Forum:I am in a room full of bottled-up plants

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 18:21, June 7, 2012 by Scofield (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > BHOP > I am in a room full of bottled-up plants
Note: This topic has been unedited for 763 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

And I cannot help but wonder-if we never saw for ourselves what these green, supple marvels of nature look like, could we have ever accurately guessed what they look like on our own? Like, if in a parallel universe, some conspiracy theorist told you "he believed in plants" would you have ever visualized them as green, rooted beings that live for years without moving an inch from where they're tethered? I think not! --Scofield & The Machine 07:20, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

I am sitting in a room different from the one you are in now. I am recording the sound of my speaking voice and I am going to play it back into the room again and again until the resonant frequencies of the room reinforce themselves so that any semblance of my speech, with perhaps the exception of rhythm, is destroyed. What you will hear, then, are the natural resonant frequencies of the room articulated by speech. I regard this activity not so much as a demonstration of a physical fact, but more as a way to smooth out any irregularities my speech might have. -RAHB 07:28, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
I keep pondering if we're all just players in a video game from some alien's world. Fuck. A (Ruins) 15:37, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
I think the first Men In Black movie largely agrees with you. With the difference that there, it's a marble game and entire galaxies are the marbles. --Scofield & The Machine 17:00, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
I am sitting in a room different from the one you are in now. I am surrounded by junk. And it strikes me that, in a parallel universe where there is no junk, where everything is perfect, people would never develop a concept of imperfection. This means that we, inhabitants of an imperfect universe, are truly blessed because we have the potential to make our world more perfect than a world that starts out as being perfect. This is because perfection can only have meaning when there is knowledge of a concept of imperfection. And there can be no doubt that a state of meaningfulness is better, more perfect if you will, than a state of bland regularness.

What were we talking about again? Sir Socky Sexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk) Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:10, 5 June 2012
Ah, yes, but if there is no concept of imperfection without a knowledge of imperfection, then there must also be no concept of perfection, having nothing to compare it to, causing one to believe that any situation can be "better" than any other, thereby introducing finally the idea of imperfection: something that isn't as perfect as it can be. If that is then the case, couldn't it be possible that we actually live in that perfect universe, but our natural continued yearning for a state of existence further beyond our perceived imperfection has caused us to overlook what has actually been perfection the whole time, due to our initial lack of concept of what may really be imperfection, and much much worse than the universe in which we live? -RAHB 22:44, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
Not sure I'm following the logics of the second part of your first sentence. The first part is basically a restatement of what I said earlier: since perfection is the norm, they would have no concept of imperfection and our concept of perfection would correspond with their concept of existence, them thus lacking their own concept of perfection (or in other words, perfection having no meaning to them) because that would require something to compare it to (imperfection). But then you seem to assume that there can be a concept of good and bad (one thing being better than another) in a continuously perfect universe. So are you saying the superlative of "good" (i.e. "best") is not synonymous with "perfect"? Sir Socky Sexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk) Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:03, 6 June 2012
Well, that is an excellent point. I would say that "good" is certainly not "perfect" but in line with it obviously. I suppose my further assumption would be that what is "perfect", if we have yet to experience it or be made entirely aware of its existence, may not be what we believe to be "perfect." Would a perfect universe not have an equilibrium balanced out by the constantly conflicting "bad and good"? Or would it be the idealization that humans have created from the very word, assuming perfection to be without conflict, without necessity for growth or digression? If it were indeed an idealization and these things would be necessary for the function of any universe, especially a perfect one, could it not then be possible that that very idealization would be clouding our view of the possibility of our own perfect universe, assuming it were perfect? And if not, then what are the means by which a universe could be made perfect without the eternal "push/pull" of good and bad, progress and regress? Of course the nature of it being a perfect universe certainly would allow for the possibility of a different, more refined way of equilibrium to exist and be used instead, something we have or could have no knowledge of, not existing within it. But then that opens up the possibility that that very force is in fact the good and bad equilibrium that we have in our own universe, possibly making us the "perfect" to another universe's substandard. Maybe the imperfect universes are those without a proper equilibrium, and what ours has going for it is the constant struggle between the two forces. Maybe. -RAHB 01:26, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I usually use the word "perfect" as a synonym of "best" or "most ideal", i.e. the most ultimate (or 'completed', which is the meaning of the Latin word perfectus) variation of "good" conceivable. Anything that is less perfect than this ideal of perfection would then be termed imperfection. It's like a number line, but with the numbers replaced by gradations of bad and good (and as opposed to a number line, it's not necessarily infinite). The leftmost point corresponds to "the worst" (i.e. Uncyclopedia) and the rightmost point corresponds to "the best" (i.e. perfection). Given this conception of perfection, it'd seem that perfection is a pretty static state of affairs. Then again, something that never changes sounds pretty boring, so who knows what perfection is really like? I could tell you how I imagine future societies would deal with the problem of boredom as they near a state of perfection, but I don't want to bore you with my ramblings. ; ) In conclusion, I'd say it's pretty clear that the concept of perfection is subjective by its very nature. Sir Socky Sexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk) Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:55, 6 June 2012
As for perfection in different universes, I'd imagine that different universes may have differing degrees of perfection that can be achieved in them. But saying which universe is more perfect than the other depends on what state they're currently in. It's far easier to compare the individual instances of maximized perfection that occur in them. Various instances in our universe may be more perfect than instances in certain other universes (like the ones without a proper equilibrium, as you mentioned) and our universe may in the future reach a perfection that cannot be reached in the most perfect of the universes that have a constant perfection-value (as I hypothesized in my original post). Sir Socky Sexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk) Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:55, 6 June 2012
Ah, yes. I think we're on similar wavelengths now. Obviously the real solution is penises. -RAHB 02:57, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
Wait a min. Am I in a room surrounded by great thinkers and one perv (RAHB) or am I just seeing terrible nightmares again?! OMG!!! It`s Cat the Colourful, Jesus Christ!!! 03:02 6 June 2012
I disagree. Boobs seem like a much better solution. Sir Socky Sexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk) Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 03:06, 6 June 2012
Now two pervs. Hey, with this way we'll get faster to the million! OMG!!! It`s Cat the Colourful, Jesus Christ!!! 03:12 6 June 2012
Hmmm. I will meditate on this and record the findings in my Big Book Of Thinking. -RAHB 03:14, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
Symbol for vote For. Boobs, the only perfect thing in the universe. Until the host body ages over 40. Then they really suck. A (Ruins) 13:56, June 6, 2012 (UTC) Contradictory much?
Symbol against vote Against. And THAT, my friends, sums up why we human beings will never have a universal concept of perfection. It's like Heaven from Supernatural. Everybody has their own Heaven, and what is Heaven for Sam can be a disgrace for Dean. Likewise, I find Paget Brewster really hot, even though I've never actually seen her boobs. I just assume they'll be great because she just gets better and better with age. --Scofield & The Machine 18:18, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools