Nothing to Add or Subtract

Remember the song 'Perfect' (1988) from pop band Fairground Attraction: song and lyrics? The song that tells us that 'it's got to be perfect' and not take 'second best'?

'Perfect'. Just a random word that all of us understand and comprehend. Really?

Give it a word and 'it' will come alive in our mouth and mind. For the ancient Egyptians a physical object, human being or enemy was born the moment you gave it a name by writing it down. Came alive by naming it!

The word 'perfection' was born a long time ago. Literally the Latin word 'perfection' means 'a finishing' or 'bringing to an end'. The genealogy of the concept 'perfection' reaches back to the ancient Greek word 'teleos'. The oldest definition is from Aristotle (4th century BC) and is more than 2,300 years old. I can't find the word 'perfect' in the quote? Correct :) in English the word 'telos' is translated as 'complete'.

Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book V, chapter 16. 

Quote from 'The Complete Works of Aristotle, Revised Oxford Translation', 

Edited by J. Barnes (1984)

Summerized. Aristotle calls 'perfect':

• 1. Which contains all the requisite parts
• 2. Which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better
• 3. Which has attained its purpose

Pretty down to Earth isn't it what Aristotle calls 'perfect' or 'complete'? A shoe that contains all the requisite parts. A flute-player that couldn't play better. Death as the last end of life.

After the ancient Greeks, the Christians "translated" the concept of 'perfect' to God. According to the Christians, human beings are never perfect after Adam and Eve ate from the apple. They make mistakes, sin and always there is something to add or subtract in what they do and let. Only God is perfect and we - human beings - have to embrace the fact that we are not. Never!

Somewhere in the 17th Century, God died in the main culture of Western Europe. 'Democracy' as a God was born. 'Love' as a 'God' was born. 'Peace (not War)' as a God was born. It has to be perfect. Nothing less. For that 'homo-sapiens' fight and kill.

Democracy as a Natural Law. Love as a Natural Law. Peace (not War) as a Natural Law. What a nonsense. It's projection. Made and invented concepts by 'homo-sapiens' in Western Europe. Historically biased.  Culturally biased. 'Homo-sapiens' biased. Individual 'homo-sapiens' biased. Highly subjective.

Look at the 'Venus de Milo'. Once this marble statue must have had arms too. Not perfect as a copy of a female body. Once the statue must have been without damages. Not perfect because of the damages in the marble. She is admired for her beauty. For some she is not perfect because of her hairstyle or the way she wears her skirt. For some this statue is the perfect representation of Greek classical art. For some  she will not be.

What's my point? 'Perfect' is a moment frozen in time. In a metaphor: it's a photo. Appreciated by some. Disgusting for others.

P.S. I wrote on 'Democracy' before: here (2009). And on 'God = Love': here (2010)

Democratie in #ned Dutch elections 2010

Een keer wat anders. Ditmaal een typisch Nederlands onderwerp in de taal van mijn land: de verkiezingen die in Nederland op 8 Juni 2010 zijn gehouden. Afgelopen maandagavond had ik mijn beste vriend aan de telefoon. Toevallig (?) hebben we ook kort gesproken over de uitslagen en hoe we de ontwikkelingen met betrekking tot de PVV moeten duiden. We waren het er al snel over eens. Het gaat in Nederland nergens over! Zelfs de extreme partijen, aan de linker- en rechterkant van het politieke spectrum, zijn braaf en democratisch. Een echt gevaar voor de democratie is de PVV niet. Democratie in Nederland is kniezen voor kneuzen en geneuzel op de vierkante centimeter. Niet omdat een democraat een kneus is maar omdat het bij ons allemaal zo goed geregeld is. In Nederland werkt democratie. (Merk op dat 'werken' een werkwoord is.) Bij ons hoeft er niet gevochten te worden op leven of dood om onze democratische rechten te halen. Bij ons regeert routine, kniezen en verveling. Verveling!

Ben ik een democraat? Om heel eerlijk te zijn. Alleen tegen beter weten in. Ik leun altijd op Churchill's (1874-1965) visie op democratie (bron): “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Voor democratie geldt hetzelfde als voor een goed huwelijk. Met vrouw is het nixs enne ...  zonder ook niet.

