How to become perfect for profit & pleasure

 

 

 

 

Left side created for WikiHow (1.4.2007)                                                                                       

Introduction

 

The New Oxford Dictionary naively (1) mis-defines ‘perfect’ as: ‘having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.’ Discrete analysis (2) reveals that the NOD does not actually define the word ‘perfect’ but describes vaguely some selected after-effects of the achievement of perfection. The word ‘perfect’ is derived from Latin perfectus, ‘completed’, from the verb perficere, from per- ‘through completely’ + ficere ‘do’. A function (i.e. any 1 of n) is perfect when done, completed, ended.(3)(4) Before a function is done it is still un-done, hence not done, consequently, imperfect. Once a process (for instance a life) is done/ended it’s no longer a (living) process but a dead (i.e. lifeless, deathless) fact.(5) Therefore, the term ‘perfect’, meaning ‘done,’ actually means: (interaction, hence action) dead.(6)

 

1. The New Oxford Dictionary’s ‘definition of ‘perfect’ is naïve in that it confuses the object (or notion) with the (personally, hence local) response to a selection of after-affects produced by interaction with an object (or notion). That’s a beginner’s error. The NOD’s ‘definition’ is seriously misleading, specifically for perfectionists. 

2. Bare (i.e. unbiased), discrete (i.e. digitised) attention to detail.

3. Since Gödel and Turing, egged on by Hilbert, the notion of (absolute) completion has been rendered uncertain. However, absolute completion can be achieved by colliding to relative absolutes (i.e. limits; see: ‘How to create the absolute’), and when the relative is compressed out.

4. Function (or process) ending, stopping, closure produces a virtual (i.e. because merely self-referential) state of perfection. It is made actually perfect via touch, contact, ‘strike’ with another (specifically, with a random) state of virtual perfection.

5. Achieving the ‘deathless’ (Pali: atta, derived from Sanskrit: atman) was and still is the goal of the wholly dedicated Buddhist Bhikku. The process or reducing to ‘the ‘deathless’ (i.e. Nirvana) is self1-defeating.

5.1 … Here the self is writ small, meaning personal identity. The creators of the Upanishads and their epigones, for instance the Buddha, believed that by eliminating the (impermanent) self (to wit, the persona or ego) the permanent Self (writ with a capital S) (i.e. the Atman ≈ Brahman) could be reached. They all fell for the ‘reductionist fallacy’, as Nagarjuna in India and Zeno in Greece pointed out.

6.  For ‘dead’ read: non-active, i.e. in waiting time (or in ‘time out’), i.e. in Nirvana. There are n relative ‘time out’ (hence coolness) states and one absolute, timeless ‘out’ (hence @ zero temperature) state, called pari-nirvana (i.e. @ maximum entropy).

 

Step 1

 

Become acutely aware of being in the middle of a process, i.e. of not yet being done, hence complete, whole, therefore perfect.

 

Bare (i.e. direct) and discrete (in finest detail, i.e. zoomed out) attention to the facts is required. Whether or not you see the bottle (i.e. the open process, i.e. any current function or your life as a whole) as half full (i.e. as an optimist) or half empty (i.e. as a pessimist) will decide whether or not you continue towards perfection, and the speed with which you seek to achieve it. The shrewd optimist (i.e. the bodhisatva) will avoid perfection as the plague.

Siddartha Gautama, who claimed to be ‘perfectly awakened’1 (Pali: samma-sam-buddho), was a pessimist. The Weltanschauung of the later Upanishads and of Yoga in general was pessimistic, melancholic, culminating centuries later in the cultural ideal of the jivanmukta, i.e. the ‘released from Samsara in this life’.  Gautama’s bottle (i.e. his ability to achieve whole satisfaction/joy) was half empty and draining fast, thus causing lots of suffering. So he decided it was best not to drink at all.

1.1 … From the Buddha’s anatta sermon, “Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.”

 

Step 2

 

Decide (i.e. by imagining or inventing) a suitable ending to your process.

 

1. Set a limit. Any limit will do. The payoff of perfection comes from reaching the (i.e. any) limit - then applying it. The content within the limit (or the limit’s surface, i.e. its wholly condensed surface-as-interface) is irrelevant.1 In short, you can achieve the payoff of perfection (i.e. of ending) by making a billion bucks or by repeating your mantra @100%.2

1.1 …Hence the Mahayana aphorism, “Form is empty, emptiness is form”, and which is take on the Hinayana fundamental characteristic, “Form (etc.,) is an’atta.”

