Do we have a Perfect Present?

[Vita]

The word perfect, however, implies infinitely good, not just flawless. If I got rid of the past and future, I wouldn't have good or bad to compare the present to, and I could certainly find no flaw but wouldn't consider it perfect.

Why do you think you can measure it? If it isn’t perfect, then you think what should be is divided between what is. When what is and what should be are the same thing, no opinion or measurement of how “good” the present is matters.

Shouldn't it be good though? If it is neutral it is less than perfect because perfection has nothing above it.

Perfection too can be neutral if it is your last achievement. If you have nothing more to achieve, or nothing from prior experiences or times to compare with, what will you feel after achieving perfection other than being neutral?

Exactly, whereas now with an imperfect history I can be happy , which I would consider better than just neutral . By definition there must be nothing better than perfect.

[stevie]

Maybe what he talks about is similar or comes close to the famous "being in the here and now", an experience of which some individuals are very fond of.

Living in the present moment is different than the present mmoment being perfect. Imagine when we fail in something. We feel sad and defeated at the present moment, and our present is not perfect. If we choose to lament over it, then definitely our future too will be doomed. But the cause for our sadness in this example lies in our present.

You are right. Maybe the best is to live in a selfless present

It is good if we can be selfless. Then there will be neither happiness nor sadness. But what is the worth of life if we feel neither happy nor sad?

It seems that in the selfless present your question does not make sense because what is it that would be worried about "worth of life" if not the self?

[Sculptor1]

The perfect is a verb form that indicates that an action or circumstance occurred earlier than the time under consideration, often focusing attention on the resulting state rather than on the occurrence itself.
So we can only have a perfect present with reference to all antecedent events. But how could it be otherwise. SInce the past has already happened and is not changeable then the perfect can only result in the present. Being literally complete

Aside from that the question is meaningless

[Sushan]

Why do you think you can measure it? If it isn’t perfect, then you think what should be is divided between what is. When what is and what should be are the same thing, no opinion or measurement of how “good” the present is matters.

Shouldn't it be good though? If it is neutral it is less than perfect because perfection has nothing above it.

Perfection too can be neutral if it is your last achievement. If you have nothing more to achieve, or nothing from prior experiences or times to compare with, what will you feel after achieving perfection other than being neutral?

Exactly, whereas now with an imperfect history I can be happy , which I would consider better than just neutral . By definition there must be nothing better than perfect.

Yes, there can be nothing above perfect. So, as this author suggests if our present is perfect, then we will have nothing to achieve or gain. So our living will merely be boring and our future will be dull. Imperfection brings opportunities and hopes to achieve further.

[Sushan]

Living in the present moment is different than the present mmoment being perfect. Imagine when we fail in something. We feel sad and defeated at the present moment, and our present is not perfect. If we choose to lament over it, then definitely our future too will be doomed. But the cause for our sadness in this example lies in our present.

You are right. Maybe the best is to live in a selfless present

It is good if we can be selfless. Then there will be neither happiness nor sadness. But what is the worth of life if we feel neither happy nor sad?

It seems that in the selfless present your question does not make sense because what is it that would be worried about "worth of life" if not the self?

Being selfless does not mean remaining doing nothing. A selfless person can do many things to the others without thinking of or doing something for him/herself. There are many such people and they are happy about what they do. Happiness does not have to go hand in hand with worrying about one's own self.

[Sushan]

The perfect is a verb form that indicates that an action or circumstance occurred earlier than the time under consideration, often focusing attention on the resulting state rather than on the occurrence itself.
So we can only have a perfect present with reference to all antecedent events. But how could it be otherwise. SInce the past has already happened and is not changeable then the perfect can only result in the present. Being literally complete

Aside from that the question is meaningless

What you say is grammatically correct. But perfection of one's living or one's thoughts is not a game of grammar. The question can be seen or defined in many ways, and in some ways it can be meaningless. It is up to us to consider the meaningful ones and discuss about them.

[stevie]

You are right. Maybe the best is to live in a selfless present

It is good if we can be selfless. Then there will be neither happiness nor sadness. But what is the worth of life if we feel neither happy nor sad?

It seems that in the selfless present your question does not make sense because what is it that would be worried about "worth of life" if not the self?

Being selfless does not mean remaining doing nothing.

I think my question has not implied that.

[Sy Borg]

"Perfect" is a romantic term, not usually aptly associated with reality, to which words like "messy", "complex", "bizarre" and "indefinable" would seem a closer fit.

