Where there is nothingness… - there is false logic.
Only speaking of it proves beyond question that language is not logical.
Yet we believe it to be.
Vast are the tides of being, but still is the sea of non being. We can look at it from a distance, and whisper a word - or we can expose ourselves to chaos and pain so much that we form a conception of it in our minds - that is, a place without conception.
How is it that we can indicate? Why does light fall back on us?
Trust in materialism means to distrust all material knowledge. Since our senses are random, it cannot be that there is only what we perceive.
What we indicate is truth.
The circumspect positioning of truth as a perimeter causes distrust and chaos, and at the same time learning and teaching. Culture is per se antagonistic, a protagonist is never properly taught. Truth itself is the subject, which is the formation of a reaction to an impulse.
The formative stage of manifestation takes place in the soul. That is the only definition of soul that I know of. Where things happen before they happen. They happen eternally without ever taking place.
this is the only part I can comment on - the rest is far beyond me.
There is more than being and non-being. What is beauty? Does beauty exist? If not, then would we be prepared to say that nothing is beautiful? There are so many things that simply can’t be put in terms of either ‘existence’ or ‘non-existence’.
What is beauty but that which fully, in every conceivable way, exists… is endorsed by us to exist, can be understood, integrated, contiunued, procreated, cloned, imitated, abstracted into a symbol, universalized, and finally elevated into the semantic zodiac as the representation of existence itself… while in a dark corner the abject reality waits for the shadow to swallow it.
In that case, I think you’ll have a tough time accounting for the subjectivity of beauty. Where one person sees beauty, another sees ugliness. How “real” could beauty be in that case?
See I don’t agree with that. And to be honest I don’t believe you do either. Beauty works as an erratic erotic stimulus to a subject but is very simply objective in it’s proportions. For example, curves.
There’ a gradation in taste, true, and species differ, and there are such things as beautiful ugly things, but in general beauty is pretty much synonymous with perfect. I would even go so far that we can only conceive as a thing if we come to an aesthetic comprehension of it.
Plato reversed, or rather, Plato before he got mixed up.
I’ve had an extended discussion about beauty here recently, in which I, of course, championed the ‘subjective’ view. It may be nice to discuss the same thing with someone more intelligent. The discussion started here, if you’re interested.