Where’s the fire? Deep inside, as is the way of the dragon.

Perfection As Complementarity in Perfection


Today’s topic is a continuation of the subject of perfection. Specifically, we will be talking about perfection as complementarity. It’s a common bit of public opinion that there is no such thing as perfection, and this is a half truth, but that’s because the subject needs further consideration.

Perfection can be described as the capacity for good or the quality of being well done, but no single thing has the ability to be good by itself. What good is food if no one will eat it? What good is art if there is no one to be moved by it? For human purposes, much of our life finds it’s perfection in us, and to what degree it has the capacity to be good is largely dependant on us rather than on the thing considered by itself.

What is love without someone to love? Even narcissism is object love, but it has no complimentary object. So it cannot self sustain.

Is perfection defined this way limited to the human world? Far from it. Every ecosystem on this planet is healthy and strong because of the balance of complimentary relationships in it.

I think Aristotle said good and bad is circumstantial. Good point, and this is true, because what is good in one situation can be foolish in another and even destructive in a third. Insisting to a dying person that they must wait while you finish your lunch is from a circumstantial point of view an evil act, but telling the same thing to a friend who is waiting to have you go out for some fun is perhaps just wise.

Part of the reason perfection needs to be a component of complimentarity, is that anything in order to retain its virtue needs some capacity to adapt to changes. Art that doesn’t tap into something deeper than a fad of the moments culture will in time be forgotten, and it might not even take very long. A simple example of this might be in the many forgotten television programs. But we remember other programs because they accessed their audience effectively.

What about the idea that there’s an anthropos or an Adamus which is the template for a perfect adaptable human? There is such a thing, but it is not an independent or isolated object or being. It’s the reason humanity has been able to persist as a phenomenon at all.

If I may resort to the morphic field model, in morphic field theory everything that exists arises because a field of potential contains a trace of tendency for this thing to exist. This field could be any of a number of hypothetical fields and the principle would remain the same. Each object or entity has its own locus of potential in this field, like a light source. But we don’t see every light source distinctly, and the only things that can actualize are those things that don’t create too much static in the field. Basically, without complimentary relationships to other points of potential, an object of being self cancels.

So this Adamus template of perfection is used as a reference point to keep our form on track? Yes, and it also has a relationship to the apparent logos of the universe itself. The word or logic that could be called the mind of God touches upon all things that exist.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive

Recommended for you
If you enjoyed this page:
Keep Reading »

Leave Your Insight