Intuition and Sensualism

Everyone is caught up in elaboration. One asks, Why ought this be like as it is? What
is it, really? What does it mean? Anyone could find volumes of volumes on the nature of
beauty, love, art, God, and many others. Take, for example, beauty. There are those who
might call it abstract. This, to me, is utter nonsense. How could it be that beauty is abstract?
To be abstract, beauty must encompass many things; it must be an entire class of things. We
all know beauty though! It is singular, and it dwells in objects. When conveyed through the
senses by perception of those objects in which it dwells, it is distinct. No, this is not
something that is abstract, but primal. That it is a feeling given a name does not make it
abstract. The real abstraction is beautiful things. Why must beauty be more than this?
Ascribing things to it only makes it artificially more elaborate, which defeats the goal of
having a rigorous understanding of it. I question the necessity of rigorous understanding.
Why is it taboo for beauty to be something experienced and felt? In actuality, all one needs
is to experience it, and it will be comprehended. Through words, one might convey a shadow
of what beauty is, but we all know that the truth lies in the seeing of it. Neither philosophy
nor logic can make their way to it. This is to say, that it is an intuitive thing. If one was
tasked to explain beauty to a blind man, one would be hopeless. To this man one cannot
convey even a shadow of what beauty is, since what has not been in the senses cannot
dwell in the mind. If you despair for his sake, despair also for those who seek deeper
meaning in beauty: they have obscured it from themselves by means of ascribing to it and in
this way are blind as well.
I suppose that by the previous paragraph, I might be made a sensualist. This is
altogether fine. I am certainly advocating for sensation and perception. It must not,
however, be construed that I am against abstraction. I am merely anti-corruption and
certainly against all description of primal things as abstract. The mind is fundamentally a
mechanism for generating abstractions. But beyond all abstraction of abstractions
recursion there lies experiences. Even math, which is essentially the study of abstractions, is
grounded in experience and sensation. To foist abstractness on beauty or love, for example,
is twofold in err since you have marred it by joining it with other things and in the process,
denied yourselves sensations. Nor do I wish postmodernism thrust upon me. A things
existence is not based on perception, but its perception based on its existence. There are
those who, in the name of this, that, or the other, might argue elsewise, but we have them
euchred! To us are joy, truth, and simplicity.
The thrust of this argument is so: there are no atheists, but those who have not experienced
God. There are no inconvertibles, except those who have closed their hearts and minds to
the legitimacy of sensation and intuition. By experience, I mean what the mystics seek; I
mean the aim of the sages and goal of the wise. We experience beauty through the
experience of things, but to experience God is to experience beauty. The distinction is
important, and the statement is true not only of beauty but also of love, of joy, of terror, and
many others. Sometimes, I feel as though the value of sensation is lost even on the mystics.
The West chose, for the most part, Aleister Crowley and his AA over the insane and lucid
ramblings of the artist Austin Osman Spare, and his near-modern day ilk, like Timothy Leary.
Now we have a whole group who says they, Seek the aim of religion through the method of
science, as if this were a selling point.
Return to simplicity. Experience reality for what it is. Value intuition and experience,
and the world will be clearer. How can one live the dream, if one is not first living in a
dream?