De verkiezingen in Nederland gingen wat mij betreft nergens over. Hypotheekrenteaftrek laten vervallen? Ze doen maar ik zal er geen last meer van hebben. Uiteindelijk zal er toch gekozen worden voor een geleidelijke afbouw (over 20 jaar of later) omdat anders de huizenmarkt in Nederland in zal storten. En in zijn kielzog de hele economie. Dat wil niemand. Kinderbijslag en ziektekostenverzekering inkomensafhankelijk? Ze doen maar. Burgemeester mogen kiezen? Het zal me worst wezen. Kerncentrales wel of niet erbij? Ze bouwen maar. Of het nu links- om rechtsom gaat en of de "grote uitdagingen" nu wel of niet doorgevoerd worden. Uiteindelijk is iedere keuze acceptabel voor mij.

De verkiezingen in Nederland in zijn algemeenheid gaan nergens over. Alles is goed geregeld. De democratie werkt. "Het volk" (het waren er maar 1,5 miljoen, dit is 15%) heeft ditmaal gekozen voor de PVV omdat ze stevigheid beloven in deze tijden van onzekerheid. Het is een leugen. Angst en lust zijn slechte raadgevers. Laat de PVV maar in de regering komen. Laat ze maar vuile handen maken. Wellicht profiteren ze nog  een of twee keer bij verkiezingen die in de toekomst uitgeschreven zullen worden. Uiteindelijk zal "het volk" ook inzien dat ook zij maar verkopers van lucht zijn geformuleerd in een taal van stevigheid en fermheid. Onzekerheid is van alle tijden en niets blijft ooit hetzelfde.

De democratie in Nederland werkt. Bij ons gelukkig alleen nog maar geneuzel over details die er eigenlijk niet toe doen. Dat is in de meeste landen op 'planet Earth' wel anders die in naam ook democratisch zijn maar die in de praktijk gebukt gaan onder machtsmisbruik, corruptie en intrige.

P.s. I'm sorry that this blog is written in Dutch. It's a typical Dutch subject. Hardly possible to translate.

Summary in English: Democracy in The Netherlands works. The good results in the last elections of the PVV is not a treat for the system. In my country we talk about minor and boring details. Dutch are bored to death.

What's your amount of being a stoic? Or on the stupidness of the #red tag.

I am always very afraid for 'Democrats' and other mono-theistic believers. Remember the #red tag of yesterday on Twitter for World AIDS Day? Still remember it or already lost it in a cloud of tweets? I considered the #red tag as stupid! It's fake and words only! I always get shivers for "movements" like this. It's too mono-theistic. Two weeks ago I wrote about 'Democray as a mono-theistic religion'. I'm not afraid for democrats - I consider myself as one too. I'm not afraid for discussions - I love to. I'm afraid for democrats who see their belief as the One and Only. What I'm most afraid of is the fact that they don't want to talk or discuss about their belief. They don't really want to discuss. For them it's not a belief. For them it's the One and Only way of life that does Right to all human beings. They simply can't imagine that not everyone shares their fair, honest, right, sincere, human and down to earth point of view.

To be more precise I'm afraid for democrats who see their belief as God = Democracy. I'm afraid for the stoic kind of democrats. The ones who say "All or Nothing". Read the quote below. After reading it you will find out that I'm an epicurean. I belief in the little and in small steps. The strange thing is I'm a mixture sometimes. Sometimes I'm in an "all or nothing" state of mind too. Well that must me the epicurean in me too. What about you? What is your amount of being a stoic (All or Nothing) or epicurean (step by step)? Did you test your future/ present partner on it?

P.s. If you can smile :) on this week's blog you are my friend. If you can't or feel like sending me hate mail -you will be my friend as well- than consider this blog as your mirror and please check your amount of being too stoic.

Quote:
"Some thoughts about the Stoics and the Epicurean
Who are nowadays the Stoics and the Epicurean? How can you recognize them? What do they look like? That isn’t hard at all. A stoic is an individual who obstinately beliefs in his moral mission: a mission he has to fulfil. He always is in need of a Great Plan that gives his life meaning, but in fear that it will actually be fulfilled, he chooses a very difficult, probably not fulfillable plan, that above all can not be fulfilled by normal human beings. What counts is to suffer in name of something that has moral meaning.
Everybody who believes in the one, eternal, indissolubable Great Love is a stoic. It is clear that they will never find that, but that doesn’t keeps them from furiously searching for it without compromising. There motto is: ‘Everything or Nothing’.
Christians, real christians are stoics. There final destination is Paradise and they will reach that by purification of the body and elevation of the soul. Their favourite slogans: ‘We are born to suffer’ and ‘The first will be the last’. Marxist are stoics: their destination is Justice for All, without any exception. They are also confronted with a destination that will not be fulfilled on short term: the Sun of the Future, the word tells it all, will be catched in Future. In expectation of it revolutions, dictatorship of the proletariat and other equally difficult phases are on the program.
Marco Panella is a stoic: he wants above all to solve the problem of Hunger in the World, in the whole World. If we would propose a less ambitious program, e.g. the hunger in the Napolitian quarter San Carlo all’Arena, he would refuse that immediately, probably because the target could be reachable. And because he lives in a country where tortures hardly exist, he is forced to torture himself and that is the reason why he fasts, he ties himself and suffers.
The epicurean is made of other stuff: because he is aware of the fleeting of life, he is targeting for goals who are reachable on short term.
An epicurean is an employer who will ask for raise of salary to solve a problem within a year.
An epicurean is someone who prefers to vote on a party who doesn’t promise him Justice, Freedom and Happiness, but a gradual improvement of his life, through a policy of step by step.
An epicurean is someone who will continue his relationship with his partner although he is no longer really in love, but who arranged living with his partner in which they agree to differ.
The advantages and disadvantages are equally divived between the two worlds of thought. On the whole epicurean are more serene, more in peace with the world, almost always cheerful. On the other hand stoic work hard: when they play cards they will do that with much dedication. Epicurean do hold politics in contempt and they will almost never succeed as big industrial: he cares more about his private-life than about society. To become Pirelli, Pirelli must have been a stoic: an epicurean would have been satisfied with a little tire-store.
It would not be a bad idea when partners, before they get married, instead watching the stars and there constellations, they would measure the amount of being a stoic or epicurean of their future man or wife."

Quote. Source: Luciano de Crescenzo, ‘Storia della filosofia greca, da Socrate in poi’. Translation by @JeanD99 from dutch into english.

Democray. It's a mono-theistic religion. History proves in the end it's: or belief in "our" God or extinct & die.

Let me first say this. I’m always fascinated on religion, on what the Book or books say, how texts are interpretated etcetera. Always fascinated and full of wonder! They are my others in whose mirror I look at myself and who tell me who I am.

A few weeks ago I filled in a test on ‘What’s your religion?’ My testresult: I’m an “atheist”. The result doesn’t surprise me but ... it’s only part of my opinion. I don’t believe in a jewish JWH, a christian God, or a moslim Allah. For me no mono-theistic religion! Why? Because it can’t explain the pluriformity of the human experience concerning God, gods and religion in general. For me religion in general is an invention of the species ‘homo sapiens’. One way or another a lot (most?) human beings need some external “being” to give their lives direction and meaning.

What do I believe? There is no God. There is no external “being” that created the world, that gave humanity “devine laws”. We are made out of tiny little elements when we are born and collapse piece by piece when we die. That’s all. We survive as species by reproduction: kids who become parents themselves etcetera. For me there’s no reason why we do need God or gods. It’s a dream. It’s an illusion. It's a human made construction.

What do I believe? I believe in the species ‘homo sapiens’. We do whatever we do -it’s just as simple as that- trying to survive as individual, as family, as group and as species. For me Democracy is another mono-theistic religion. We invented it! There is no ‘democratic inborn faculty’ in us. Democray is groupthinking and groupacting. Mono-theistic religions are dangerous because it's followers hate non-believers, non human at all or others. At first it always starts the smooth way, the non-believers are "invited" to step into their "perfect way of life" too. When there is too much hesitation slowly more group pressure. And in the end? History proves in the end it's: or belief in "our" God or extinct & die.