A Logical Path to Find Absolute Perfection

Before we delve into trying to define what absolute perfection is or could be, let's talk about what we mean when we declare that something is perfect.

 

Let’s say, for example, that you just painted your car, your favorite color.  Let’s say that color is red (for example) and the red paint on that car is perfect to you, there is no other color, or shade, that would satisfy you more.  Furthermore the paint job left no bumps, rust, discoloration, fading, bubbling, or any other sort of flaws.  This paint job may be so well done that you may be inclined to declare the paint job, and maybe even the car itself, is perfect.  It may be perfect for what it is, but is it truly perfect?  Perfection is something that is only relative to the person perceiving it; I may not agree with the red paint. It may be too dark to me, or too bright to me. In fact, I might not like red paint at all, while the owner of that car thinks that red paint is perfect.

 

Would this “perfect” paint job bring us any closer to defining the purely philosophical theory of Absolute Perfection?  How can we, imperfect or flawed human beings, conceive of the idea of absolute perfection unless absolute perfection actually exists?

 

When I talk about absolute perfection, I refer to something that is perfect in all ways, at all times, and to anyone that may directly perceive it.

 

Since it’s something that’s very challenging to imagine, much less to define, let’s take a logical approach as an attempt to define what absolute perfection can be, or at least how it could exist.

 

Where: 1’s are flaws, 0’s are not. · 000 = 0 · 001 = 1 · 010 = 2 · 011 = 3 · 100 = 4 · 101 = 5 · 110 = 6 · 111 = 7

In a binary system, we have 1’s and 0’s.  Logically, if we identify every “direct” characteristic that could possibly be a flaw, and take all the flaws and perfections and basically turn them into a binary system, similar to how computers work, and assign all flaws the number one, with perfections or the lack of flaws to zero, we could at least conceive of the idea of absolute perfection.  Of course a score of all zeros would be perfect, but it would have to unquestionably be agreed upon by everyone in order to be absolutely perfect.

 

What if I were to propose that most of us may have experienced absolute perfection and that it may be more common through out this world than you might at first imagine?  It could be in your own home without you even realizing it.  If you were as fortunate as I was, growing up, you may have always had it in your life from birth, without even realizing it.

 

What I propose is that true, unconditional love is or could be considered absolute perfection.

 

Love has no taste, smell, or even a touch to our fingertips.  It can’t feel rough nor soft.  It’s an indescribable feeling within us that shakes our dark and sinful souls.  You feel it when your parents look at you with pride, you feel it when you see your wife or husband everyone morning when you wake up, you feel it when your child runs to you for security, you even feel it when your dog looks at you with loyalty, appreciation, and utter dependence.

 

You may argue that love could not possibly be absolute perfection, because love hurts, and can sting badly.  Especially when someone we love passes away or makes us upset.  You must realize that a time limit to all of our lives is not a “direct” characteristic of love.  At the same time, love can’t be held responsible for whatever mistakes someone you love has made, that made you upset.  Furthermore, you can’t actually kill love unless you kill every being that is capable of perceiving it. 

The Balance Between Democracy and Morality

Congress’s role is to represent the people, in which they represent, and the way our system is designed is that the people give the government the power, therefore, if people want or don’t want a law to be passed, then it is congress’s job to allow it to pass or not to pass. Congress is at the federal level of our governmental system, and therefore, all laws passed or denied by congress may be popular in one district, and unpopular in another. With such a huge and diverse population, I believe that the popularity of legislation should be the defining factor, for most issues, at all levels of our government: federal, state, and local, and when the population is sharply divided on an issue, it needs to be sent down to the state or local governments.

 

One current issue for example, legalizing marijuana, has a huge contrast of people, in every single district. Some people oppose it, some people support it, and some people are neutral. I believe the number that support it is possibly larger than those who oppose it in some districts, and less in others. Therefore, I believe this law should be taken down to the state and/or local level governments. Furthermore, this issue alone makes using popularity as a factor difficult, as by making marijuana legal, hurts no one but the people that want to use it, but by making it illegal hurts the people that do want to use it, because they cannot purchase it, legally. Therefore, by making it illegal no one benefits from it, and by making it legal, no one is hurt by it.  Not only would legalizing marijuana loosen our leashes and give us more individual freedom, it could be brought into the market and help the government raise the desperately needed money through taxes, similar or the same as tobacco taxes, the taxes used in law enforcement related to marijuana, and the prisoners that are locked up on taxpayers’ dollars because they smoke weed.  What BS!!  If a city official came up to you and said should we keep this prisoner in jail because he smoked weed?  What would you say?  I would say, “so00…. what’s he in jail for?” That would be my response!!  I have better things I could do with the money that the government is wasting on locking people up because of weed, like buying myself some health insurance.

 

Furthermore, when our forefathers drafted the Constitution of the United States they seemed to do one thing wrong:  They underestimated the likeliness of politicians adopting sickening immoral policies and values, in order to gain popularity.  Old wisdom tells us that what is always right, is not always popular.  Abortion is one of the hugely controversial issues that congress and the president are always weighing in on and viciously fighting for or against.  Not only has it been scientifically proven that all life begins at conception, our own president who supports abortion, has acknowledged that life begins at conception.

“…That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.”
–President Obama, Father’s Day Speech

Though he didn’t come out and say it, ask him this:  if the baby is not a baby at conception, how can a father be a father at conception?  Keep in mind that these kinds of questions are above his pay grade.

 

I believe the Government has the duty and the responsibility of supporting life. I don’t know the number of supporters or opponents of abortion, but regardless if 90% of people support abortion, it should still the Government’s role to support life.  The government needs to realize that every animal, every human being, and every person, goes through developmental stages at the beginning of their life.

 

Moving on to an even more barbaric issue at hand: Embryonic Stem Cell Research.  Now that these aborted fetuses are dead, let’s throw them into a blender and see what we can do with them.  Maybe we can eat them and gain new powers, develop a sixth sense, or find cures for cancer, because we all want to live forever!  Right?  It’s something like that… 

 

Let’s get something clear:  The act of taking a human life, in order to find a cure for a disease is a barbaric act of human selfishness. 

 

The only time such actions could possibly be justified, is when the entire human race is at great risk of being extinct. If there were such a plague that were upon us that threatened to wipe the entire human race, and the chance for survival of any new children to make it to adulthood is absent, then with good intentions of allowing new children to survive and the human race to continue to exist, then embryonic stem cell research could possibly be justified and be considered ethical. If a plague were upon us, that threatened only current human life, but newborn children were immune, then embryonic stem cell research would be still unethical, as the new research would only be a fix for the people already living, rather than for the purpose to extend the existence of human life.

 

It’s even worse to think that my tax dollars are going to fund abortions in Obama’s new health plan “reform” joke.  And my tax dollars are already paying for the embryonic stem-cell research.  I wonder if the mothers who abort their babies are going to get free college, paid by taxpayers, when they grow up too.

At Home, Every Man is the King of His Castle

First of all, let me put forth my personal position on gay relationships. As the title of this post indicates, I believe that every man (or woman) is the king (or queen) of their castle, and what they do in their castle is their business.

 

I have no personal hatred towards someone because they are gay. However, if I don’t know you’re a queer guy, and you don’t act gay around me I won’t have a problem with you and it will equally be easy for you to gain my friendship as someone who is not gay. If later I find out you’re gay, nothing in the friendship will change as long as you don’t act gay around me. If you act gay around me I will feel uncomfortable and possibly offended, and will not want to be around you. I would not go out of my way to insult or offend you.

 

With all that being said, I also want to address the controversial issue of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy in the military, aka DADT.

 

As a former service member, I had the honor and privilege to serve with a couple of gay guys that I had no problems with. At work, you would never know they were gay and they revealed their orientation only to people they trusted. In uniform, they were soldiers, at home or in the club, they were themselves.

 

I mention these friends, because I believe they are the model in which gay members of the military should follow; they were able to serve honorably, stay under the DADT radar, act like soldiers, go home and be themselves every night. There’s nothing that says you’re not allowed to be in the military if you’re gay, they just ask that you keep it to yourselves, and I don’t believe this is too much to ask.

 

I don’t know how basic training is anymore, but I know when I went through basic training, it was Hell. I also know that if someone was gay in our platoon, all hell would break loose. The Army claims that your safety is their first priority, it isn’t. Drill Sergeants fostered blanket parties and fights; they informed us that all we have to say is that so-and-so fell down the stairs to explain a black eye, while the victim of a fight feels so disgraced that they got beat up, they are ashamed to report the actual situation to the drill sergeant. Not to mention that a drill sergeant would laugh in your face if you told him you got beat up because you’re gay. DADT not only maintains a sexually comfortable level in an open-bay barracks among soldiers, it also protects gay recruits.

 

In the rest of the Army to be gay is a little more accepted, as long as you don’t bring it to work. Any good commander or sergeant, that is in charge of you, knows if you’re gay or not. As long as you fall in the ranks, dress-right-dress, talk, and carry yourself like a soldier, then there shouldn’t be any problems.

 

I don’t know the details of the discharges, regarding DADT, that took place since the beginning of the war, and I’m not saying the Army-way is perfect. There are definitely guidelines that need to be established when dealing with DADT in the army. I don’t think it’s appropriate to discharge someone on a black-and-white basis of “we know you’re gay, you violated the DADT policy, you are now dishonorably discharged.” It’s completely irrational. There must be good reason behind a discharge, and I don’t think this is established. Some commanders may have a very strict view on the topic and may automatically put a soldier in for discharge when he finds out.

 

Instead what needs to happen is a scope of reason needs to be enforced. I can understand that a soldier gets discharged for not standing at attention/parade rest properly, or doesn’t march properly, talk properly, or carry themselves properly and it all boils down to the fact that the soldier is bringing is sexual orientation to work. Whether a soldier is gay or not, you can still be discharged for these infractions for disrespect, missing movement, lack of military bearing, etc.

 

I believe DADT has its place in the military, however I don’t believe commanders should be able to freely and irrationally discharge soldiers for nothing more than finding out they are gay.

Presidential Campaigns Need Reform

As far as election related expenditures and funding, I believe the entire system needs to be reformed. I believe congress should set a fair, standard campaign allowance for the candidates they appoint to run for presidency. It's no secret that campaigning costs a lot of money, but as a taxpayer and a registered voter, I'm interested in what the candidates have to say, rather than their backers putting words in their mouths, and having them commit to promises that I'm unaware of and probably wouldn't approve. It basically solves these two issues that I think, most taxpayers are concerned with. Besides, the constitution allows the congress to collect income tax to run the government, elections are required to take place, after a certain number of years, depending on the type of election is at hand.

 

Now, with a reform such as that, if corporations and unions wanted to use their general funds to help influence the public, that is their right. However, if the corporation or union was to take such action, certain provisions should apply; such as clearly stating the name of the corporations or unions involved in every message that is publicly broadcast.

 

A system like this, would help prevent money laundering, quid pro quo, and help reduce the amount of impact personal finances of a particular candidate would have on becoming elected. Citizens would also maintain their right in expressing their thoughts and ideas freely.

 

The system that we currently have in place has many problems, one being the amount of energy and resources required to fund campaigns, and the countless loop-holes that lead to scandals, and tie our leaders into commitments they weren't otherwise interested in, for the sake of funding. The current system also detracts our politicians focus from the issues at hand and deteriorates our democracy. It is both unconstitutional to limit the amount unions and corporations can contribute to electoral expenses, however, it is also unconstitutional for unions and corporations to “buy” the votes needed for their choice candidate to win.

In Due Time: Everything Will Fall

The most dangerous thing in the universe is nothing more than a man made illusion: Time.

Time kills everything, every single person will fall victim to time, every living creature on this planet will too. Every planet, every sun, every galaxy will fall in time. And there is nothing we can do about it. Even if we were all completely healthy, time would still find the end to our lives.

I was over at my grandparents house, watching TV, and a quit-smoking commercial came on saying, "...if you don't quit smoking, YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!" What a completely idiotic statement!! It doesn't matter if you smoke or not, you're going to die anyway!! I could quit smoking today and get into a car accident tomorrow!!

 

I heard another commercial claim that every cigarette you smoke, it takes 11 minutes off of your life. Now how did they come up with that number? I calculate that every time I smoke a cigarette, it takes 5 minutes off of my life......because that's about how long it takes for me to smoke it!!

 

You don't know when or how you're going to die. There's only one thing you do know, or at least you SHOULD know if you haven't come to the realization. It's that you ARE going to DIE, PERIOD. Whether you smoke or not.

 

Another thing that pisses me off is reading a headline that the Pentagon was proposing to ban smoking from the Armed Forces, and they claim that smoking and PTSD somehow correlate. WHAT IDIOTS!! Of course they correlate, because smoking cigarettes helps reduce stress!! And if someone was in a horrible situation that they will never forget, they will need a cigarette to help retain their sanity!! If smoking was banned from the armed forces, not only does that take away freedoms that they are and should be entitled to, it would also push them into a corner of alcoholism, more so than many of them already are!! I'd like to see a majority of the people spend over two years in Iraq and come back perfect!! And I don't mean spending the time at the different FOB Retentions!! Soldiers, you know what I'm talking about.

 

Furthermore, how can anyone ridicule someone more for smoking, than eating a Big Mac and Fries. Not only is diabetes AS dangerous as smoking, it's also as certain that you're going to get it, unless you run everyday, or have an abnormally high metabolism.

 

At the same time, what's the point of living, if you don't enjoy life anyway? Is the point of living, to live? Should I be walking on egg shells my entire life? Should I just lock myself into my room and never leave? Should we all?

 

I'm not going to walk on egg shells, nor am I going to lock myself in my closet. At the same time I will wear my seatbelt and not live my life recklessly. That's not the point of this blog. I just want the people who read this blog, to walk away realizing that one day, they are going to die and I hope you live your life in a manner that pleases you.