Ruminations on beauty in 3rd density

[aaronfransen]

I've been (re)reading The Wave series again lately, and something struck me.

At one point in the narrative Laura converses with someone who feels the focus of the group does not give enough credence to love, art, beauty, et cetera. Their point is that she is glad she got to experience all this wonderful stuff, and that the group should really be paying more attention to the idea that love can conquer all.

I'm inclined to agree with Laura on this one, that the world isn't strawberries and sunshine if only we'd just "let it shine!" but I suppose some could call that a certain amount of pessimism on my part. In my defence, I'm far too simple and gullible to consider myself pessimistic.

Here's my thought: Sure, there is beauty in our world. (I'm partial to the music of Freddy Mercury, Mike Oldfield, the movies of JJ Abrams and David Twohy, and so on). So basically about 0.0005% of what I see around me I would consider amazing and worthy of positive consideration.

But we're at 3rd density; what if it's the case that at 4th density everything is beautiful and wonderful? At least if you're STO...I suppose it would then make sense that if you're 4th density STS that nothing would be beautiful.

By that reckoning any defence of STS behaviour in 3rd density is indefensible, at least if the argument is that it produces amazing art.

Just my two bits.

 

[Laurelayn]

In my understanding, We ARE STS in third D and all we can do is strive towards STO behavior. attempting to awake, trying to gain knowledge by picking through the massive amounts of garbage that is thrown at us hourly, 24/7 in our interactions with fellow humans and the psychopaths we share the planet with at the present time, media, even the food we eat and water we drink. The best any of us can do is strive towards awareness and knowledge of who and what we are.

 

[Carl]

Here's my thought: Sure, there is beauty in our world. (I'm partial to the music of Freddy Mercury, Mike Oldfield, the movies of JJ Abrams and David Twohy, and so on). So basically about 0.0005% of what I see around me I would consider amazing and worthy of positive consideration.

But we're at 3rd density; what if it's the case that at 4th density everything is beautiful and wonderful? At least if you're STO...I suppose it would then make sense that if you're 4th density STS that nothing would be beautiful.

By that reckoning any defence of STS behaviour in 3rd density is indefensible, at least if the argument is that it produces amazing art.

Just my two bits.

Yeah. From what I understand, in 3D the influences of creativity/entropy are more mixed (and more difficult to discern?). We're fundamentally STS, but we still have our capacity to appreciate beauty, such as that of 1/2D life, music etc. And some of us have the desire to strive for the other option, one that we've been secretly wishing for all our lives. Maybe it's a distant memory from the golden age. Beauty can also be used to deceive down here.

To graduate to the 4d STS, I think one pretty much has to let go of all ideas of beauty and love, or bury them. Who knows, maybe they find power and rampant consumption to be beautiful, the same way we do sharing and networking. And I'd imagine 4d STO is like a world entirely based on the concepts we hold valuable here - it seems too good to be true to a person living in this place, too distant, but we think it's possible :).

 

[Oxajil]

But we're at 3rd density; what if it's the case that at 4th density everything is beautiful and wonderful? At least if you're STO...I suppose it would then make sense that if you're 4th density STS that nothing would be beautiful.

It's very difficult for us, as 3D people, to try to understand how things may seem like in 4D. You assume that 4D STO beings will see everything as beautiful and wonderful, your second assumption is that 4D STS beings then won't see anything as beautiful. Do we really know how beauty is 'interpreted' from a 4D perspective?

If you take a look at psychopaths, you could for example say that they don't find anything beautiful. But that's looking at it from our perspective. Their definition of 'beauty' may be the things that we could find rather horrible. So I think perspective and various definitions is important to keep in mind. Fwiw.

 

[Alada]

At one point in the narrative Laura converses with someone who feels the focus of the group does not give enough credence to love, art, beauty, et cetera. Their point is that she is glad she got to experience all this wonderful stuff, and that the group should really be paying more attention to the idea that love can conquer all.

[...]

But we're at 3rd density; what if it's the case that at 4th density everything is beautiful and wonderful? At least if you're STO...I suppose it would then make sense that if you're 4th density STS that nothing would be beautiful.

Well maybe you’re mixing ideas here. You begin on the subject of ‘love’, and then in your question your speaking about ‘beauty’ - these can mean very different things.

Objective Love is bound to Knowledge, to Know objectively is to Love, is not contingent on ‘I like’ / ‘I don’t like’. Whereas generally our understanding of ‘beauty’ subjective and is definitely linked to ‘like’ / ‘don’t like’. So that when we ‘like’ a thing very much, we tend to say that we ‘love’ it, even though we don’t really ‘know’ it.

So there can be a big difference in people in what they perceive as loving, what is considered beauty.

 

[Mal7]

I am wondering what is beautiful. I think when one is in a peaceful state of mind, just about anything in the natural world can be seen as beautiful – not just flowers and sunsets, but even the processes of decay, like fungi growing on rotten wood, or maggots efficiently eating the flesh of a dead animal. So if everything natural is beautiful, what is not beautiful?

I think humans in particular are a big source of what is not beautiful, because of how confused and out-of-touch with reality we usually are. A maggot eating a dead animal is fulfilling its role more-or-less perfectly and reaching its full potential for the kind of creature it is. Humans on the other hand are usually far from reaching their full potential.

