Thread: Why's everything so beautiful?

I thought you were going to talk about the mathematically precise ballet of the celestial bodies through the cosmos.

What gets me is the apparent hugeness of the universe. The word 'hugeness' is so much of an understatement, in fact, that I don't think words quite exist to describe the dimensions of it all. Even if you were to use modern technology to travel space, going around, say, 35,000 mph aboard a rocket, you would never make it past the edge of our solar system within your lifetime (the edge being many times farther away than pluto). Take into account then that the amount of space between us and neighboring stars is thousands of times greater than that distance, and some understanding arises. Then, try to imagine 200 billion (200,000,000,000) other binary/solar systems dancing around one supermassive black hole that marks the center of our own galaxy. Then we can zoom out even more, and we'll see, at first glance, hundreds of other galaxies. The distance between our galaxy and our closest neighbooring galaxy, Canis Major, is roughly 25,000 lightyears away if you left directly from our solar system. That means that if you were traveling at the speed of light, you'd take a good 25,000 years to get there. Now imagine that there are some 100+ BILLION galaxies in what we can so far observe of the universe.

That's what gets me.

The true "beauty" isn't self contained in the objects.

The true "beauty" comes in your perception.


Explain'd.

Beauty relates to the richness of the energy contained in things. We can alter the beauty of objects through willful appreciation. But I think it has to do with our attraction to the divine.

Now we're debating what is this thing that we define with things. Oh joy. It is a question within a question. The dissecting of the divisions.

It is an open ended question. People see what they want to see in it since the factors are subjectively defined.

It's more a statement. Just a question that goes nowhere.

I like watching things rot and waste away.

Everything's beautiful after sex.

It's all too beautiful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJzcF0v1eOE

Why are you such a deadbeat Daniel Danciu?

I'm not a deadbeat. You just see one side to the infinitely-sided shape that I am. And that side just happens to be the sarcastic one.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

I'm not a deadbeat. You just see one side to the infinitely-sided shape that I am. And that side just happens to be the sarcastic one.

Fair enough!
It would be nice to see some of the other more positve sides that you may Possess.

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

Or, is it an artistic beautiful masterpiece painted by a being whom I call God?

I don't know what kind of sick person would see killing babies in nasty ways as a masterpiece, but each to their own, I guess.

Ah, but one is the painter and the other is merely a by-product of the painter's actions. Life is not perfection, though life is not everything. Everything at a whole is beautiful, not everything individually. To divide is to desire, to desire is to consume, to consume is to corrupt, and thus all things beautified waste away and cease to be whole and perfect.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

Ah, but one is the painter and the other is merely a by-product of the painter's actions. Life is not perfection, though life is not everything. Everything at a whole is beautiful, not everything individually. To divide is to desire, to desire is to consume, to consume is to corrupt, and thus all things beautified waste away and cease to be whole and perfect.

Acceptance comes with acceptance of division, and so so so.

Acceptance of the whole of wholes, the whole of individuals, and the absolute, is beautiful.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

Ah, but one is the painter and the other is merely a by-product of the painter's actions. Life is not perfection, though life is not everything. Everything at a whole is beautiful, not everything individually. To divide is to desire, to desire is to consume, to consume is to corrupt, and thus all things beautified waste away and cease to be whole and perfect.

So because someones brain is wired to equate beauty and his perception, memories of the universe, then it is so? Well then I say it's ugly as proof that the universe just happened by itself, I mean if something beautiful must be a masterpiece by a god, then something ugly must have just happened. I really don't see how you can expect a subjective stance to actually be used as some sort of proof of the universes creation, which should be taken objectively.

Why do we think this is beautiful, I really don't get it ;_;
And why is this everywhere?

Drives me insane! But thinking about it is beautiful!

Also
Is related

Originally Posted by Bonsay

So because someones brain is wired to equate beauty and his perception, memories of the universe, then it is so? Well then I say it's ugly as proof that the universe just happened by itself, I mean if something beautiful must be a masterpiece by a god, then something ugly must have just happened. I really don't see how you can expect a subjective stance to actually be used as some sort of proof of the universes creation, which should be taken objectively.

I didn't refer to the universe being created. I only went along with your post. Ugly and beautiful are just things, perceptions that have only themselves to worry about in the grand scheme. What is can be beyond ugly or beyond beautiful, but what is is. I expect nothing from a perception, only the division of things, and with allowing the freedom of division to expand recklessly, birth and decay, beauty and ugliness, both form.

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

How did it all come from nothingness or almost-nothingness?

