of things.

So the observation of impermanence is, at most, a merely temporary one.

Impermanence is temporary.

Maximum entropy is permanent. The Eternal Nothing.

...and some wankers thought you were Logik.

[attofishpi]

Static time? Impermanence becoming permanent?

It has to happen. At some point, things have to become "not impermanent." Otherwise, "impermanence" is a permanent state.

I'm just suggesting that the claim "Everything is, and always will be, impermanent" is an irrational claim. It literally cannot be true, because it self-falsifies and self-defeats.

Thus, we have no reason to think it's true.

Flippity Flop. Could go either way for ONE.

[Immanuel Can]

If all things are impermanent, then impermanence is not the permanent state of things.

One day, things will be permanent, and impermanence will not be the state of things.

So the observation of impermanence is, at most, a merely temporary one.

Impermanence is temporary.

Maximum entropy is permanent. The Eternal Nothing.

I would agree.

And science tells us that time is linear, not cyclical, and that we are travelling toward a state called "heat death," a point of maximum entropy in the universe, at which energy is spread into a thin-and-equal soup, and nothing else happens forever -- if time goes on like that.

But the doctrine of impermanence denies this. Because "heat death" is a fixed state (it is, in fact, the final state par excellence!) So the doctrine of impermanence cannot be the final fact of the universe, the ultimate truth about how things have been, are, and will be. The ultimate truth would be permanence.

Again, the doctrine of impermanence defeats itself there.

[Immanuel Can]

Flippity Flop. Could go either way for ONE.

Not at all.

"Things are sometimes impermanent, but sometimes permanent" is not a self-defeating claim.

But "All things are impermanent" IS a self-defeating claim, because it claims the permanence of impermanence.

[attofishpi]

If all things are impermanent, then impermanence is not the permanent state of things.

One day, things will be permanent, and impermanence will not be the state of things.

So the observation of impermanence is, at most, a merely temporary one.

Impermanence is temporary.

Maximum entropy is permanent. The Eternal Nothing.

I would agree.

And science tells us that time is linear, not cyclical, and that we are travelling toward a state called "heat death," a point of maximum entropy in the universe, at which energy is spread into a thin-and-equal soup, and nothing else happens forever -- if time goes on like that.

But the doctrine of impermanence denies this. Because "heat death" is a fixed state (it is, in fact, the final state par excellence!) So the doctrine of impermanence cannot be the final fact of the universe, the ultimate truth about how things have been, are, and will be. The ultimate truth would be permanence.

Again, the doctrine of impermanence defeats itself there.

Do you have any idea of the evil that God has emanated from? Indeed, the evil that is part of its being?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you have any idea of the evil that God has emanated from? Indeed, the evil that is part of its being?

I'm not sure what this has to do with "impermanence"....

[attofishpi]

Do you have any idea of the evil that God has emanated from? Indeed, the evil that is part of its being?

I'm not sure what this has to do with "impermanence"....

I'm not sure you truly under-stand the true nature of God.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you have any idea of the evil that God has emanated from? Indeed, the evil that is part of its being?

I'm not sure what this has to do with "impermanence"....

I'm not sure you truly under-stand the true nature of God.

I still see nothing this has to do with "impermanence." But okay. Have fun.

[uwot]

And science tells us that time is linear, not cyclical, and that we are travelling toward a state called "heat death," a point of maximum entropy in the universe, at which energy is spread into a thin-and-equal soup, and nothing else happens forever -- if time goes on like that.

That's not what science tells us. One way to imagine the history of the universe is to think of the big bang as a tightly coiled spring. It has been unwinding for just shy of 14 billion years. Matter and energy are effectively coils and ripples in that spring. Heat death occurs when the spring has unwound so much that all the coils have unwound, and all that remains are ripples. Basically, there is no matter left, all that's left are really, really red-shifted photons. This is reckoned to happen in about 17 trillion years, but even then, the ripples will never be entirely flat. No doubt you would agree that god only knows what will happen then. The thing is science doesn't claim to know.

Again, the doctrine of impermanence defeats itself there.

You should have read my article on Thomas Kuhn. 'Doctrines', or paradigms, in his language, have a habit of being superceded. Much like interpretations of religious texts. The postmodernism you rail against has some features in common with the reformation, without which your postmedieval interpretation of scripture could not exist and would probably result in you being burnt as a heretic.