2.1 … In short, the pay-off of the exhilarating experience of perfection can be achieved by ‘making it’ or ‘faking it’. Most people ‘fake it’. Indeed, if the Buddha’s premises are reduced to a logic outcome, perfection can only be achieved by ‘faking it’.

 

Step 3

 

Decide a strategy by means of which process completion might be achieved, e.g. Return to GO,(1) Advance to Stop (2) or Crash (i.e. sudden death).(3) 

 

 

1. Reversion to your Initial, i.e. pre birth State (i.e. Factory Settings), and which happened as a steady state (hence @rest, hence in nirvana).

2. Condensation/concentration to a logic unit, i.e. to a steady state (therefore turbulence eliminated, hence cool) whole unit or quantum, i.e. bit.

3. Cut or slice, i.e. stop (i.e. as a momentary steady state). This achieved by means of random contact/touch, i.e. sudden death/nirvana.

 

Step 4

Activate your strategy and apply it relentlessly and fearlessly until the end (i.e. as fact) you have decided upon is achieved.

 

Go for it, fully committed.

Step 5

Profit and/or enjoy the achievement of the ending of the (imperfect) process, hence the moment of perfection.

 

1. The pay-off of perfection, i.e. of ending, stopping, freezing, is realness, consciousness, enlightenment (i.e. energy release), rapturous joy, all decaying to rest (nirvana), is realized from closure, ending, not from the formal content of the imperfect process being ended,1 hence perfected. In short, any real or artificial (i.e. ‘faked’) open process that is closed (thus self-presenting as an undeniable fact) provides profit and pleasure, the more so the process was time and energy consuming and difficult to end.

1.1 …In short, it makes no difference whether or not you make it or fake it.2 Closure/ending, hence perfection as such, pays off in the desired gratification.

1.1.1 … That’s why people play games. Games are cleverly created harmless means of producing gratification, both for players (i.e. gurus) and spectators (i.e. devotees).

 

Step 6

Realise that ending as such, therefore perfection as such, is merely virtual ending, hence virtual perfection.

 

Perfection achieved, i.e. the imperfect ended, happens as a virtual reality, i.e. as a self-referential unit. It may be milked for its payoff, i.e. as in self-gratification.

Step 7

(Optional) Make your virtual ending/perfection an actual reality, hence really perfect, by colliding it on-end with any 1 of n virtual states of perfection.

 

On-end collision, popularly known as the Big Bang, is in fact the natural procedure for achieving perfection and its pleasurable after-affects, applied countless times every day, albeit at a low level of impact, consequently paying off in low level profit and pleasure. By intensifying the drive to perfection (i.e. problem ending), the pay-off can be intensified. Alternately, the payoff can be intensified (to universal (i.e. whole, hence absolute) realness and ecstatic joy levels) by focusing @100% (i.e. @1) upon the moment when actual perfection (i.e. fact status) is achieved. This is a well-rehearsed trick of Yoga (described by Patanjali) and of Buddhist meditation (i.e. as in 1st and subsequent Jhanas).

 

Step 8

Profit and/or enjoy the awesome after-affects of the perfect reality created by the on-end collision of the two virtual states of perfection.

 

 

1. This is the natural way both to self-gratification (i.e. to personal profit and pleasure) and the gratification of another individual. It’s the pay-off for final closure, i.e. for the random contact (hence real instruction) between two perfect (i.e. ended, hence stilled) units/fact and which results in data transfer (i.e. fertilization). The pay-off resulting from this perfection mode is by far and away the most intense, though cheating with self-gratification can make the two pay-offs almost indistinguishable.1   However, there is a price to pay in that the after-affect of final closure is whole or partial disintegration (i.e. of perfection). That’s why most Yogis and Buddhist monks prefer the self-gratification means of virtual perfection.

1.1 …Indeed, practicing self-gratification by achieving ever more ‘far out’ bogus (i.e. artificial or virtual) perfection states1 can produce far more intense levels of (energy) profit and pleasure, as adept practitioners of Tantric Yoga, Hindu as well as Buddhist, will confirm.

1.2 … Since gratification (i.e. joy, resulting from the release of energy surplus) is needed to sustain and drive/motivate a living system, and since solving/ending real (i.e. high energy binding and releasing) problems happens only rarely, achieving self-gratification by solving bogus, high energy releasing problems is the normal everyday procedure for ‘getting high’, hence happy.

 

Tips

 

Proceed discretely (1)

Proceed naturally, i.e. use your natural rather than cultural abilities.

