not a thing but a property, maybe.
I do not understand it,
nor do I wnat to understand it.
Understanding beauty kills it.
Beauty is unexplanable,
This is why it feeds our hearts with transcendence…maybe.
Better to tread on Plato’s toes
than to carry Diogenes’ genes…
Notes & Silence 
Soo… this form of beauty is absolute and permits of no relativity?
That seems one possible meaning, but may or may not be your intent.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
Maybe.
Or the opposite.
Beauty is relative (eye of the beholder)
Absolutely depending on our inner peace to reveal outer beauty.
A circular, constrained, gesticulating mind would walk past the flower a million times without seeing the beauty.
Therefore, beauty is absolute, for it is there all along, waiting to be harvested by a heart at peace.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
That appears to render beauty as an objective, existing « thing ». You seem to be in danger of treading on Plato’s toes.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
not a thing but a property, maybe.
I do not understand it,
nor do I wnat to understand it.
Understanding beauty kills it.
Beauty is unexplanable,
This is why it feeds our hearts with transcendence…maybe.
Better to tread on Plato’s toes
than to carry Diogenes’ genes…
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
Oh, I don’t know. Plato could over-intellectualise. It’s Diogenes all the way if you are after simplicity.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
Oh I was just playing bouncing balls with the last syllables of each philosopher’s name…that s about as far as I can go….
I’m Platogenes, or Dioto.
The latter could sound like a zen master of ancient times.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne