Hawkingfan

Sorry everyone for engaging in this stupid side-argument.

Normal, you're wrong. Use a different analogy. Geez. I disagree that the note is not alone. There is not a single note before or after it. When playing the didgeradoo correctly, the note MUST be by itself. The way this is done over several minutes is what is called "circular breathing" in the music world. Don't worry, it's nothing supernatural. When playing any other wind instrument, a player will inhale and then blow the air into the instrument by way of through the mouth (and through vibrating lips). When the air is exhausted, the player must take another breath thus stopping the note. But in didgeradoo playing where circular breathing is used, the player inhales and pushes the air into his mouth and then through the instrument. But while the air is being pushed out of the mouth, the player is already taking his next breath, pushes it into his mouth while the previous breath is still making the instrument play, thus the sound never breaks. One note starts at the beginning, and is finished several minutes later. You could sustain a note for days on end.

Normal

Yeah I apologize too, but I still think the analogy stands. It depends on how you define "note". When considering sheet music composition, a single "note" can be carried through more then one bar, but when looking at a single section of the bar you can isolate a single note being played. In this case, the temporal relationship of the note is important as opposed to the individuality of it. Also, you can play the didgeridoo with heavy and light emphasis that changes throughout the song. Those changes of emphasis could be considered "note" changes.

Hawkingfan

You are shaping highly-debatable terms and circumstances to fit your own arguments. There are plently of case where these do not hold true but I'll spare everyone.

Hawkingfan

Why would one have that authority? And why would man not have it?

Normal

Hawkingfan: Why would one have that authority?

Socrates: If one had the authority of perfection, do you suppose another could also have the authority on perfection?

Normal: I don't see why not Socrates

Socrates: But does this matter? If one could have authority on perfection, he would look at the perfect pot and say 'Yes, this is perfect'?

Normal: Yes, of course

Socrates: And if he looked at the perfect hammer, he would say 'Yes, this is perfect'?

Normal: Necessarily

Socrates: And if he looked at the world, at the universe at a whole, given the authority of perfection, he could say 'This is perfect' or 'This is not perfect', considered what he would preceive given such authority on perfection?

Normal: Correct

Socrates: But if another with the authority of perfection looked at the world, would his answer not be the same as the previously one with authority?

Normal: Necessarily so, Socrates

Socrates: So both with the authority of perfection would answer the same?

Normal: Yes

Socrates: So the presense of one, or the other, is not necessary in regards to the actual perfection of the debated thing?

Normal: It appears so

Socrates: So it follows that it does not matter if there is one, or numerous, with the authority on perfection for that perfection to exist.

Normal: But doesn't it also follow that it does not matter if there is not even one for perfection to exist?

Socrates: But if there was not one to preceive perfection, with authority on that perfection, then the question could not be answered. There must be at least one with the authority on perfection to answer whether perfection exists.

Hawkingfan: Why would man not have it?

Socrates: Is it possible to find one thing all preceive to be perfect? In our example before, the perfect pot came from the perfect potter?

Normal: Yes

Socrates: And this pot is perfect for what reasons?

Normal: I assume in all ways that a pot can be perfect. Design, and shape, and all other attributes of a pot.

Socrates: But this pot has an unchanging shape, or is this some kind of magic pot?

Normal: I suppose the shape is unchanging.

Socrates: So the pot can carry an unchanging amount of water?

Normal: Yes

Socrates: What of the person how would like to carry a great amount of water? Is this perfect pot going to allow a great deal of water to be carried?

Normal: Of course

Socrates: And what if a person wants to carry a small amount of water? Is this perfect pot going to allow that?

Normal: Yes, of course Socrates

Socrates: Well isn't this person inconvienenced by the large pot? Is not the perfect pot for this person a smaller pot? Would not the perfect pot be just small enough to carry the amount of water he needs to carry?

Normal: Yes

Socrates: Well if this pot has an unchanging amount of water it can carry, it is surely not a perfect pot for one who needs to carry a small amount of water! So this pot is perfect for one man and not another?

Normal: That seems to follow

Socrates: Do each of these have men have the authority of perfection?

Normal: I would assume they should

Socrates: But they have different conclusions on what perfection should be?

Normal: It seems they might

Socrates: So it follows that man cannot have authority of the perfection of the whole pot, only that pot which is to him useful?

Normal: That follows from what we have agreed.

Socrates: Then Normal, it is not possible for man to have authority on perfection of the world as a whole, for his authority will be limited to the usefulness of the world to him, and this view can differ from man to man. We previously agreed that two who have authority on perfection will not disagree about the perfection of the same object, and yet man will disagree. It follows man does not have authority on perfection of the world.

Hawkingfan

Doesn't answer the question. Why would another have authority?
Why?
Why can't it be a magic pot?
But it's not perfect for god either.

theophilus

Your "barbs" are dulled by the fact that you don't know what "perfect" would be in any of these situations, particularly in the case of the perfect world.

The "perfectness" would, in fact, be determined by the maker, not the observer. The perfect pot maker would make a perfect pot. You must either know objectively what constitutes perfection or you must leave it to the maker to determine.

theophilus

Wrong.

mosaic

Socrates: What is a perfect pot god?
God: Any pot that I say is perfect.
Socrates: How do you know perfection? What are your standards?
God: I'm perfect.
Socrates: Can you tell me why the pot is perfect?
God: Its perfect because I created it. I'm perfect, ass.
Socrates: Ok, sorry. What is "perfect" god?
God. Anything I create.
Socrates: Yeah, yeah, but what is perfect? Why is it perfect?
God: Because I'm perfect.
Socrates: Yes god, I know you're perfect but I dont understand what "perfect" is.
God. Anything I say or create. Me, dummy.
Socrates. Why is that perfect?
God: Because I'm perfect.
Socrates: Are you not understanding god? I know you're perfect. Why are you perfect?
God. I perfect because I'm god.
Socrates: WTF!!! Why?
God: Because I embody all perfection.
Socrates: Why?
God: Because, I'm god idiot.
Socrates: Why are you god?
God: Because I embody all perfection.
Socrates: What is perfection again?
God: Anything I say or create
Socractes: So you're god because you're perfect, and you're perfect because you're god?
God: Sure.
Socrates: Huh?
God: I dont have to explain myself to you Soc. Go to hell.
Socrates: *burns*














*poster realizes human beings are just stupid, sinful morons who deserve to die, and cant understand god, and should only seek to worship him. Just doing my part to show how pitiful, and undeserving o his grace we are*

Jobar

theophilus:
The "perfectness" would, in fact, be determined by the maker, not the observer. The perfect pot maker would make a perfect pot. You must either know objectively what constitutes perfection or you must leave it to the maker to determine.

So, theophilus, are you arguing that this is in fact a perfect universe from the god's-eye view?

'Perfect' is another one of those absolute terms; impossible of accurate definition.