VIRB

The paradox of perfection is that imperfection is perfect.

The determination of what one feels is "better" is based on one defining a direction of ultimate completeness or "perfected" state of that in which one is trying to better. So betterment must recognize an idealized perfected state in order to determine one is in fact going in the direction of improvement.

But these improvements are just mans idea of how things "ought" to be. If you take man's discrimination of things out of the picture, is everything not perfect? Everything is as it is, with or without man, despite man's opinion(s) of it.

Let's say a tornado rips through your city and destroys it, and so you'd rather it "ought" not of done so. It made a big mess, people died, etc... Your idea of the city being a "mess" is based on how you think the city "ought" to be and look. Because you think the city is no longer how you think it "ought" to be, then you conclude it is now a mess which is by your standards, imperfect. And the tornado caused this imperfection. But this is all based on your perspective of you think things "ought" to be.

When people think that things "ought" to be different then they are, they label the current state of these things as imperfect. When defining perfection, we have to leave man's idea's of how things "ought" to be out of the picture or else we run into relativeness and perspectives.

If we just look at how things are without our discrimination of these things, without our opinions of them, and cease to place value on them, then perhaps we can see that the snowflake falls perfectly in place. Or it just simply falls in place, neither perfectly nor imperfectly.