Ironically, the more aware you are of the present moment, the less immersed you are. Being in the present moment can be thought of as a theoretical slice of an undefined period of a flow state. It is something to be immersed in and reflected upon later, but never grasped at the time, for the act of grasping the present moment pulls you out of flow states.

[Sculptor1]

The perfect is a verb form that indicates that an action or circumstance occurred earlier than the time under consideration, often focusing attention on the resulting state rather than on the occurrence itself.
So we can only have a perfect present with reference to all antecedent events. But how could it be otherwise. SInce the past has already happened and is not changeable then the perfect can only result in the present. Being literally complete

Aside from that the question is meaningless

What you say is grammatically correct. But perfection of one's living or one's thoughts is not a game of grammar. The question can be seen or defined in many ways, and in some ways it can be meaningless. It is up to us to consider the meaningful ones and discuss about them.

The grammar is the only meaningful one.
There is no meaningful "perfection"
What could that even look like?

[Sculptor1]

"Perfect" is a romantic term, not usually aptly associated with reality, to which words like "messy", "complex", "bizarre" and "indefinable" would seem a closer fit.

Ironically, the more aware you are of the present moment, the less immersed you are. Being in the present moment can be thought of as a theoretical slice of an undefined period of a flow state. It is something to be immersed in and reflected upon later, but never grasped at the time, for the act of grasping the present moment pulls you out of flow states.

Being in the moment can never be anything more than self reflective, biased, inward looking, and insular. As soon as you really look out, you know that you are the world, as it is, is remote and ungraspable since we only have view of it through a tiny arrow slit of out personal existence.
We are not, nor ever could be qualified to see or even imagine perfection.

[jerrydurr]

Most readers difficulty in seeing the perfection of the present moment, and of this physical world, is similar to understanding subjective (your thoughts) and objective (the actual) physical aspects. As I say on my rear cover: ‘It’s not an ideal world, (I.e. the way you might think it should be) where no one gets sick, gets old, or dies, but it is a Perfect world.’
One of the best qualities of human nature is our ‘critical thinking’ - the single source behind the absolute best, and worst, of this life, which comes from our 3 basic human thought processes: First, we come to assess and understand our surrounding world, then we think of how it ‘could be’, and then upon reviewing all of our ‘could be’s’, decide how it ‘should be’!
But that is all about our (imperfect/subjective) mental world, while I’m trying to get everyone to see the (objective) perfection behind this whole amazing physical world, such as our self-replicating, self-maintaining bodies with their 30 trillion cells, each containing 6ft. of unbelievably complex genetic programming! And then see the perfection of the spider crawling up your hand, with everything it needs for its own perfect life.
Now carry that Awe out to the beautiful flowers, trees, rivers and mountains, and ask yourself why our planet isn’t just barren and pockmarked like our closely neighboring moon. (Perhaps the ‘Nothingness’ up there isn’t quite as creative as the ‘Somethingness’ down here
So please stop focusing on the (subjective) imperfections, so that you can come to see more of the amazing (objective) Perfections that make up this spectacular world!
Jerry

[jerrydurr]

Yes we do - It has nothing to do with comparisons to past memories or future imaginings, it has nothing to do with our subjective perspectives (i.e. the way we think it could or should be), it’s about seeing the objective (intrinsic) perfections behind all of Creation, because when you look more closely, it really is unbelievable just how perfect (not to be confused with ideal) this whole reality is! The Truth of life’s perfection really Is Beyond our Belief in its seeming imperfections. Wake up! Don’t miss it!
Jerry

[jerrydurr]

This world and everything in it is perfect - an infinite collection of atoms and molecules miraculously arranged into the world around us - But we keep confusing perfect with ideal (i.e. ‘The way we think it should be!’)
It is not an ideal world, where no one gets sick, gets old or dies, but it is a perfect world! The perfection of our mind even allows to overlay life’s perfection with our thoughts about its imperfection! Wake up - Don’t miss it!

[Sy Borg]

If the world is perfect, does that mean Mars is too, and Venus?

What do you see as the difference between existence and perfection?

[jerrydurr]

Yes, Mars and Venus are perfect - a perfect piece of the infinite puzzle. Our problem comes with our comparisons - everything and everyone are perfectly fitting their unique slot in this miraculously infinite creation. It’s been suggested that we replace the term God with ‘All-That-Is’, and to expand our definition to: ‘Everyone, and everything are all the different ways that All-That-Is has of experiencing and expressing Itself’, which I think is a nice way of saying that the Universe and the Infinite creative force behind it are not separate, or as Osho adeptly responded to a student who asked if there was God: ‘There is only Godliness’.
I’ll second that!