"Just as the rose is red is nature beautiful!" What do you think?

I am looking to find arguments for and against realism with respect to beauty. Is beauty a universal, is it absolute, or is it just in the eye of the beholder? Serious answers only, please.
"Just as the rose is red is nature beautiful!" What do you think?
Beauty is subjective;it is culturally and experienced based and it can change depending on your mood so its not a static thing, what you think is beautiful today you may not always believe to be beautiful.
Reply:If there were no ugly, how would you even know beauty?
Reply:This nature is a perverted reflection of the Absolute Spiritual Kingdom. Material nature is temporary and full of misery. It is beautiful and terrible also. We can se how much destruction she can do. The magician of this world is called Maya she is the material illusory energy of God. It is her job to keep the fallen conditioned souls in their world of ideas and desires. (Illusion) After many lifeteimes of trying to enjoy here, they become frustrated and board with trying to lord it over material nature, then they call out to God for the answers. The the most intelligent take up the process of getting out of this illusion. Bhakti Yoga which begins with the chanting of the Maha Mantra (The great Mantra for overcoming illusion and misery) for info go to harekrishnatemple.com Read The Science Of Self Realization by Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada. See the movie the Trueman show. with Jim Carry. Give one some Idea what I am talking about. This is not our real home. Lest give up this illusion and Go HOME this time.
Reply:As there is considerable precision in Nature at the atomic and subatomic levels, and in the cosmological constants, organic sensibility, including psi at quantum levels ("Psychoenergetic Science," Dr. William A. Tiller, http://www.tiller.org http://www.quantumbrain.org http://www.divinecosmos.com http://www.heartmath.org http://www.noetic.org and "Extraordinary Knowing," Dr. Elizabeth Mayer) "naturally" finds resonance and attunement to same, "symmetric" and "harmonious" hence "beautiful."



If God Is, this "beauty" moves transuniversally unto "Beauty," "Love divine," "Truth," and the like. The assertorial evidence for this is post-newtonian/kantian classical 5-sense material data, and involves quantum mechanics, eeg, etc. The absolute Qualia are found evidentially in this progression: eeg studies of Tibetan Buddhist "insight meditators," who rapidly and reliably enter high gamma wave states during (their) protocol, a state-specificity associated with maslowian "peak creativity and mentative insight." Ordinary beta-wave state scientists and philosophers have no direct Platonic under-standing ("hypo-thesis") of these (save during periods of "inspiration and insight"), so their beta wave state-specific "understanding" is superficial at best, mere "marking and tracing." If this sounds like the classic newtonian/kantian spirituality/philosophy divide, it is now superceded by the eeg evidence indicating a Kant in his outer beta activity simply errs when trying e.g. to deny Emmanuel Swedenborg's factual clear-seeing of a distant contemporaneous event. (Kant's denial relates to his empty Noumenon notion, which is an overly-beta wave attempt to control real perceptions by denying those which are non-beta state.)



The next step is in general typified by the Tibetan example: while beta-wave scientists and/or scientism is busy tracing eegs, the monks are experiencing lucid new information from living Helper Beings, "Dakini." Here is Swedenborg-level psi or soulfield coherency and resonance with "higher octaves" of energy.



To mark and confirm such is the uncomfortable position which science finds itself, in such observations. Hence, the general field is unpopular, per Kant's observation that most scientists would not be interested in investigating a Swedenborg. It is more than ironic that similar outlier data, e.g. perturbations in Mercury's orbit, were dismissed by newtonian 19th century physics, and taken up by Einstein to point to general and special relativity.



So, too, when a Host of Light is predicted at Garabandal, Spain, in the early 1960s, by a peasant child who is even disappointed by the "small" miracle, then appears in thin air, filmed by many sceptics, science is not interested in this one-time, non-duplicatable phenomenon, albeit it falsifies materialist laws of physics.



The increase of scientific data (e.g., Dr. Tiller's meditators reliably and significantly induce quantum effects otherwise obtainable only with high-tech physics apparatus) has reached a trans-ignorance/trans-scepticism level, such that philosophy must take note of same, and incorporate same, else fail in the Wittgensteinian-Kantian program to continue understanding world per science data.



The next step is the marking and tracing of the Swedenborgian far-seeing in laboratory controlled and replicable conditions, so far as possible. The issue or stasis is now "certitude" in Wittgenstein's and others' sense: e.g., is the telepathic and Light-symbol information of the Tibetan "Dakini" Helper Beings a) novel, indicating beyond-"creative" Source; and b) is there an alternative, e.g. "morphic field" explanation plausibly retaining only a physicalist, albeit with finer energy information fields, explanation.



This question has already become germane; e.g. "Penetration," Ingo Swann, and "Entangled Minds," Dr. Dean Radin, describe statistical work which demonstrates novel information a la "Helper Beings" is being obtained, e.g. by "remote viewing," "out-of-body" experience, etc. The Monroe Institute has recorded with very unique detail, two simultaneous trained oob individuals' simultaneous encounters with other loci and even beings there, which correlate well beyond chance.



"Entering the Circle," psychiatrist Olga Kharitidi's account of her participation in developing an oob-inducing apparatus at a major physics institute in the 1980s, is also telling in this regard. (Both the Monroe Institute and her work end public disclosure in the 1980s, with the MI being involved with U.S. military and intel programs. Background: there was a disinformation salient during the Carter years regarding the statistical validity of these programs, and they were officially discontinued, or, as been surmised, taken off the public budget. Participants in the evaluation team, as well as Dr. Mayer, have analyzed the data, and determined that indeed the programs were successful, well beyond chance.)



At this juncture, the psi quantum interface, e.g. of Dr. Tiller's SU(2) quantum model of biofield energetics and of Dr. Robert Jahn/Dr. Mayer's similar, less-detailed model, is under refinement per further experimentation per various research teams. That novel and reliable data and effects are obtained, is also established. The question is now, is the "Source" merely a physicalist Sheldrake morphic field, a Ernst Laszlo's "Quantum Shift/akashic field," or related to the mainstream biophysicists (Dr. Chang in PRC, Dr. Popp in Germany) work listed in Lynne McTaggart's "The Field" (%26lt;%26gt;),http://www.lifescientists.de/ib0203e_1.h... or is there "more" qua "helper beings," "angels," "God"?



For those rare individuals who have demonstrated abilities beyond the "mere physical field" and who have stated their encounters with such "lifeforms," herewith a list of some of the more reliable/credible:



"The Masters and Their Retreats," Mark Prophet (who also has a heuristic look at transhumanism in "The Soulless One");



Ann Ree Colton, "Men in White Apparel," "Watch Your Dreams," and "Kundalini West" (she, a modest seer, was on occasion giving a public lecture, and spontaneously levitated several feet over a railing and into the front rows of the audience; such events are no better than a group of scientists observing Jesus walking on the water, and deciding such is uninformative, as unreplicable in the laboratory).



"Light Is a Living Spirit," "Hope for the World: Spiritual Galvanoplasty," "Man's Subtle Bodies and Centres," "Creation: Artistic and Spiritual," and "Looking into the Invisible," Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov, whose life story is given in Louise-Marie Frenette's "The Beautiful Story of a Master. These books are even less demanding than the undergraduate generalist level to which Mark Prophet ("Climb the Highest Mountain" is another seminal source) wrote, as Aivanhov lectured to student/the interested public, and his books are collections of his oral teachings. Profound insights are given in these books, albeit one must have resonance or "ears to hear" aka "read between the lines."



"Life before Life," Jim Tucker, M.D., and "Babies Remember Birth," David Chamberlain, Ph.D., may be of some interest as general background, likewise, "The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?", Free and Wilcock.



In fine, the post-kantian era, beginning around Whitehead, Husserl, and Bergson, and dealing with quantum level evidence in human spirit/potential, and with more subtle protocols such as in insight meditation, finds some resonance in the Kyoto School, e.g. Tanabe's "Philosophy as Metanoetics," but the 1990s and beyond have seen a further torrent of reliable investigation into "psychoenergetic science," and reductionist "neurophilosophers" are being left behind in their beta wave state atomism and "trees."



cordially,



j.
Reply:I believe true beauty is on the inside as what is on the outside can be made ugly by what proceeds out of the persons heart. Some cultures find older women hot and others find beauty in youth. But true beauty is not on the face but in the heart.
Reply:I believe that beauty is only in the eye of the beholder.

One's idea of beauty can (and does) change. I have met many people whom i initially believed to be beautiful, but turned out they were ugly.

(and no, i'm not talking about beer goggles, folks!)
Reply:Beauty is completely subjective. It doesn't exist except in the human approval of one thing over another.
Reply:As far as nature...it is beautiful, cruel, funny, sad and wise...it just "is".



In terms of beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder with one caveat. If one understands nature, one can make a distinction in terms of beauty. If one doesn't, then many of natures faces might seem ugly. Growing up in the country and learning the different faces and sides of nature that were available to me, I think it is beautiful. It exists on a level and in a rhythm of it's own. There are cycles, seasons, and ebb and flow. Sometimes nature seems harsh with natural disasters on a large scale, or just cruel on a small scale. It is in the checks and balances that the overall picture comes into sight.



And, sometimes nature is "over the top". Hurricane Katrina, tornadoes in the Midwest, destructive earthquakes,(and I have been an observer of these!)occur and losses are counted, in lives and financially. However, it IS nature. She has no conscience, she does what she does because of who she is...why would we expect differently?
roots rain