Is this understood correctly: Because the guitar player or the painter originally had a potential to become better, they were imperfect. But after they achieved the perfection they didn’t have the potential for higher perfection and were thus perfect. Is it just about the “potential for perfection”?
No. The painter and the guitar player are
efficient causes. And, they are not
effects, except that they are the effects of their own coming-to-be, and the effects of their growth processes. In our example from art, the privation (potency) exists only in the blank canvas. It is the blank canvas that embodies, so to speak, potency. The process of going from potency (blank canvas) to act (painted canvas), is the action of coming to be.
Now, derivatively, one could say that the finished painting developed, or, better, exhibited a new potency, or privation. But, the nature of this new potency is less a
substantial one, and more an
accidental one. After the painting became an effect, the efficient cause (the painter) noticed flaws, or imperfections, that perhaps only he recognizes, or responds to, due to his own, well-trained sensibilities and sensitivities as a painter of pictures. Upon making the changes, the effect takes on a slightly modified, or newer, or different,
mode of existence - but only accidentally, even if the artists starts all over from scratch, providing he uses the same canvas and paints.
The effect that is the finished painting is like a ripened apple. Prior to turning red, the apple was green. But, it was still the substrate-apple. The turning red signifies the ripening of the substrate-apple, but, now it has taken on a different mode, or condition, of existence. All this is saying is that the material causes of things can be further modified without necessarily changing their substantial being-ness. That is, before,
IT was unripened and green, afterwards, the same
IT is ripe and red. IT is the same substrate.
The potential for perfection obviously says something about perfection. But that is begging the question. There is much “potential” which cannot be measured merely by “perfection”, because perfection cannot be quantified in some kind of mathematic calculation or metric.
We say that the “possession of form” is the “perfection” of primary, or secondary, matter. We could say, without
form, the matter would either not be known to us, or known to us imperfectly. We could say that as merely a lump of clay, the appearance of the lump is bland. It is of no particular interest to our senses, and, in fact, may even be repulsive. (Although, some might take pleasure looking at a lump of clay, if I may take an example from art again). However, once the lump of clay takes on the form of Venus, or Adonis, or Clifford, for example, the clay takes on a perfection that it did not have before, and might not have ever had were it not for the artist (the efficient cause). I added Clifford to the mix as I didn’t want to have you necessarily think that the “perfection” had to be colored by it representing beautiful men or women. On the other hand, the “perfection” that the statue represents is how it affects the sensibilities of various onlookers. But that is a different meaning.
Mere variety or diversity of options doesn’t say anything about perfection.
True.
There might be two guitar pieces out there that are equally perfect, or two paintings that are equally perfect.
In the ears or eyes of the beholders, that is correct.
They are qualitatively different, but when it comes to perfection, they are quantitively equal.
Again, correct - if this was what was meant by “perfection”, in our example. To sum up, “perfection” is a word used analogously, to help us to intelligibilise matter in combination with form. It is perfection, in this case, only in the sense that not having possession of something is less perfect than having possession of said thing.
Sorry it took so long for me to get back.
jd