[Nick_A]

"A blemish on the landscape can make the vista ‘more beautiful.’"

I agree.

It may be interesting to compare the beauty of imperfection with Platonic beauty of perfection.

According to Plato, when an object is beautiful, it is that the object shares some trait with Beauty itself. I'd like to say that an object is the more beautiful because it has in itself something that is not beautiful, not perfect. What matters is imperfection, not perfect 'beauty.' Just as spices add interest to our cooking, so does imperfection add spice to an object or a work or art.

Hi Horoshi

Do you regard imperfection as something bad or just a necessary natural relative quality that masks the form of beauty?

You seem open to the idea that imperfection manifesting as impermanence is not some static quality but reflects a normal gradation of the eternal unchanging within creation. To try and clarify what I mean I will introduce Diotima’s “Ladder of Love.” It depicts the ascent of the qualitative attraction to beauty as a form in the good.

https://www.thoughtco.com/platos-ladder-of-love-2670661

1. particular beautiful body. This is the starting point, when love, which by definition is a desire for something we don’t have, is first aroused by the sight of individual beauty.
2. All beautiful bodies. According to standard Platonic doctrine, all beautiful bodies share something in common, something the lover eventually comes to recognize. When he does recognize this, he moves beyond a passion for any particular body.
3. Beautiful souls. Next, the lover comes to realize that spiritual and moral beauty matters much more than physical beauty. So he will now yearn for the sort of interaction with noble characters that will help him become a better person.
4. Beautiful laws and institutions. These are created by good people (beautiful souls) and are the conditions which foster moral beauty.
5. The beauty of knowledge. The lover turns his attention to all kinds of knowledge, but particularly, in the end to philosophical understanding. (Although the reason for this turn isn’t stated, it is presumably because philosophical wisdom is what underpins good laws and institutions.)
1. Beauty itself–that is, the Form of the Beautiful. This is described as “an everlasting loveliness which neither comes nor goes, which neither flowers nor fades.” It is the very essence of beauty, “subsisting of itself and by itself in an eternal oneness.” And every particular beautiful thing is beautiful because of its connection to this Form. The lover who has ascended the ladder apprehends the Form of Beauty in a kind of vision or revelation, not through words or in the way that other sorts of more ordinary knowledge are known.
Diotima tells Socrates that if he ever reached the highest rung on the ladder and contemplated the Form of Beauty, he would never again be seduced by the physical attractions of beautiful youths. Nothing could make life more worth living than enjoying this sort of vision. Because the Form of Beauty is perfect, it will inspire perfect virtue in those who contemplate it.

It seems then as a person matures inwardly, their perception of the quality of beauty also evolves from the physical to include the mental. The only quality of beauty that is permanent must exist as an idea - a form within the good and outside the limitations of time and space but providing the source of the forces which enable the form of the good to manifest as imperfect expressions of the eternal unchanging

[Hiroshi Satow]

"A blemish on the landscape can make the vista ‘more beautiful.’"

I agree.

It may be interesting to compare the beauty of imperfection with Platonic beauty of perfection.

According to Plato, when an object is beautiful, it is that the object shares some trait with Beauty itself. I'd like to say that an object is the more beautiful because it has in itself something that is not beautiful, not perfect. What matters is imperfection, not perfect 'beauty.' Just as spices add interest to our cooking, so does imperfection add spice to an object or a work or art.

Hi Horoshi

Do you regard imperfection as something bad or just a necessary natural relative quality that masks the form of beauty?

You seem open to the idea that imperfection manifesting as impermanence is not some static quality but reflects a normal gradation of the eternal unchanging within creation. To try and clarify what I mean I will introduce Diotima’s “Ladder of Love.” It depicts the ascent of the qualitative attraction to beauty as a form in the good.

