Isn't change in itself considered to be an eternal concept? How is this represented in symbols?

I agree, the question isn't if the symbol for truth is "true" in itself. Rather if truth, if being symbolized also means the eternal?

I agree, the lemniscate seems to be everywhere in our present society, whereas the ouroboros has lost its meaning. If I where to look at it without conscious interpretation, I would just see it as a mythological expression from the past.

I think the rock is such a symbol that I'm looking for. It seems to me that things that we know stand the test of time can represent the concept of stability.

Interesting that you brought up the philosopher's stone. Isn't "the truth" also a concept that most of us see as something eternal?

So then there can't be any rights or wrongs when it comes to beauty? If beauty only is a reaction caused by our biology, then we can't have disussions with other people about what is beautiful?

Okay, I was a bit sloppy in my writing. What I meant was that almost always there is a reason for us liking it. For instance, we find other people sexually attractive BECAUSE our biology tells us to. We enjoy a fast car BECAUSE it gives us a thrill when we go at high speeds. With beauty, we can't (and this is quite Kantanian) say why something is beautiful, it simply is.

You are a musician, what you hear is the same as what I hear, but perhaps because of your training, experience, and practice you hear more than what I can hear, what you find beautiful in the music you find beautiful is more than my unsophisticated taste. That what is hidden from me is not hidden from you the sounds that entrance you may not affect me. — Cavacava

I don't think that you can be better at finding beauty through training. What you are talking about is rather appreciation for the work behind the piece, and that derives from a deep knowledge of music. I believe that beauty is something else, a more subtle quality that is there and doesn't depend on complexity. Beauty does not come with taste, and you cannot train yourself to find it, mabye to create it, but not find it. Moreover I think beauty is often confused with other feelings, for instance pleasentness or attraction.

I'm not talking specifically about music, though. And I'm saying I'm as blind to the beauty in the world as anyone else, just that I've had moments where I realize how much of it I don't see, which lead me to that thought about it's hiddenness. — Noble Dust

I agree, sometimes you have to focus and really take things in in order to find beauty. But I dont think you have to think about the object you focus on using words, rather just taking it in and letting it affect you.

Would beauty exist without us humans, or is it through our perception that things become beautiful?

Yes, I agree with that. But what is it in the surface that makes them beautiful? That is the interesting question, since having a surface isn't enough to make something beautiful, plenty of ugly objects have surfaces. I would say that the surface arouse a feeling of senseless pleasantness within us, and that is what makes them beautiful.

Both have a surface, an aesthetic, and both are made: by nature, by man (as if man is different, unnatural, mediated versus immediate, as if his cognition/mediation raises him above nature). — Cavacava

What I meant was, what is it in the flower and in the film that makes them both beautiful? I like your point because it shows how we can look at the two in similar ways (in some way) but the fact that they both have a surface and so on does not make them beautiful. The way that they both arouse the same feeling within us might be what makes them beautiful.

According to Kant, as I understand it, the purpuseless purpose lies within the notion of beauty. When we look at something beautiful we also feel that the object has a purpose, eaven though we know that there is none. It is the same as with the categorical imperative, we know thorugh our rationality that something is "the right thing to do" since it is "the right thing to do", we don't need a because that relates to some further reason.

There are films that I have seen that have dreadful content but are terrific films. The Godfather, for instance, is about criminals, and their criminality isn't hidden. But the film is "beautifully acted and filmed". Films that endure tend to have that quality -- excellence in production and acting, whatever the content is. — Bitter Crank

It is true that "ugly" content can make a beautiful movie. What you say is that beauty is often in high quality movies, but hte question is is it the quality that makes them beautiful? There are plenty of high quality films that I wouldn't call beautiful, Fight Club for instance. Therefore, I don't think that quality is what makes them beautiful, rather quality is necessary to enable beauty to be present.

Most of us probably agree that we can see beauty in a landscape or a flower. Is it then the same type of beauty as in The Godfather? The question then becomes, what does the flower share with the film? Again, Kant does provide a solution when he says that beauty is the feeling we experience when we experience something and reason and imagination plays freely within us.