| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"SpiritQuest" |
| Date: |
23 Jun 2003 02:58:41 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
"Ilya Shambat" <ishambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d8c5a02.0306211434.40485f5d@posting.google.com...
Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Let us examine the evidence.
Yes, it is.
Hundreds of years ago, when life was of the feast and famine cycle, the
large lady was what we men wanted.
When we want to move up the ladder, own the BMW, the sharp-looking
career-type is attractive to men, so we can charge forward together.
For women, at times in the past the powerful man, whose income would feed
the children in bad times, was attractive.
The model-type woman is often a trophy for he who wants such (along with the
Mercedes, the Rolex, and what have you). That's also the catalog and
centerfold brand of beautiful.
At the mellow stages in a fellow's life, he wants someone who smiles easily,
who naturally shares kindness for kindness, without thoughts of "who wins".
That smile is important.
Finding someone beautiful less geographical and social than it is a signal
of our needs, and our primary drives.
I do hereby claim.
SpiritQuest
I'll go for the smile.
.
|
|
| User: "Ilya Shambat" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
24 Jun 2003 08:00:40 AM |
|
|
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<RZIJa.90$dm6.115376256@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>...
"Ilya Shambat" <ishambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d8c5a02.0306211434.40485f5d@posting.google.com...
Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Let us examine the evidence.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not. See the post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SpiritQuest" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
24 Jun 2003 08:27:19 PM |
|
|
"Ilya Shambat" <ishambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d8c5a02.0306240500.6931411f@posting.google.com...
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<RZIJa.90$dm6.115376256@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>...
"Ilya Shambat" <ishambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d8c5a02.0306211434.40485f5d@posting.google.com...
Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Let us examine the evidence.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not. See the post.
I saw it. There are some dramatic concepts discussed in terms more often
used by the academic than the common man. It rambles a bit from one form of
"beauty" to another.
However, the idea that each face would be naturally selected an equal amount
of times is something to be very cautious about. Just by conjecture (with a
bit of life-experience and logic), I am willing to bet that the scowling
face (or less-smiling) was chosen less often than others. The
Asian/Polynesian face is associated with a race known (correctly or not)
with being more open, more easily affectionate. If short stocky women were
presented to us in centerfolds as "wow", we would be more conditioned to see
them as having the physical attributes that constitute "a prize".
Now, add what we read into a face, with the conditioning that the person
with that face goes through. A woman who feels beautiful because of the
above-average number of extra glances she draws, who feels much desired, is
more inclined (I think, ladies, pitch in if I'm close) to groom her outside,
just as many of us are inclined to concentrate on an aspect of our life
where we see success. The woman who finds little reaction to her outer
self, is more likely to become focused on something other than the surface
layer, though we may all be inclined to put on our best.
Why attack beauty? Whatever developed our sense of beauty (and I'm using
man/woman here since I don't want to dance all around), does it not stand to
reason that there will be more disappointed suitors of beautiful women if
there are more suitors to begin with? The woman who does not feel
exceptionally beautiful or superior is less likely to handle "common males"
with disdain and open callousness. She is also likely to have fewer
rejected suitors.
The post takes the subject of beauty and goes flowing in many directions,
but without consistent logic leading to a point.
That's a simple response, and not a critique of your writing style.
Rambling isn't bad. Still, it isn't the way to reach a conclusion.
SpiritQuest
Beautiful on the inside
well, if you like intestines
and mucous membranes
.
|
|
|
| User: "audrey in velvet" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
25 Jun 2003 07:55:31 AM |
|
|
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<XT6Ka.43$cP5.21143712@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...
"Ilya Shambat" <ishambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d8c5a02.0306240500.6931411f@posting.google.com...
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<RZIJa.90$dm6.115376256@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>...
"Ilya Shambat" <ishambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d8c5a02.0306211434.40485f5d@posting.google.com...
Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Let us examine the evidence.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not. See the post.
I saw it. There are some dramatic concepts discussed in terms more often
used by the academic than the common man. It rambles a bit from one form of
"beauty" to another.
However, the idea that each face would be naturally selected an equal amount
of times is something to be very cautious about. Just by conjecture (with a
bit of life-experience and logic), I am willing to bet that the scowling
face (or less-smiling) was chosen less often than others. The
Asian/Polynesian face is associated with a race known (correctly or not)
with being more open, more easily affectionate. If short stocky women were
presented to us in centerfolds as "wow", we would be more conditioned to see
them as having the physical attributes that constitute "a prize".
Now, add what we read into a face, with the conditioning that the person
with that face goes through. A woman who feels beautiful because of the
above-average number of extra glances she draws, who feels much desired, is
more inclined (I think, ladies, pitch in if I'm close) to groom her outside,
just as many of us are inclined to concentrate on an aspect of our life
where we see success. The woman who finds little reaction to her outer
self, is more likely to become focused on something other than the surface
layer, though we may all be inclined to put on our best.
Why attack beauty? Whatever developed our sense of beauty (and I'm using
man/woman here since I don't want to dance all around), does it not stand to
reason that there will be more disappointed suitors of beautiful women if
there are more suitors to begin with? The woman who does not feel
exceptionally beautiful or superior is less likely to handle "common males"
with disdain and open callousness. She is also likely to have fewer
rejected suitors.
The post takes the subject of beauty and goes flowing in many directions,
but without consistent logic leading to a point.
That's a simple response, and not a critique of your writing style.
Rambling isn't bad. Still, it isn't the way to reach a conclusion.
SpiritQuest
Beautiful on the inside
well, if you like intestines
and mucous membranes
most average looking women dont put up with any kind of ***** i have
noticed. they get the most approached by men because men dont fear
rejection from them. when i went to school though, the most beautiful
girls usually put up with the most ***** from any single guy. it was a
strange phenomenon. however so do most ugly girls, so i suppose theyre
on the polar opposites of the bell curve, that is both beautiful and
ugly girls have something in common, which is that they often feel
ostracized, left out, dont fit in, are ridiculed by other people soley
on the basis of their appearance. its those average looking girls who
always have one boyfriend after another, get approached all the time
and tend to be very outgoing. most of the beautiful women i knew were
very reserved, cool, unapproachable; they never talked unless talked
to. now isnt that a strange universal cultural phenomenon? why is it
that according to psych 101 beautiful women tend to be more reserved
while beautiful men tend to be more outgoing?
i would like to know, as i would like to score a few hot chicks in the
next few weeks.
[BTW, im really a guy pretending to be a girl making these
observations. my real name is Andrew. (but you can either call me
Annie or Audrey or simply A.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "SpiritQuest" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
25 Jun 2003 02:36:01 PM |
|
|
"audrey in velvet" <lindauermadness@mydotcomaddress.com> wrote in message
news:587c8d6.0306250455.76ca694@posting.google.com...
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<XT6Ka.43$cP5.21143712@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...
most average looking women dont put up with any kind of ***** i have
noticed. they get the most approached by men because men dont fear
rejection from them. when i went to school though, the most beautiful
girls usually put up with the most ***** from any single guy. it was a
strange phenomenon. however so do most ugly girls, so i suppose theyre
on the polar opposites of the bell curve, that is both beautiful and
ugly girls have something in common, which is that they often feel
ostracized, left out, dont fit in, are ridiculed by other people soley
I think I could understand the fragility of depending on one's outer looks
in how others regard you. I'm not quite sure about lining that up with
"beautiful women are willing to be mistreated". None of the observations in
one life, yours or mine, are sufficient to determine what is "true". Far
too many limitations in the data sample. Granted, depending on just where a
group of people feel the "outside the norm" mark lies on that famous
bell-shaped curve, there will always be groups of people "not like us".