https://www.thoughtco.com/platos-ladder-of-love-2670661

1. particular beautiful body. This is the starting point, when love, which by definition is a desire for something we don’t have, is first aroused by the sight of individual beauty.
2. All beautiful bodies. According to standard Platonic doctrine, all beautiful bodies share something in common, something the lover eventually comes to recognize. When he does recognize this, he moves beyond a passion for any particular body.
3. Beautiful souls. Next, the lover comes to realize that spiritual and moral beauty matters much more than physical beauty. So he will now yearn for the sort of interaction with noble characters that will help him become a better person.
4. Beautiful laws and institutions. These are created by good people (beautiful souls) and are the conditions which foster moral beauty.
5. The beauty of knowledge. The lover turns his attention to all kinds of knowledge, but particularly, in the end to philosophical understanding. (Although the reason for this turn isn’t stated, it is presumably because philosophical wisdom is what underpins good laws and institutions.)
1. Beauty itself–that is, the Form of the Beautiful. This is described as “an everlasting loveliness which neither comes nor goes, which neither flowers nor fades.” It is the very essence of beauty, “subsisting of itself and by itself in an eternal oneness.” And every particular beautiful thing is beautiful because of its connection to this Form. The lover who has ascended the ladder apprehends the Form of Beauty in a kind of vision or revelation, not through words or in the way that other sorts of more ordinary knowledge are known.
Diotima tells Socrates that if he ever reached the highest rung on the ladder and contemplated the Form of Beauty, he would never again be seduced by the physical attractions of beautiful youths. Nothing could make life more worth living than enjoying this sort of vision. Because the Form of Beauty is perfect, it will inspire perfect virtue in those who contemplate it.

It seems then as a person matures inwardly, their perception of the quality of beauty also evolves from the physical to include the mental. The only quality of beauty that is permanent must exist as an idea - a form within the good and outside the limitations of time and space but providing the source of the forces which enable the form of the good to manifest as imperfect expressions of the eternal unchanging

Hi, Nick_A.

I’m not sure I can answer your question to the point. I’m walking very slowly like a turtle, hopefully to the right destination. But I’ll try.

I thought Schlegel wrote that there are two kinds of philosophers, Platonic and Aristotelian. (We only have to remember that painting by Raphael, The School of Athens. ) I agree with him in a sense, and I think I can say that there are two kinds of appreciators of beauty in the world. Some are heavenly and ideal, seeking for something unworldly, finding beauty in it, trying to be more and more perfect and godlike, Platonic. Others are earthly and human, more or less content with what they are now, finding something beautiful and consoling even in imperfection in the world, Aristotelian. Thinking along these lines, it may be that those Platonic prefer perfection rather than imperfection, while Aristotelians regard the imperfect as essential to beauty. (I’m not saying that Aristotle is a lover of imperfection. I’m using his name just for convenience.) I prefer the latter. This is not because I reject the former idea of perfect beauty, but because the latter way of feeling is to my taste. The bottom line is, concerning beauty, I don’t think imperfection to be something bad. It is not a matter of something good or bad; the question is, as I see it, whether we like the one better than the other.

[Hiroshi Satow]

If I’m not wrong, Plato said that a beauty is beautiful because of its beautifulness; I like to think that a beauty is the more beautiful due to its beautilessness. Ultimately, Platonic beauty is superhuman, godlike, timeless, ideal, dependent on pure thinking; mine is human and worldly, within time and limit, deriving from self-love and sympathy.

Love of imperfect beauty can be an extension of self-love and sympathy. I know I’m not perfect; when I see someone make a mistake, just as I pity myself, so do I feel sympathy for them; when I see a crooked, aged, or plain object, I may pity and love it, thinking there is something beautiful and attractive about it. Here I go from self-love to sympathy to the appreciation of imperfect beauty. Out of self-pity comes pity for others; pity is akin to love; when we love we find beauty.

[Hiroshi Satow]

When we find in a beauty some imperfection, we exercise imagination to try to make the beauty more complete and perfect. Since our experience of beauty is subjective, imagination plays a vital role in our sense of beauty. A beauty is the more beautiful through our imagination and participation, from incompletion to completion, from imperfection to perfection. It does not matter if we can make it; what counts is that our imagination grows and makes the beauty more beautiful and attractive.

[Hiroshi Satow]

I regret to say this, but I’ve got to admit that what I’m writing here is often far from well-organized. I may be giving a lame excuse, but these days I’m working from Monday through Sunday, hardly having any time to make and keep my ideas neat and tidy. Anyway, I think I should keep on going. Imperfection is a good spice to anything, you know