You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: WHY FRACTALS DON'T TOUCH YOUR SOUL...
I agree. I'm of the opinion that to speak of anything as "outside of nature" is .. nonsense lol. "fractals," mathematics.. they are just as "natural" as a tree. Which I think is web-gnar's point... that if you break down nature, you will see these exact shapes, fractals, etc.!! So I think it's a mistake to separate things out from nature, when, imo, everything and anything actually falls under this rubric!
a sphere is more beautiful than a cube though
So.. there's an objective "beauty?" @web-gnar? I don't think it's that easy... Some of the most "Beautiful" things out there are quite rugged, raw, jagged--like a cube. As opposed to the smooth nice contours of a "sphere..." no? In other words: Beauty truly is in the "eye of the beholder.."
Your philosophy is very Platonic... with the forms and all... Plato would say likely there is an "objective" (true form) of beauty.. Therefore, for example, a "cube" which I may find as "beautiful," truly contains within it a resemblance (I can't remember the technical term) of the form of beauty.. which is the "purest" and most perfect "form": and called Beauty.. . Plato probably would say that a sphere is more beautiful--(like you said with the "disruption of the soul," etc. which is very interesting) .
I just don't think I agree with Plato. It's a bit too "theistic" imo. (which many later philosophers, St. Augustine being the main one, worked very hard to Christianize Plato--which, given its precepts, probably wasn't all too difficult.))