And, if we have some fondness for, and confidence in ourselves, then "not
lilke us" converts *easily* to "flawed".
on the basis of their appearance. its those average looking girls who
always have one boyfriend after another, get approached all the time
and tend to be very outgoing. most of the beautiful women i knew were
very reserved, cool, unapproachable; they never talked unless talked
to. now isnt that a strange universal cultural phenomenon? why is it
that according to psych 101 beautiful women tend to be more reserved
while beautiful men tend to be more outgoing?
I haven't heard that, though I've taken a number of psych courses. That
isn't to say that it's untrue, simply that I haven't seen a good set of
facts or a plausible analysis. I could do a bit of conjecture and say that
a beautiful woman may "close off" a bit more from being approached more
often than wanted, just I may be more upset with the 25th person who asked
me for a dollar, while I was quite open to the first. However, your
conjecture is as good as mine. Beautiful men? I've simply never thought in
that direction. Still "outgoing" and "beautiful" may be a bit more
entertwined in the mind when judging men than in women. While women's
beauty may be more identified with bust, waist, hips, and with some facial
features, I think that (mercifully) men are not identified in a fashion so
rigidly physical. Perhaps the ladies who judge us have a more intelligent
perspective than we do toward them.
i would like to know, as i would like to score a few hot chicks in the
next few weeks.
Want a really hot one? Forget the one you'd love to get into bed at night.
Look for the one you'd most like to wake up with in the morning. :)}
[BTW, im really a guy pretending to be a girl making these
observations. my real name is Andrew. (but you can either call me
Annie or Audrey or simply A.]
I don't mind a touch of humor, here and there :)}
And, you do some intelligent and reasonable discussion. I like that, and
the openness to trade thoughts without each differing opinion looking like a
challenge.
I look forward to your next post, sir or madam :)}
SpiritQuest
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "audrey in velvet" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
26 Jun 2003 11:34:07 AM |
|
|
(audrey in velvet) wrote in message news:<587c8d6.0306250455.76ca694@posting.google.com>...
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<XT6Ka.43$cP5.21143712@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...
"Ilya Shambat" <ishambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d8c5a02.0306240500.6931411f@posting.google.com...
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<RZIJa.90$dm6.115376256@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>...
"Ilya Shambat" <ishambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d8c5a02.0306211434.40485f5d@posting.google.com...
Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Let us examine the evidence.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not. See the post.
I saw it. There are some dramatic concepts discussed in terms more often
used by the academic than the common man. It rambles a bit from one form of
"beauty" to another.
However, the idea that each face would be naturally selected an equal amount
of times is something to be very cautious about. Just by conjecture (with a
bit of life-experience and logic), I am willing to bet that the scowling
face (or less-smiling) was chosen less often than others. The
Asian/Polynesian face is associated with a race known (correctly or not)
with being more open, more easily affectionate. If short stocky women were
presented to us in centerfolds as "wow", we would be more conditioned to see
them as having the physical attributes that constitute "a prize".
Now, add what we read into a face, with the conditioning that the person
with that face goes through. A woman who feels beautiful because of the
above-average number of extra glances she draws, who feels much desired, is
more inclined (I think, ladies, pitch in if I'm close) to groom her outside,
just as many of us are inclined to concentrate on an aspect of our life
where we see success. The woman who finds little reaction to her outer
self, is more likely to become focused on something other than the surface
layer, though we may all be inclined to put on our best.
Why attack beauty? Whatever developed our sense of beauty (and I'm using
man/woman here since I don't want to dance all around), does it not stand to
reason that there will be more disappointed suitors of beautiful women if
there are more suitors to begin with? The woman who does not feel
exceptionally beautiful or superior is less likely to handle "common males"
with disdain and open callousness. She is also likely to have fewer
rejected suitors.
The post takes the subject of beauty and goes flowing in many directions,
but without consistent logic leading to a point.