Check out St Augustine’s definition of Original Imperfection, i.e. sin. He got the idea of Original Sin right, but for the wrong reason.(2)(3)

Occam realised that shorter is more perfect than longer. Use Occam’s razor to shave your guru to a point. Then observe (or experience), laterally.

 

1.  Develop the capacity to experience finest distinctions (Pali: savitacco), the finest responses to those distinctions (Pali: savicaro), and the ability to reduce (or condense) those distinctions (i.e. via (Pali or Sanskrit:) samadhi) to perfection status, i.e. to logic unit/quantum outcomes.1

1.1 … The trick is to revert to Factory Settings (i.e. to initial state, i.e. pre-birth capacity, elsewhere called the Beginner’s Mind1); in other words, to respond naturally and spontaneously and rather than unnaturally, i.e. culturally, hence programmed.

1.1.1 … To wit, with childlike unreflective immediacy, or, as Lao Tzu describes it, by ‘returning to the root.’

2. Imperfection (i.e. open, i.e. live (i.e. animated, hence hot), hence uncertain process) drives life to seek perfection (i.e. closure, hence certain fact status). Since the collision of facts (i.e. of processes ended, hence perfected as inanimate, lifeless, hence cold1 bits) makes real and releases - via implosion - the facts’ stored energy, locally experienced as joy or bliss, imperfect processes have to condense (i.e. die) to perfect (differential, hence identifiable) facts. Consequently, perfection (i.e. a (i.e. any) state @ rest, hence in nirvana) results from the elimination (see: Patanjali) of imperfection (i.e. of a state not @rest, hence in turbulence, hence hot).2 

2.1 … So, God (if you believe in Her) started the universe as hot chaos (hence as a totally imperfect mess of perfect bits) requiring integration, resulting in cooling.

2.2 … If and when integrated and cooled down, hence @ rest, the original hot chaos becomes fractally elaborated as a vast array of dead, cold bits. When serially connected, these become not only real but also provide consciousness (i.e. realness moment sequences held over as shapes or forms, i.e. consciousness) and implode to release their stored energy, and which advances the final state (i.e. of perfection) to start-up of a new process (i.e. chaos) of imperfection.

3.3 … St Augustine, following St Paul, i.e. via a deliberate misinterpretation, blamed the adam for starting imperfection (i.e. sin, Hebrew: chatta’ah, Greek hamartia, both meaning ‘missing the mark’). However, discrete forensic examination of the Adam & Eve fable (indeed, the fable is an oracle with at least 8 solutions) reveals that the Hebrew national deity, Yahweh, screwed up first when He made the adam ‘alone’ (i.e. as a monad), and which He decided was ‘not good’. The process of life, hence of uncertainty and unpredictability, the sine qua non of random interaction and fractal elaboration required to generate true contact/strike (hence realness and so on), emerged only after Yahweh had been forced to create the woman as helper against (Hebrew: ezer ke.neg.do) because the adam had rejected the animals created for him to serve as counterparts. In short, both St Paul and St Augustine lied about the origin of original (i.e. fundamental) imperfection (i.e. sin).

 

Warning

Don’t confuse the notion (and/or experience) of ‘perfect’ with the after-affects of becoming perfect (i.e. as notion or experience), such as realness/truth, freedom, joy and so on.(1)

Abstract perfection ideals, i.e. universal or cultic ‘bests’ to be achieved, emerged both in ancient India and Greece.(2) The notion of an unsurpassed, permanent ‘best’ or ‘good’ somewhere out there or in there was eliminated by Einstein’s relativism (3) on the one hand and Planck’s quantum absolutism on the other.

If your guru/teacher/ruler talks of perfection, i.e. of an unsurpassable ‘best’ state of perfection to be achieved, he is conning you.(4) All states save the bit are imperfect.

 

 

1.  This is a beginner’s error. However, the error is often deliberately installed in the neophyte by a religious cult official to disguise the religious belief is absurd fiction.

2. Ideals such as ‘the Good’, ‘the True’, the whole of maths and so on are Greek philosophical rubbish. Such ideals were, and still are, the invention of adolescent absolutist idealism. During the midlife crisis, and which is a failure to grow up, such adolescent ideals resurface as intense yearnings.

3. Einstein ‘proved’ (i.e. claimed), as did numerous ancients, including the Buddha, that all limits (save final death, ending or stopping, i.e. pari-nirvana) were relative, i.e. that there was (or is) no absolute limit. Planck appeared to prove Einstein wrong with his theory of the quantum.

4. He or she is inducing you to develop trance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Pilgrimage

Site