Ron de Weijze wrote:
Yes life is art. ...
More like, life is an art, life could be an art, living is an art, living could be an art, etc. as, in my opinion, art is life is false as is its contrary.
And it is beyond beauty, considering how unimaginable the universe is. ...
What do you mean by "unimaginable" here Ron? As I have trouble thinking about how it could be considered in the first place?
Kant was the last philosopher to draw together the two mindsets that were developed, one in the Anglo-Saxon-American sphere and the other on what was called "the (European) continent" (Sanders et al, 1975). The one was, and is, the empirical, chaotic, right brain if you wish, of the "synthetic aposteriori" and the other the rational, ordered, left brain if you wish, of the "analytic apriori". Hardly anybody argued with that. Now, the great fame Kant acquired, was by combining these, into the "synthetic apriori". Art is located there, together with math and ethics. ...
So which 'brain' will all this live in?
Bergson agreed with him and developed it further into what he called the "intuition of duration" and later it inspired "autopoesis", I read somewhere, which is also considered (close to) art. How Bergson writes is an example of it, almost automatically invoking meaning in what he writes (Nobel prize 1927 for literature), famous for his use of metaphors, which have helped me enormously in understanding him.
Don't know anything about this Bergson, will try to get up-to steam, but agree metaphors can be very effective at installing thoughts in others.