That's a simple response, and not a critique of your writing style.
Rambling isn't bad. Still, it isn't the way to reach a conclusion.
SpiritQuest
Beautiful on the inside
well, if you like intestines
and mucous membranes
most average looking women dont put up with any kind of ***** i have
noticed. they get the most approached by men because men dont fear
rejection from them. when i went to school though, the most beautiful
girls usually put up with the most ***** from any single guy. it was a
strange phenomenon. however so do most ugly girls, so i suppose theyre
on the polar opposites of the bell curve, that is both beautiful and
ugly girls have something in common, which is that they often feel
ostracized, left out, dont fit in, are ridiculed by other people soley
on the basis of their appearance. its those average looking girls who
always have one boyfriend after another, get approached all the time
and tend to be very outgoing. most of the beautiful women i knew were
very reserved, cool, unapproachable; they never talked unless talked
to. now isnt that a strange universal cultural phenomenon? why is it
that according to psych 101 beautiful women tend to be more reserved
while beautiful men tend to be more outgoing?
i would like to know, as i would like to score a few hot chicks in the
next few weeks.
[BTW, im really a guy pretending to be a girl making these
observations. my real name is Andrew. (but you can either call me
Annie or Audrey or simply A.]
mike...sometimes i wonder if youre sane or not. stop pretending to be
andrew, its fucking pathetic...what you say in your post leads me to
believe that you know absolutely nothing about women in general. sure
there are lots of beautiful and ugly women who feel ostracized but
jeez, i dont think that's the norm. as for your overgeneralization
that all beautiful women tend to take the most abuse from men, thats
just *****. youre just talking about the ones who have serious
dependency problems or whatever. and fyi, most average looking women
are the model for that kind of abusive relationship...i mean, look at
lifetime television for women, oprah winfrey and all the self help
literature in the bookstores that sells so well, who is their
population demographic?
audrey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thoughtcube" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
24 Jun 2003 04:30:25 PM |
|
|
"Ilya Shambat" <ishambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d8c5a02.0306240500.6931411f@posting.google.com...
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<RZIJa.90$dm6.115376256@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>...
"Ilya Shambat" <ishambat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d8c5a02.0306211434.40485f5d@posting.google.com...
Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Let us examine the evidence.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not. See the post.
What would even be the point of trying to convince someone
that it was or wasn't? How could there be a right answer? The
concepts 'beauty' and 'in the eye of the beholder' do not have
an understandable meaning in this context. So let's go back to
the beginning. When do people SAY 'oh, beauty is in the eye
of the beholder' - when, then? I imagine that they see a person
X who finds something or someone beautiful and a person Y
who doesn't. This happens often, and perfectly justifies saying
that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' - if what is understood
by this is that we are justifying the fact that people disagree
sometimes on matters of beauty. And when people do agree,
we can say 'look, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder'.
Moral, as always: people who conduct intellectual/philosophical
arguments and support a specific position generally just look
at a few cases that justify what they are saying. But our
complex form of life is something more than what can be
summarized in a single philosophical position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
25 Jun 2003 07:03:55 PM |
|
|
"Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bdac12$8o4$1@news.iucc.ac.il>...
Yes, it is.
No, it's not. See the post.
What would even be the point of trying to convince someone
that it was or wasn't? How could there be a right answer? The
concepts 'beauty' and 'in the eye of the beholder' do not have
an understandable meaning in this context. So let's go back to
the beginning. When do people SAY 'oh, beauty is in the eye
of the beholder' - when, then? I imagine that they see a person
X who finds something or someone beautiful and a person Y
who doesn't. This happens often, and perfectly justifies saying
that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' - if what is understood
by this is that we are justifying the fact that people disagree
sometimes on matters of beauty.
But what the post is trying to disprove is the argument that beauty is
PURELY "in the eye of the beholder" - in other words, that it's
entirely subjective. The survey shows it isn't, because some faces
got picked more than others.
