The Natural Function of
Imperfection
Perfection is not possible. It does not occur in nature. The reason it
does not occur in nature is not because all things are flawed in nature,
but because in nature, the idea of perfection is irrelevant. Perfection
is a relative term and requires an agent (for our purposes, a person)
to perceive, conceive, or construct, a relationship between a thing
and that by which the thing is measured. Within a given construct or
concept, there are limitations. We can wrap an idea in a package,
give it a name, know what it is and what it isn’t in relation to a limited
set of other things. Nature does not have a limited number of things,
packages are not so neatly wrapped, and there are countless ways in
which our countless purposes and predispositions can lead us to
conceptualize the world. Do not get me wrong, this
conceptualization seems necessary for us to think, and it indeed
seems to mimic processes in nature. One amorphous thing is static.
Any distinction, regardless of how it is specifically perceived, creates
a dynamic.
A thing can only be “imperfect” if it is held up to another thing as its
standard. By definition, two distinct things cannot be the same. If
they were exactly the same, they would not be distinct. They would
be identical. There are no two things in the universe that are
identical. The word “identical” implies that there are two things that
may have been thought to be distinct, but they are actually, the same
thing. They are one thing. “They share an identity,” is a statement
that is only useful as a corrective statement. To have an identity is to
be distinct. Therefore, there is no standard by which any one thing
can be compared. Comparing one thing to another is to invite
imperfection. Imperfection in this sense is an unavoidable artifact of
the conceptualization of nature. It is an unavoidable artifact of human
thought. It is an inescapable feature of human experience.
When there is one thing, an unconceptualized, uncategorized,
undivided amorphous mass, there is no perfection nor imperfection,
no other, no self. “It” is what “it” is. When we divide the universe,
through perception, conception, and construction, into distinct parts,
our thought brings us two things:
1) We are unique
2) We are not alone
The very idea of self and other creates the idea of two distinct things,
and whenever there are two distinct (“two” and “distinct” are
redundant) things, there is relationship. Much of the relationship is by
necessity, founded on that which is different. If one thing is set as a
standard by which the other may be measured, by which the other
may be known, the other will always fall short of the standard, and
by that standard, we may say the other is imperfect. Only with such
imperfection may there be two things and may there be relationship.
In the realm of human social experience, the pursuit of perfection is
the pursuit of union, and the study of this pursuit is a worthy study in
its own right. Perfection though is a standard set by a distinct other
and that distinction is needed in order for there to even be an
“other”. To the extent that we may even wish to merge with the
other, we must find the other worthy of regarding as a standard (this
is how we select our mates), yet it is imperfection (distinction and
falling short of the standard) which brings the other into being. That
is, it is our thinking mind, our critical thought, our awareness of
differences which brings the other into our awareness. This is where
we hold the other and as long as we are going to be thinking persons,
regarding the other, as we must regard the other (with our thinking
minds), imperfection is required.
Intimacy, beyond a positive regard for the other, ultimately will
involve holding the other more fully – not just with our thinking minds,
but with our unthinking being.
Division begets division. When the thinking mind conceives of self
and other, that mind itself must be split, and in the same way as we
can think about thinking about thinking, we can conceive of endless
exceptions to every rule of definition. Endless “imperfections” as we
discover that one thing is not like another. A yellow butterfly is not a
yellow bird and a yellow bird is not a red bird. In that two is the
atomic unit of distinction, all variety can be broken down into a
binary system. Is/is not. Zero/one. One/two. Yes/no. On/off.
Moving beyond one and two toward variety, we must next consider
sequence. In that the atomic unit of relationship is a line, a sequence
in its most basic form will be linear. “Sequence” implies a discernible
pattern of relationship from object to object to object. We will call
this pattern “order”. An ordered sequence implies “direction”. In its
simplest form, complexity beyond the dyad is developed as an
ordered, linear sequence between two identified (distinct) poles. In
that a linear sequence, may be read (or functionally operative) from
precisely two directions, identification of direction is necessary if one
is going to identify the sequence. Consider the “binary” sequence
10010001100110001100111. This sequence is different from
11100110001100110001001 although their order is the same (they
are reversed). Thus, direction makes a difference. Every new
perceived quality generates conceptual distinction. That is as long as
we’re conceptualizing. As long as we are thinking about it, the
distinctions exist. When we stop thinking about it, the process of
distinction ceases. If the distinctions are generated by thought,
removing them from thought removes them.
