With all due respect, Sidi, the truth is seldom beautiful. Unless you’re talking about God’s Grandeur, or some ultimate metaphysical Truth, I don’t see how beauty is the cornerstone of philosophy, or axiomatic in its pursuit. Or even relevant at all times. Hobbes’ truth that life is (or could be) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short isn’t exactly a display of beauty—not immediately perceivable, at least. The fact of suffering, which I believe to be far more axiomatic in much of philosophy, is also not a matter a beauty, but often of truth. In fact, many a philosopher would strongly disagree with the idea of philosophy resting on any axioms at all…
You know from Prophetic narrations that all things in this dunya are accursed, save the remembrance of Him. Likewise, that merchants are the exemplars among classes of criminals is a truth that I don’t see as intuitively beautiful. President X’s misconduct is not a thing of beauty, neither is it a lie. Whether my living room carpet is green or red isn’t a matter of beauty, but of fact. Just as there is little beauty in the truths of Bad Pharma, there is nothing beautiful about the truths of the agarwood trade, apart from perhaps the scent of agarwood
Anyway, seeing how Ensar is the one taking all the hits, with everyone clearly being against him, and everyone’s personal truth convictions already established, do we really need to keep pushing the issue?
Please bear in mind that as we told you before, we never intended for this to turn into a public tribunal. Ensar gave his opinion on the oils in question, which is the same thing he did at the London OudFest when you asked for that opinion. I find it surprising you didn't ask for proof then. Turning things into a public court hearing is not our style, and the onus to document the wood used in a distillation lays on none other than the original vendor. We are nothing more than perhaps a bunch of overzealous perfumistas. What we say is our critical appraisal of the work in question. I hope you can finally take in the beauty of that.
The video was never intended as a proof of anything. It’s us documenting what’s happening on the ground, in Vietnam, at the moment. It is not intended as a roundabout way to prove an unrelated dispute. That’s a different thread.
As for
this thread, here is the second installment. Please enjoy.