It's the same argument I've always used against folks who say that
"social skills are different for everyone you deal with". They aren't
- if they were, actors couldn't portray socially skilled/unskilled
characters because everyone in the theatre/cinema would have a
different opinion about what such a person would do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SpiritQuest" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
25 Jun 2003 10:36:17 PM |
|
|
"Mark Green" <mark.green@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:88139ee2.0306251603.374934c3@posting.google.com...
"Thoughtcube" <thoughtcube@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<bdac12$8o4$1@news.iucc.ac.il>...
Yes, it is.
No, it's not. See the post.
What would even be the point of trying to convince someone
that it was or wasn't? How could there be a right answer? The
concepts 'beauty' and 'in the eye of the beholder' do not have
an understandable meaning in this context. So let's go back to
the beginning. When do people SAY 'oh, beauty is in the eye
of the beholder' - when, then? I imagine that they see a person
X who finds something or someone beautiful and a person Y
who doesn't. This happens often, and perfectly justifies saying
that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' - if what is understood
by this is that we are justifying the fact that people disagree
sometimes on matters of beauty.
But what the post is trying to disprove is the argument that beauty is
PURELY "in the eye of the beholder" - in other words, that it's
entirely subjective. The survey shows it isn't, because some faces
got picked more than others.
If you do some strict logic, though, that doesn't make it thru the wickets.
Women are more inclined to choose red or white automobiles. Men are less
inclined to do so. Those predispositions or choices do not *make* red more
or less "beautiful" when one group or another walks into an auto dealership.
Humans have some common emotions, the famed "heirarchy of needs" or whatever
name is given to that by other psychs and sociologists. Needs strongly
influence choice or appreciation.
It's the same argument I've always used against folks who say that
"social skills are different for everyone you deal with". They aren't
- if they were, actors couldn't portray socially skilled/unskilled
characters because everyone in the theatre/cinema would have a
different opinion about what such a person would do.
Actors pull on their own pasts and whatever impressions they have drawn from
those people who seem to them skilled or unskilled. Look at the movies that
have been remade a number of times and look at the very different portrayals
of the same character. I imagine that everyone in the theater does have a
different impression, especially since they can be expected to have their
own set of social skills, and see someone who meets their "score" of 62, or
87, or 95 (if we could realistically assign such scores) as "socially
skilled".
SpiritQuest
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
14 Jul 2003 11:34:11 AM |
|
|
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<RStKa.475$4r7.346655811@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>...
an understandable meaning in this context. So let's go back to
the beginning. When do people SAY 'oh, beauty is in the eye
of the beholder' - when, then? I imagine that they see a person
X who finds something or someone beautiful and a person Y
who doesn't. This happens often, and perfectly justifies saying
that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' - if what is understood
by this is that we are justifying the fact that people disagree
sometimes on matters of beauty.
But what the post is trying to disprove is the argument that beauty is
PURELY "in the eye of the beholder" - in other words, that it's
entirely subjective. The survey shows it isn't, because some faces
got picked more than others.
If you do some strict logic, though, that doesn't make it thru the wickets.
Women are more inclined to choose red or white automobiles. Men are less
inclined to do so. Those predispositions or choices do not *make* red more
or less "beautiful" when one group or another walks into an auto dealership.
No. But it does mean that cars of those colours are more attractive
to female buyers. When we talk about the beauty of a person, we are
usually talking about their attractiveness to the opposite sex, and
thus what they opposite sex tend to choose *does* define the property
of beauty for people.
Actors pull on their own pasts and whatever impressions they have drawn from
those people who seem to them skilled or unskilled. Look at the movies that
have been remade a number of times and look at the very different portrayals
of the same character. I imagine that everyone in the theater does have a
different impression, especially since they can be expected to have their
own set of social skills, and see someone who meets their "score" of 62, or
87, or 95 (if we could realistically assign such scores) as "socially
skilled".