Oh, I figured it out the other day. I quickly wrote the answer on my arm, but I accidentally washed off in the shower.

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

Do we automatically see all natural things as beautiful, even if the world was ugly (compared to our view)? Is it like Conway's Game of Life where complex beautiful patterns emerge from very simple rules? Or, is it an artistic beautiful masterpiece painted by a being whom I call God?

Subjective qualities - Beauty, Truth and Meaning arise from the Context they are witnessed in. The context for beauty is expansive when we accept and appreciate the intrinsic existence of All. It is contracting when we judge, complain, intellectualize and become overly opinionated with notions that, unconsciously, only exist in our heads.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

The true "beauty" isn't self contained in the objects.

No, not as "beauty is an object". But it is, in the sense of intrinsic nature, rather than an "add-on" or projection. Though, this all falls within the fact that languaging is conceptual and labelling anyway.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

The true "beauty" comes in your perception.

While it does to an extent, perception can be removed and beauty can still exist. At some point, perception can go no further, but when awareness "does", Truth and beauty expands. You are aware before you can perceive something - when you do that, often you judge it to your standard and perspective. When you don't perceive it as such, but are aware of something, you witness it as it is, and that's that.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I don't know what kind of sick person would see killing babies in nasty ways as a masterpiece, but each to their own, I guess.

An expression of consciousness at one level can be seen as ridiculous to a higher level. We may see them as "sick people", but to their own awareness, they have no capacity to choose to be or do otherwise. Hypothetically, if you were confronted with such a choice (kill babies), you'd see it is sick/nasty and reject it. However, if you literally were the person you were criticizing, you would do exactly as they do, because that is a consequence of what you are. Simply - if you were a "baby killer", you'd kill babies.

Originally Posted by Jeremysr

Do we automatically see all natural things as beautiful, even if the world was ugly (compared to our view)? Is it like Conway's Game of Life where complex beautiful patterns emerge from very simple rules? Or, is it an artistic beautiful masterpiece painted by a being whom I call God?

What do you think?

(Move this to Philosophy if you like, but the whole reason I've been thinking about this so much is that I really want evidence that God exists even though I know he does (but I don't know how I know that... it's very strange.))

(Also, I do know the scientific explanation for every one of these things (e.g. stars twinkle because the light bends in our atmosphere) but I don't think this has much to do with my question of how it all came from nothingness.)

And I happen to know that there are fairies living at the bottom of my garden. Don't ask me how I know this. I just know. It's very strange.

I suggest you google the Anthropic Principle. Hopefully you might be able free yourself from the delusion of believing a supernatural deity exists, the way I was freed a few years ago. This post could be the pivotal point that changes your life and opens your mind to the truth. Or, you could choose to go on blindly believing in something for which there is no evidence. But trust me, once you realise there is no God you will find it truly astounding that you ever believed it. Realising there is no God was one of the best things to ever happen to me.

All the best
DQ

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

And I happen to know that there are fairies living at the bottom of my garden. Don't ask me how I know this. I just know. It's very strange.

What do fairies look like?

Originally Posted by DreamQueen

Or, you could choose to go on blindly believing in something for which there is no evidence. But trust me, once you realise there is no God you will find it truly astounding that you ever believed it. Realising there is no God was one of the best things to ever happen to me.

I have trouble understanding this, after your first line. Is there a relationship?

Originally Posted by really

I have trouble understanding this, after your first line. Is there a relationship?

I think the implication is that in the strict sense of the biblical god; there is no scientific evidence.

This is true, and is the relationship she was speaking of.

Originally Posted by Really"

Oh, I figured it out the other day. I quickly wrote the answer on my arm, but I accidentally washed off in the shower.

You wrote ALL that on your arm? lol

I believe that there is something innate about us that enjoys symmetry. To us, our minds like to observe symmetry and order and not forms of chaos, at least naturally.
Nature will often provide that in many forms.

I remember reading that we have observed animals taking a moment to witness the sunrise.
Are they admiring the beauty of the sunrise or just the event itself? OR simply just subconsciously thinking, DAMN it’s about time I can see.
To the hoot owl the sunrise may be very ugly.

I have no idea what I am rambling about.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

I didn't refer to the universe being created. I only went along with your post. Ugly and beautiful are just things, perceptions that have only themselves to worry about in the grand scheme. What is can be beyond ugly or beyond beautiful, but what is is. I expect nothing from a perception, only the division of things, and with allowing the freedom of division to expand recklessly, birth and decay, beauty and ugliness, both form.

And thats what makes duality.