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 20 hours ago by Someone here

[Ziran]

7 hours ago, Someone here said:

No obviously "pleasant" is subjective. 

A masochist enjoys torture. 

Would a masochist enjoy "soft"?

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Ziran said:

Would a masochist enjoy "soft"?

Maybe yes ..maybe no .

Get to the point already. 

[Ziran]

10 hours ago, Someone here said:

Maybe yes ..maybe no .

Get to the point already. 

What if the pleasure registered from "soft" is like the pleasure registered from the auditory construct "rhythm"?  Best example:  "syncopation"?

[Leo Gura]

Texture is a feeling.

[Ziran]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Texture is a feeling.

The corresponding reaction in the mind is?

[Ziran]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Texture is a feeling.

More than anything else?  It's a function of the distance between the edges?

[Ziran]

I find these sort of simple contemplations to be fun light-hearted ways to include deep inquiry within daily mundane life.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Ziran said:

More than anything else?  It's a function of the distance between the edges?

Be careful adding materialist explanations to it. If you look at what it is, it's purely feelings.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Ziran]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

You are adding materialism explanations to it. But if you look at what it is, it's purely feelings.

what is happening in conjunction with the feeling?

[Ziran]

 

the texture is:

grain-not-grain-not-grain--not-grain-not-grain-not ... 

the feeling is in conjunction with "not"

[Ziran]

now consider a dog's fur?

cotton-balls?

...

...

syncopation?

[Ziran]

the pleasure that's registered blossoms from resonance with consciousness revealing itself, playing peek-a-boo, for lack of a better word

It's hiding in plain sight, and the recognition of it, ( hiding in blades of grass, in a dog's fur, in a catchy-rhythm ) is pleasant because it resonates with the individual at their core, as it is connecting to the ALL, counter-intuitively, via no-"thing"-ness.

that's the theory

Edited 2 hours ago by Ziran

[Ziran]

 

[Ziran]

47 minutes ago, Ziran said:

in conjunction with "not"

"and-not" in this context of "softness" is contradiction.  It is simultaneously conjuncting-and-disjuncting, because the the no-"thing"-ness in-between is integral/essential/fundemental to the "softness" or the "interest" in the catchy rhythm.

"syncopation"

"softness"

Is it universally pleasant?  Can anyone deny the syncopated rhythm has a universal "hook" within the mind?

What's the hook?  

[Ziran]

It's the power of a "dramatic pause".

[Ziran]

It's the moment preceding laughter.