Imagine the thinking mind incapable of recognizing distinction. What
would such a mind think about? The mind would not think about
anything. Undivided, the mind is one. There is no relationship, no
subject, no object. Undivided, the mind could not even think of
itself. Unable to think of itself, the mind would not know if it existed
or not. There would be no exist/not exist. In this way, as we think
about binary systems, it might help if we think of it in a way other
than the way we normally think of binary systems. We use the
numerals 1 and 0 to indicate the atomic unit of a binary system. The
1 represents “something” and the 0 represents “nothing” or an
absence of whatever 1 is. This system is useful in some ways, but
may mislead us in our thinking in other ways. I suggest that 1 is an
inert number. In some ways, it is the same as 0. If it cannot be
divided in two, or if it is not divided in two, it cannot be known.
Only when there is two can one be known. One must be known by
another one. If there is only one, then there is no other to know
whether this is the case or not. If it cannot be known, it is the same
as absent. It is the same as zero. I would suggest that a better
notation for a binary system would be to use 0’s and 2’s. In ordinary
mathematics, zero divided by anything is zero. I would suggest that 0
divided by 1 is 0 or 1, and that 0 divided by 2 is 2. I would also
suggest that -1+1 does not necessarily equal zero. I would suggest
that it equals 0, 1, or 2.
One thing cannot come into being by itself. It’s not that one thing
cannot be, it’s just that if there is just one thing, there would be no
distinct way to know it. It is possible that there is just one thing from
which all else divided, but that one thing did not come into being. If it
is truly one thing, then it has always been there and has at the same
time, always not been there, zero and one, distinct in our thinking
minds, but identical in nature.
Consider the standard creation story. In the beginning, there was
nothing. This nothing is something and this something has no
beginning and no end. Then this something divided. Hierarchy
develops at some point as complex relationships develop between
balance and imbalance. Division upon division occurs as life become
more diverse, more dynamic and more complex.
This thing we call “imperfection” is necessary for that thing, and that
thing, we call Life.
Christian Wolff, MA, Licensed Psychologist Associate
Copyright, 2005
Imperfection
Perfection is not possible. It does not occur in nature. The reason it
does not occur in nature is not because all things are flawed in nature,
but because in nature, the idea of perfection is irrelevant. Perfection
is a relative term and requires an agent (for our purposes, a person)
to perceive, conceive, or construct, a relationship between a thing
and that by which the thing is measured. Within a given construct or
concept, there are limitations. We can wrap an idea in a package,
give it a name, know what it is and what it isn’t in relation to a limited
set of other things. Nature does not have a limited number of things,
packages are not so neatly wrapped, and there are countless ways in
which our countless purposes and predispositions can lead us to
conceptualize the world. Do not get me wrong, this
conceptualization seems necessary for us to think, and it indeed
seems to mimic processes in nature. One amorphous thing is static.
Any distinction, regardless of how it is specifically perceived, creates
a dynamic.
A thing can only be “imperfect” if it is held up to another thing as its
standard. By definition, two distinct things cannot be the same. If
they were exactly the same, they would not be distinct. They would
be identical. There are no two things in the universe that are
identical. The word “identical” implies that there are two things that
may have been thought to be distinct, but they are actually, the same
thing. They are one thing. “They share an identity,” is a statement
that is only useful as a corrective statement. To have an identity is to
be distinct. Therefore, there is no standard by which any one thing
can be compared. Comparing one thing to another is to invite
imperfection. Imperfection in this sense is an unavoidable artifact of
the conceptualization of nature. It is an unavoidable artifact of human
thought. It is an inescapable feature of human experience.
When there is one thing, an unconceptualized, uncategorized,
undivided amorphous mass, there is no perfection nor imperfection,
no other, no self. “It” is what “it” is. When we divide the universe,
through perception, conception, and construction, into distinct parts,
our thought brings us two things:
1) We are unique
2) We are not alone
The very idea of self and other creates the idea of two distinct things,
and whenever there are two distinct (“two” and “distinct” are
redundant) things, there is relationship. Much of the relationship is by
necessity, founded on that which is different. If one thing is set as a
standard by which the other may be measured, by which the other
may be known, the other will always fall short of the standard, and
by that standard, we may say the other is imperfect. Only with such
imperfection may there be two things and may there be relationship.
