Breakingthewall

🤔 That could be true. In something natural like an insect or a cloud, beauty is objective, since it is absolute, but the depth of perception depends on the observer. In a work of art, beauty is in the creation, the beauty perceived, imagined and captured by the artist, which is transmitted to the observer as a communication from deep within. The question would be: Why something natural, like hyenas devouring a rotting corpse full of flies, is not beautiful?

I wanted to give an example of where beauty is and where each person finds it. The first painting is beautiful because it evokes a sunset or sunrise and the contrasts between blue and red create a special feeling. The second one, the heavy organic galactic samurai style armor contrasts vividly with the open eye with intelligent and alert expression, not aggressive, which gives it a rare beauty, and the magistral combination of colour the dreamlike landscape based on the Kaganawa wave is beautiful for its combination of color and its evocation of other dimensions. The man in the jail is wonderful, look the shape of that hand, you can feel the heat, the oppression, and the shadow is wonderful. The others two, as you said, the white is objectively beautiful because the colors and the shapes, the other because the evocation to the high. Then, we could conclude the the beauty in those cases is a combination of pure combination of colour and shape in one side, and evocation to our unconscious mind in other. The other paint that Leo's liked has no meaning, it's abstract, then it possible beauty is only in the combination of colour and shapes, much more difficult, because any colour could be considered beautiful, and any shape too, like those paints that a monkey did, but in this painting you (or I) can perceive something special, the combination of the white in the exactly places with that pink gives a special melody ,the black arch in the center gives strength, the yellows give the precise light, and the blues the necessary depth. This only orange close the red arch give me a sensation like it's exactly where it has to be, and the light pink in the left upper corner gives space, relax the pressure

Choose one

@LoseYourvelf Spirituality Is to change the finite focus for the infinite focus. How? That's the question.

Impossible paradox, if beauty sense is subjective, the thing is not beautiful or ugly in an absolute sense, it's depending of the observer, the beauty is in the observer not in the object. The question would be: why I perceive beauty in something and not in other thing? Is more beautiful a butterfly than a worm? Why?

Half are gay and another half are transgender, but the new messiah, Elon musk, is going to change them by hipermasculine cyborgs who will conquer the Galaxy

Buddhism is the religion that says any human can attain Buddhahood or realization, which a guy named Gautama Buddha did through a series of stages, and that encourages its followers to pursue Buddhahood or at least get close to it in this life and then continue on to the next.

For women enlightenment is much more difficult as it requires being absolutely alone as a total reality, completely detached from any human emotion, and women are much more social and emotional.

Buddhism is different from worshipping an Aztec god who orders you to rip out the hearts of 10,000 captives to prevent the sun from devouring the earth.

Demagoguery, like always. "Innocent people" is who I decide is innocent, then I decide that anyone is no innocent and done. The other, when we talk about Christianity, we refer, as you know, to the New Testament, to the life of Christ, which annuls the Old Testament, the New Covenant annuls the Old, so citing the Old Testament is demagogy, since Christ says to love your enemies and forgive them. But you already know this and you do not speak to build, you speak to stand out, then it's difficult to arrive to any point

@zazen I watched the half, later I will watch all, but for now, my opinion it is demagogy, I respect your views as they are usually accurate and backed by real information, but this guy says things like the West is more violent than the East and wants to give lessons in peace, or that in terms of respect for women it is at the same level. This is demagogy, the West is historically more violent because it is more efficient, therefore it conquers and makes total war. Regarding women's freedom, in the West since the Middle Ages there were queens of enormous power, this is not a possibility in the East. Obviously in the West women were also subject to men, but a king could not have a harem of 300 wives guarded by eunuchs and be proud of it

I see that you didn't read it, it's ok. The Quran repeatedly states that it is legitimate and obligatory to kill in order to defend oneself if Islam is attacked. The problem is that "attacking Islam" can be interpreted in many ways, such as apostasy, which is punishable by death. Sura 191 Kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they expelled you. Opposition (to your belief) is more serious than killing.

You will agree that Islamic societies have stagnated, and the cause of this can only be Islam. Islam is against evolution, its goal is spiritual salvation through obedience to laws, many of them arbitrary, such as not drawing human figures or not eating pork. Could Islam be interpreted in such a way that eating pork and drinking alcohol is not a sin? Or drawing animals? I suppose you will also agree that the treatment of women in Islam is humiliating, in the sense that it allows each man to have 4 wives legally. How could evolve a society that accept those premises?

Again thanks for the clarification about slavery. Anyway, another example: Jesus saw that they were going to stone an adulteress and said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and he stopped the stoning. Muhammad saw that they were going to whip two adulterers. He asked why they didn't stone them, and they answered that the chief's son was an adulterer and was not stoned. Since then, they hadn't stoned. So Muhammad ordered the couple to be stoned to death. Do you see a essential difference in the message?

You are obviously a prisoner of your human bias, it prevents you from seeing clearly. If it weren't so, you would see Donald Trump as a perfect manifestation of infinity, and the beauty of his orange face and yellow hair would shine like the most precious flower in the cosmos. So everything you say is biased. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

Thanks for the clarification. Yes in that times slavery was common, and these allusions do exist, but the Quran explicitly speaks of how to treat slaves . This is the direct word of God, then anything else is blasphemy . Anyway, is obvious that the message of Christianity or Buddhism, even if misinterpreted, is a spiritual message. The message of the Quran is in great part social, which is a key difference.

Interesting. Hell has been the threatening and radicalizing force of Christianity. The most incredible thing is that many people genuinely terrified by hell managed to steal, own slaves and kill, but all in the name of Jesus.

I liked that picture, what to say? Maybe I'm like trump. Maybe trump is quite good at the end, who knows? Anyway, I wouldn't put that paint in my house, but when I saw it it transmitted me clarity and beauty

Look Buddha or jesus, were previous and they didn't tell the people how to treat the slaves

Let's assume that there are different souls, different sensibilities

That picture is good taste, and there are no doubt about that. If you can't see it, it's because you have a sophisticated taste without soul.

Hitler was more or less cultivated, others Nazi were very cultivated. You could be cultivated and psychopath.

No, was dictated by the archangel saint Gabriel, if you want to come here saying that smarty things about watching too much tv, first learn a bit. I read Quran, not totally, but part, imo it's a copy of bible in it's base Yes, I know, people are just fools, not like you, oh enlightened. Patience is needed

Mahoma said that he was illiterate and that the Koran was dictated to him directly by God, which is 100% false. Bad start

What I ask is how the Islamic societies could evolve. seems that as humans it is objectively more desirable to have greater mental freedom in order to evolve as a whole. Where is human society in general headed and what is the role of Islamic societies, which are a significant part in numbers, in this evolution? Western society is very imperfect, but it is constantly moving. What is the path that Islamic society wants to take? To be always angry and offended, trying to appear to be saints?