What Is Perfection? ;;The KDR Must Be One

What is perfection? Where do you find perfection, who holds perfection? I would like to approach the visual aspect of this, for I'm sure it would be easy to just say, "No! Looks aren't everything" at any moment of this and I agree with that. Maybe these questions should be reworded; what does perfection look like, where would you find what looks perfect, and who holds the perfect appearance?

There's the golden ratio, and the idea of just having a lack of imperfection. What does this all mean though? When have you achieved perfection in art, in beauty, in theory?

The golden ratio is a ratio that is nice to look at, to state it simply. I'm not very familiar with it and even though I linked to an article about it I haven't read it recently (I read it once, but it was a fair time back) I will try to express my understanding of it. The golden ratio is when the width is a certain proportion of the height, or vice versa. Due to something in the way it looks, it appears to just look ascetically pleasing to the human eye (I wonder if it looks nice to other animals?). This is also a ratio that is commonly found in nature.

As for the concept of lacking imperfection. That is fairly straight forward too. If there is a lack of anything to distract you from the beauty beneath possible blemishes, you do not need to worry about observing those blemishes. My mind keeps wandering this idea back to faces. If you have no acne (not me) and the same face, you are going to look better than when you do have acne (definitely me, but I really don't mind all that much). In the case of faces this may be true always (well every situation I can think of) though perhaps not in art. Sometimes a little bit of dirt over something will make it look better than if it has been cleaned. A grunge look is always nice if done right, in art and nature. So what does it mean to look perfect regarding imperfection? It means you have no imperfection that draw your attention away from what is beneith them.

Now for the last question I presented. Who looks perfect? Well your mind may quickly jump to a loved one or someone who always catches your eye when he or she walks by you but I have a more cliche ending in mind. Sure this person or people you may of thought of may apear perfect, but only to you.

What would you consider to be normal? What would you consider to be average. I think due to media, what is actually normal or average is looked to be bad. It has become to look undesirable to be average looking, you must look better than everyone you can in today's society. I don't agree with this, I don't think it's true, though this is a general observation. The status quo sates you should look amazing, in order to be average. With everyone looking amazing, does that not just bring the average up? It does a bit, however this will hit a ceiling affect and soon enough people will hit their maximum pretty aspect (or handsome, if you are male and consider the phrase pretty to be feminine only). This is counteracted by the fact style and what is considered to look amazing shifts and changes over time, but that is going into culture more so and I'm getting off topic.

Back to that one person you thought of when I mentioned who is perfect? I'm sure everyone who read this thought of someone. Consider them in great detail, do they really look all that great? Around grade seven I realized that if you just remove hair from some one's head they look completely different. I would put my hand up so I could only see their face and I realized how unfamiliar some people's faces were. A few years later I remembered that and out of curiosity tried this again. Some people who you think look amazing are not always as phenomenal as you think, if you study them closely enough. Some people turn out to be vibrant always, but I always wonder how much work they put into it? I don't think anyone should put work into how they look, everyone should present themselves as who they are.

So you may of found out that this person who you are observing has the perfect dimensions to their face, and their skin is clear as water. You may of found out they are not perfect, but do you care? If you do (ah, this may sound a bit cruel) but grow up a bit and don't be superficial. For all those who answered no, good job, you're winning at life. Now I would like you to consider someone who you think is not all that great?

Do you think that everyone will agree with you? When you state that someone does not look good, that is a matter of opinion. The individual you picked, who you may or may not found out they are not as amazing looking as they appear (ooh, paradox? My English class is actually teaching me this year), may still look amazing to you. Perhaps even perfect despite their flaws. That is just your opinion though. Maybe someone thinks the person you have picked to be perfect, is not as perfect as you think? Everyone thinks someone looks perfect, someone will always think you look perfect.

With everyone thinking someone is perfect, perhaps even many people, then someone will always think you look perfect. Perhaps many people do also. You look perfect, you are perfect.

The only loop hole in this could be regarding self reflection, but all I have to say is no matter how much work you put into your looks you will never look perfect to yourself. Humans are far too self critical, we always want to be better. This is true often even if we have achieved the best in something. Don't leave your own opinion to judge if you appear well in others eyes because you don't see through those eyes. Let them see through their eyes and let them tell you what they think. If they think negatively on you, that's their loss. It's nothing against you. You have no need to aim to please, it is a want that comes with the desire to be socially acceptable. Even if you do not reach the status quo, you will probably still be accepted. If not, message me. I'm sure I'll see you to be perfectly acceptable but you'll never know until you try. (Does blogger even have a messaging system? I'm on Twitter, Posterous, Youtube; a few links can be found here, links to everything off my posterous. I'll get a message if you send it to me eventually.)

So who's perfect? You are, so go forth and be perfect by doing nothing more or nothing less than you do now. If you feel you want to do more or less, I won't stop you. Just keep this in mind, everyone is beautiful and everyone is perfect. Even amongst grime and grunge, art and perfection can be found, and even though spots so small they won't be found unless you are looking for them, no one will notice them but you.

Now onto video games. What a great transition, don't you think so?

I've spent a fair amount of time playing video games, a fair portion of that being first person shooters. One of my favorite first person shooters is a PC game called WarRock, it is all online in real time, it can be downloaded for free, played for free, and always for free. You will be encouraged to buy into it though, because if you do you may get better guns, more maps, and a couple other advantages. With some skill you can still win a match without having premium. I know I do when I play, however I haven't played for a while.

If you would like to look me up on it, my user name on it is Bugworld, but you won't find anything exciting around that name. I'm in a slightly active clan, have no guns at the moment (only default, you earn in game money by playing the game and you can use that to buy better guns if you don't want to spend real cash), and have not been online for a while.

In every first person shooter (well almost) you will run into what is called a KDR. That's Kill to Death Ratio for all you video game illiterates, and those who have lives away from electronics. It's a ratio of how many kills you get in one life (or how many lives it takes you to get one kill). Some games will have a positive negative system, some will just stick to a positive only. I prefer the positive only but I'll explain both.

The positive negative system deals with do you have more kills or more deaths? If you have more kills, your kills are divided by your deaths. If you have more deaths, you deaths are divided by your kills (and multiplied by negative 1). Something to be noted is your KDR in a system like this will always be less than negative one or more than positive one.

My preferred system involves all numbers being positive. A KDR of 1 means you have the same number of kills and deaths. You always divide your kills by your deaths, so if you have 0.02 (I've seen this before..) you need to find a new game. Many people will say you have a negative KDR if it is under 1 when you use this system.

What is considered a good kdr (I decided no more caps on it) varies from game to game, and I am basing this only off WarRock because it is the only real time online game I play. When looking at the kdr's of the people I play with, I notice numbers higher than one are very common but numbers less than one are less common. I understand this could be because there are some people with very high kdr's (well anything above 3 is considered great and the people who have over 6ish are amazing) but it seems like it should balance out.

In theory, if everyone stayed active so their kills and deaths were all counted, wouldn't it average out to one? That was a fair bit of lead up for that statement but that's all I wanted to say. Hmm, I was expecting more to this. Anyone else noticed kdr's seem to hover higher than the what-should-be-average one?