On the other hand, one might have the perception that every human is at just the right stage for them on their individual pathway, even when they are doing something selfish. One can respect their freewill, and accept it as all part of the big cosmic picture in an “amor fati” kind of way, but I don’t think I would call selfish acts beautiful.

I think with humans, what we find beautiful is related to what we are perceiving someone else’s inner state and intentions to be. For example, if someone is doing something nice but we think they are just doing it for selfish purposes, or doing it unconsciously just out of habit, we may not think their actions are very beautiful. But if someone else is doing exactly the same nice thing, but with a conscious awareness of an unselfish purpose, then we may see that as beautiful.

 

[Mal7]

I was thinking some more today about what I wrote in the previous post above, and think what I wrote above is probably a bit too misanthropic. In everyday reality, I think it is quite natural that generally we all need to act somewhat selfishly, in looking after our own selves - earning a living, getting rest and relaxation, etc. When we are feeling quite serene, then we might perceive everyone going about their own business, even if it is largely quite self-oriented, as beautiful. Perhaps there is also some inter-dependence, in that if we feeling very positive, other people might not just seem more beautiful to us in our own perceptions, but they might actually become more beautiful due to how we are perceiving them, e.g. they might smile at us as a kind of reflection back to us of our own happy/serene/receptive-to-beauty state, whereas if we are scowling and in a bad mood, they might scowl back at us.

On the other hand, since now and then (quite often in some lines of work, e.g. politician) humans do cause unnecessary suffering in a callous way, which doesn't fit our normal conception of beautiful, I think I would draw back from making a conclusion like "if we are sufficiently peaceful in the state of our own soul, then we will see everyone else and everything they do and stand for as beautiful".

I think some philosophers and theologians also talk about the triad of truth-beauty-goodness, which might be something not to be neglected in thinking about what is beautiful.

 

[3DStudent]

I think I agree with what Mal7 was saying:

A maggot eating a dead animal is fulfilling its role more-or-less perfectly and reaching its full potential for the kind of creature it is. Humans on the other hand are usually far from reaching their full potential.

So, I'd say that true beauty is the extent to which something fulfills its role in creation. Because after all, all is lessons, and this is just a grand plan of learning. And the ordinary beauty we usually think of is just subjective. Of course, my thoughts on that may change as I learn more. ;)

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

I am wondering what is beautiful. I think when one is in a peaceful state of mind, just about anything in the natural world can be seen as beautiful – not just flowers and sunsets, but even the processes of decay, like fungi growing on rotten wood, or maggots efficiently eating the flesh of a dead animal. So if everything natural is beautiful, what is not beautiful?

For me this beaty comes from understanding the truths of our reality, like how that maggot is fulfilling it's role in the bigger picture of the ecosystem, playing its part in keeping everything balanced. The beaty is there but not everyone can see it, because you need to have knowledge to see it, osit. So when someone says that maggots aren't beatiful, they see them from their subjective point of view, like what feelings and sensations the maggot brings up. So it's more like a reaction. I think that everything opposed to truth is not beautiful: lies and manipulations, twisting of truth.

On the other hand, one might have the perception that every human is at just the right stage for them on their individual pathway, even when they are doing something selfish. One can respect their freewill, and accept it as all part of the big cosmic picture in an “amor fati” kind of way, but I don’t think I would call selfish acts beautiful.

I agree and here I think the beaty comes from the knowledge of the cosmic picture. The individual acts that are based on lies would not be beatiful.

I think with humans, what we find beautiful is related to what we are perceiving someone else’s inner state and intentions to be. For example, if someone is doing something nice but we think they are just doing it for selfish purposes, or doing it unconsciously just out of habit, we may not think their actions are very beautiful. But if someone else is doing exactly the same nice thing, but with a conscious awareness of an unselfish purpose, then we may see that as beautiful.

The 'good' and 'evil' and the specific situation that tells which it is.

 

[Buddy]

I've been (re)reading The Wave series again lately, and something struck me.

At one point in the narrative Laura converses with someone who feels the focus of the group does not give enough credence to love, art, beauty, et cetera. Their point is that she is glad she got to experience all this wonderful stuff, and that the group should really be paying more attention to the idea that love can conquer all.

I'm inclined to agree with Laura on this one, that the world isn't strawberries and sunshine if only we'd just "let it shine!" but I suppose some could call that a certain amount of pessimism on my part. In my defence, I'm far too simple and gullible to consider myself pessimistic.

FWIW, in the context in which this occurred, I believe optimism vs pessimism wasn't an issue so much as that dialog was read as an attempt to distract from the work at that time. I think I get what you're saying though.

In the spirit of ruminations, for me, beauty is simply inseparable from experience and resists conceptualization. Intellectually, I can describe aesthetic pleasure from symmetry of form and even the 'beauty' of perceived mathematical symmetry, but as regards deeper reality of beauty, I agree with William James. From Some Problems of Philosophy: conceptualizations of beauty, like truth, are "thin extracts from perception, [and] are always insufficient representatives thereof;" and "Against all such features of reality the method of conceptual translation, when candidly and critically followed out, can only raise its non possumus, and brand them as unreal or absurd."