Mysticism: Contemplating texture

[Ziran]

Have you ever considered texture?  As a universal construct?  It's easy to understand why "rough", a collection of tiny sharp edges, when dragged across the skin with significant repeated pressure registers as "unpleasant".  But what about "soft" or other "interesting" textures ( examples:  an embossed book cover, or an engraving ) registers them as universally "pleasant"?

I have my own theory, but I'm curious if there are other perspectives.

Thank you, 

[Someone here]

23 hours ago, Ziran said:

Have you ever considered texture?  As a universal construct?  It's easy to understand why "rough", a collection of tiny sharp edges, when dragged across the skin with significant repeated pressure registers as "unpleasant".  But what about "soft" or other "interesting" textures ( examples:  an embossed book cover, or an engraving ) registers them as universally "pleasant"?

Things just have properties and qualities. Like I'm talking physics wise. There are essential qualities like mass or electrical charge and there are derivative qualities like weight or sharpness or texture which are relative . Like I like women with modest makeup but you like glamorous flashy makeup because of genetics and hormones and chemicals in the brain and stuff like that. 

If you're asking but why is this way in the sense why is sugar sweet? Or why is sweetness sweet ? No idea mate .

[Ziran]

4 hours ago, Someone here said:

If you're asking but why is this way in the sense why is sugar sweet? Or why is sweetness sweet ? No idea mate

The first question is:  Texture?  Is "soft" universally pleasant?  Not subjective?  If so, why?

[Someone here]

9 minutes ago, Ziran said:

Is "soft" universally pleasant?  Not subjective?  If so, why?

No obviously "pleasant" is subjective. 

A masochist enjoys torture. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Someone here