In the realm of human social experience, the pursuit of perfection is
the pursuit of union, and the study of this pursuit is a worthy study in
its own right. Perfection though is a standard set by a distinct other
and that distinction is needed in order for there to even be an
“other”. To the extent that we may even wish to merge with the
other, we must find the other worthy of regarding as a standard (this
is how we select our mates), yet it is imperfection (distinction and
falling short of the standard) which brings the other into being. That
is, it is our thinking mind, our critical thought, our awareness of
differences which brings the other into our awareness. This is where
we hold the other and as long as we are going to be thinking persons,
regarding the other, as we must regard the other (with our thinking
minds), imperfection is required.
Intimacy, beyond a positive regard for the other, ultimately will
involve holding the other more fully – not just with our thinking minds,
but with our unthinking being.
Division begets division. When the thinking mind conceives of self
and other, that mind itself must be split, and in the same way as we
can think about thinking about thinking, we can conceive of endless
exceptions to every rule of definition. Endless “imperfections” as we
discover that one thing is not like another. A yellow butterfly is not a
yellow bird and a yellow bird is not a red bird. In that two is the
atomic unit of distinction, all variety can be broken down into a
binary system. Is/is not. Zero/one. One/two. Yes/no. On/off.
Moving beyond one and two toward variety, we must next consider
sequence. In that the atomic unit of relationship is a line, a sequence
in its most basic form will be linear. “Sequence” implies a discernible
pattern of relationship from object to object to object. We will call
this pattern “order”. An ordered sequence implies “direction”. In its
simplest form, complexity beyond the dyad is developed as an
ordered, linear sequence between two identified (distinct) poles. In
that a linear sequence, may be read (or functionally operative) from
precisely two directions, identification of direction is necessary if one
is going to identify the sequence. Consider the “binary” sequence
10010001100110001100111. This sequence is different from
11100110001100110001001 although their order is the same (they
are reversed). Thus, direction makes a difference. Every new
perceived quality generates conceptual distinction. That is as long as
we’re conceptualizing. As long as we are thinking about it, the
distinctions exist. When we stop thinking about it, the process of
distinction ceases. If the distinctions are generated by thought,
removing them from thought removes them.
Imagine the thinking mind incapable of recognizing distinction. What
would such a mind think about? The mind would not think about
anything. Undivided, the mind is one. There is no relationship, no
subject, no object. Undivided, the mind could not even think of
itself. Unable to think of itself, the mind would not know if it existed
or not. There would be no exist/not exist. In this way, as we think
about binary systems, it might help if we think of it in a way other
than the way we normally think of binary systems. We use the
numerals 1 and 0 to indicate the atomic unit of a binary system. The
1 represents “something” and the 0 represents “nothing” or an
absence of whatever 1 is. This system is useful in some ways, but
may mislead us in our thinking in other ways. I suggest that 1 is an
inert number. In some ways, it is the same as 0. If it cannot be
divided in two, or if it is not divided in two, it cannot be known.
Only when there is two can one be known. One must be known by
another one. If there is only one, then there is no other to know
whether this is the case or not. If it cannot be known, it is the same
as absent. It is the same as zero. I would suggest that a better
notation for a binary system would be to use 0’s and 2’s. In ordinary
mathematics, zero divided by anything is zero. I would suggest that 0
divided by 1 is 0 or 1, and that 0 divided by 2 is 2. I would also
suggest that -1+1 does not necessarily equal zero. I would suggest
that it equals 0, 1, or 2.
One thing cannot come into being by itself. It’s not that one thing
cannot be, it’s just that if there is just one thing, there would be no
distinct way to know it. It is possible that there is just one thing from
which all else divided, but that one thing did not come into being. If it
is truly one thing, then it has always been there and has at the same
time, always not been there, zero and one, distinct in our thinking
minds, but identical in nature.
Consider the standard creation story. In the beginning, there was
nothing. This nothing is something and this something has no
beginning and no end. Then this something divided. Hierarchy
develops at some point as complex relationships develop between
balance and imbalance. Division upon division occurs as life become
more diverse, more dynamic and more complex.
This thing we call “imperfection” is necessary for that thing, and that
thing, we call Life.
Christian Wolff, MA, Licensed Psychologist Associate
Copyright, 2005
| CHRISTIAN WOLFF, MA Licensed Psychologist Associate/Consultant 820 NW 21st Avenue, Suite B . Portland. Oregon . 97209 . 503-284-4501 . christian@christianwolff.com |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |