Top of Mind: What is Perfection?
"World of Watts" - Michael R. Muscatello 2020
Hello again LinkedIn friends. I am going to be sharing today, a "top of mind" article. This is a freestyle, all in one go kind of post. Please enjoy.
I wanted to discuss today, a musing that has left me wondering if the questions posed are being posed in the right way. I wonder if the questions at hand have any answer at all. We will begin with this: Is perfection something that is achievable? Not in the sense that we or anyone else is capable of creating something "perfect"... I'm not interested in the practical application of perfection (partially because defining it is so hard, as I seek to explore in this post). But in the sense of, is there any such thing as perfection? Is it conceptually possible, regardless of our ability to achieve it? We could begin by talking about units of measurement--perfection from the standpoint of being precisely on the dot, at 1.000000, with no deviation from that exact point. This would be perfection in reference to the exact nature of a unit. Perfection in terms of precision. However, it comes to mind that it would be important to know what the unit is being used for. Certainly, having the ability to be perfectly precise would be extremely useful in a number of scenarios, but as that scenario changes, would not the definition of perfection change as well? The unit of 1 mile seems to be a wonderful tool to measure distances for walking, driving, even traveling across the world, as the understanding of the distance of a mile at least gives us some reference point for what 1,000s of miles would be like, while providing a useful way to conceptualize the distance from home to a friend's house. One could argue that there could be a better unit of measurement for distance that is larger, that allows us to remove some of the extra digits. While this would save space on paper, the precision begins to fade as we transition to larger units of measurement. In many cases, this is a useful way to implement a unit. When dealing with distances beyond our reach, who needs to know how many miles are tacked on at the end of a lightyear? Who knows, who needs to know how many miles are tacked on at the end of a lightyear? It would seem to me that we could complicate the context for perfection in just about any direction, endlessly. Maybe some of you have already begun thinking about how a kilometer is a far superior tool, as it is nestled within a system that simplifies the conversion of units of measurement to various scales. While it is true that the metric system allows for easier conversion of measurement to various scales, that would simply be a measure by which we are determining the perfection of a system of measurement, not a unit itself. And so, we see a context shift eroding our attempt to whittle down what static perfection might be. I am not willing to argue what system of units is better, my point here is, it is entirely context dependent.
Allow me to step away from units of measurement for a moment. Does anyone here play disc golf? Any sport would suffice really. Imagine the object used for the playing of the game that came to mind. I am going to use a disc, because that was the object of choice when I had this discussion with a dear friend of mine. What is the objectively perfect disc? Not my perfect disc, not your perfect disc, but THE perfect disc. How can we even stumble towards defining it? Since it is not likely we will be able to know how to make such a disc, we could start by laying out its qualities. In doing so, I will pose these qualities in the form of a question, for I do not know any better than you. So...would it fly forever? Would the disc never break? Would it be able to be thrown in a figure 8? Would it guide itself? Would it be throwable by anyone? Would it automatically hit the basket each time no matter who throws it or how it was thrown? For the sake of moving on from here, let us for a moment define the perfect disc. It is: one that is throwable by anyone, that will hit the target every time regardless of how or where it is thrown, that will never break, and appears to defy the laws of physics, all while operating within natural laws. Refrain if you can, from trying to imagine how a disc like this could be possible--we aren't discussing whether or not we could achieve such a disc. We could broadly label the qualities I've posed as "perfect from the perspective of limitless, egalitarian success", or something along those lines. Building from here, could we make the disc even better if we were to design it in such a way that it would not even require throwing, but could be manipulated via the waves of our brain? I suppose that would be difficult to say. I can already think of ways in which a disc like that would not be perfectly egalitarian. Who knows if that limitless disc would be better? This begs the question, what is the ultimate point of playing the game of disc golf? Not in the sense of "what is the goal based on the rules of disc golf". In the sense of, what is the point of playing disc golf at all? This is a question that seems to be predicated on the persuasion of the individual being asked, and I am asking you. I know it is difficult to know what we would prefer in a hypothetical scenario, but I ask of you, Dear Reader, to make a courageous assumption about how you would create your perfect disc, and what qualities it would have. In other words, what would be the qualities of the optimal object for play within the domain you have chosen (golf, baseball, video games, car racing, etc.)? Moving on from there, what would be the point of playing in the domain you have chosen? See if this is a question you can answer without the context of what effect being successful or unsuccessful at the game would have. This is not a rule to box you in, or bring you to a specific conclusion. It is simply to make reasonable what I have asked of you. What would be the ultimate point of playing the game, and how would that affect your definition of the perfect object for playing the game with?
I recommend that you stop here and allow yourself to really dig into the question. It would seem that you could provide yourself a much more interesting and personal answer if you would allow the processing center that is your mind to mull over the topic for a while. There is a point to all of this (many, actually, that will for the most part remain unaddressed within this single article) that I am getting to, and I will be conclusive to an extent. So if you prefer to give your own pondering the benefit of the doubt, you could step away for a while. Or even provide yourself the space of an entire day or two to consider.
It would seem to me that creating a disc that has no limitations would not be all that fun. For a while, maybe it would be fun to impress friends (friends who were not aware of the perfection of the disc, anyway). Some people might enjoy using this perfect disc to win many competitions and develop world renown and fame. It could be exciting to woo children with, or maybe even get yourself a date. But...would you look at that, we are in the land of context outside of the sake of playing the game--using the game as a means to an end outside of the game. So, I find myself back at the same answer--creating a disc that has no limitations would not be all that fun. This carries with it the imposition that participating in a game is for the fun of it. I cannot see it any other way. I suppose that playing games could be for the sake of passing time. For some people, who are waiting for something, or for others who find the passing of time to be an unbearable phenomena. I think it is important to consider the question, "why play a game at all?" But before (if) I do stumble toward answering that, I am going to take off from the point of assuming that games are for fun. Now, we all have our own definitions of what makes a game fun. Some like to play games that are challenging to the presence of mind. Some like to play games that are physically challenging. Some like to play games on a screen that present themselves in the format of an alternate reality. Some like to play games that involve a very real risk of life or death. Some like to play games that others give them attention for. Well, would you look at that. It seems I have found my way back into playing a game as an ends to a means. But this leads me to think...is not every game a means to some sort of end (end being a goal)? And if so, what is the meta-end behind the purpose for doing anything? I believe that a healthy orientation to the participation in a game is for the sake of fun.
Let's back up for a moment. What is the meta-end behind the purpose for doing anything?See if you can answer this question for yourself without context, or, see if you can answer this question with the absolute minimum context possible. When I take a stab at this myself, it seems as though the purpose, the end is for the sake of engagement. Regardless if the game one is playing is to get ahead socially, enjoy the passing of time, alleviate suffering in one way or another, build their own self image through winning competition, or improving their ability to affect the world around them, the overarching theme that is present in each of these ends are that they are engaging. They seem to be worth the individual's time, at least from their immediate subjective lens (you could argue the objective worth of these motivations for playing games, but even at that point you can only determine their worth in reference to a set of results that you have deemed the proper target, which would be your subjective lens). So to restate...one makes a decision that their participation is worth their time, and this is self-evident by the fact that they are participating at all. The decision can be made predicated on conscious or unconscious factors. Many people do things for reasons they are unaware of themselves, however, they are always imbuing meaning into the things they spend their time doing, in an existential sense. Another way to grasp what I am posing here, is that what a person "believes" is predicated more on how they are spending their time rather than what they say they believe. Actions speak louder than words. Or at the very least, actions are a more revealing dataset of one's true motivations. A person might say that what they are doing is a waste of time. One might even loathe the time they are spending. But the interesting thing to remember is that by virtue of spending their time doing it, it has been deemed worth their time, at least within the context of what is possible for them to be doing in that particular moment.
I think I have strayed a bit from what I was originally intending to hit on in this post. So, I am going to stop proving the case that games are for the sake of engagement, and work from that notion. The meta-end to any particular means is the goal of engagement. Why engagement? To answer briefly, it is to bear the burden of experiencing time. To be present, to be in a body subject to the experience of linear time, we seek active engagement in order to fill our experience of that time. It is important to note that the concept of engagement is that of a neutral nature. I am not describing engagement as good or bad, as there are many different types of engagement. I pose it simply as a state of interaction. To bring this back to the disc--what makes a perfect disc? The disc that allows for maximum engagement. What are some of the qualities that make for maximal engagement over time (and this is a key element to the context, because many things can be fun--for a while)? Here are two thoughts that I have come to:
- The game must present some sort of a challenge, or some system of obstacle navigation
- The game cannot allow for the limitless bypassing of all obstacles
- The ability to improve in relationship to the goals of the game is essential
- The game has to be "believable" in the sense that one must feel as though there is real value/stakes involved in playing
These are some of the qualities I would posit would make for a "perfect game".The value in such thinking lies for me in the application to life. Here are a few thoughts that I did not flesh out, but each cars on this greater thought-train:
- The point of life is the engagement with it
- Life is perfectly imperfect
- Perfect is an entirely subjective term based on the context of what defines perfect
- Perfect is only a notion that can be achieved in reference to a specific goal or set of goals
- The definition of perfect is predicated on something being "not perfect"
- In other words, you cannot have perfect without a lack of perfection
As this was an entirely "top of mind" post, I hope you enjoyed the stream of consciousness that flowed. As far as a few thought exercises based on this set of rambling. Remember, engagement is a neutral term:
- Can you define perfect without referencing a lack of perfection?
- What is the point of playing a game at all?
- What makes a game maximally engaging?
- How can you relate the reasons for playing a game to the overall "point of life?"
- If we were able to turn on any cheat codes, or "hack" the natural laws, would that do anything to take away from the "believable" nature of life, and if so, how would that affect our overall level of engagement with life?
Thanks for reading, I hope you were at the very least, engaged ;)
Comments
Post a Comment