But the actors can at least select what range of score to go for.
Everyone can tell that Buffy is more confident than Willow, that
Scully is more impulsive that Mulder, that Zak is more socially
skilled than Screech, that Chandler is worse with women than Ross, and
so on. If social skills were different for everyone, this wouldn't be
the case. Somewhere, there would be somebody who believed the
opposite of one or more of these things because their perception of
confidence/social skills would be different enough that the actions
taken by the actor would correspond differently with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SpiritQuest" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
14 Jul 2003 05:11:53 PM |
|
|
"Mark Green" <mark.green@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:88139ee2.0307140152.211a3b5f@posting.google.com...
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<RStKa.475$4r7.346655811@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>...
an understandable meaning in this context. So let's go back to
the beginning. When do people SAY 'oh, beauty is in the eye
of the beholder' - when, then? I imagine that they see a person
X who finds something or someone beautiful and a person Y
who doesn't. This happens often, and perfectly justifies saying
that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' - if what is understood
by this is that we are justifying the fact that people disagree
sometimes on matters of beauty.
But what the post is trying to disprove is the argument that beauty is
PURELY "in the eye of the beholder" - in other words, that it's
entirely subjective. The survey shows it isn't, because some faces
got picked more than others.
If you do some strict logic, though, that doesn't make it thru the
wickets.
Women are more inclined to choose red or white automobiles. Men are
less
inclined to do so. Those predispositions or choices do not *make* red
more
or less "beautiful" when one group or another walks into an auto
dealership.
No. But it does mean that cars of those colours are more attractive
to female buyers. When we talk about the beauty of a person, we are
usually talking about their attractiveness to the opposite sex, and
thus what they opposite sex tend to choose *does* define the property
of beauty for people.
I wouldn't go as far as to say "define". Granted, I've seen some examples
here of people "far from the norm" in explaining "generally unattractive".
Still, if we look at the male preferences, one for the large chest, one for
long legs, one for the shapely backside, we're looking at some variations in
what would designate someone as "beautiful". And, if you toss in the
changes in individual values pertaining to beauty over the decades, I think
the idea that there is some objective "beauty" just because many people may
favor the same item, simply doesn't hold up.
But the actors can at least select what range of score to go for.
Everyone can tell that Buffy is more confident than Willow, that
Scully is more impulsive that Mulder, that Zak is more socially
skilled than Screech, that Chandler is worse with women than Ross, and
so on. If social skills were different for everyone, this wouldn't be
the case. Somewhere, there would be somebody who believed the
opposite of one or more of these things because their perception of
confidence/social skills would be different enough that the actions
taken by the actor would correspond differently with it.
When we talk social skills, body language, "how to behave", we're talking
something very close to the spoken language. Just as we learn the the
difference in the clenched fist, see the repercussions in a movie of saying
"Gee, Mr Johnson, your daughter sure is ugly", we see signs and reactions in
an unspoken language.
Emotional inclination has a lot to do with social skills, as does the value
of the event. Some portions of society are more loud, more abrupt, more
inclined to apply butter to the boss. I imagine we all spend more attention
to the heart we plan to win than to the heart once we have won it. I think
we all have our concept of "good enough". When we see someone go beyond
that they are "skillful". When someone falls short, thru background or not
caring to do "the right things", they are less skillful. Still, I don't
think that means we don't recognize those "smooth" things that the skillful
do.
SpiritQuest
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
15 Jul 2003 05:26:50 AM |
|
|
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<JUFQa.1145$7P4.265@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
No. But it does mean that cars of those colours are more attractive
to female buyers. When we talk about the beauty of a person, we are
usually talking about their attractiveness to the opposite sex, and
thus what they opposite sex tend to choose *does* define the property
of beauty for people.
I wouldn't go as far as to say "define". Granted, I've seen some examples
here of people "far from the norm" in explaining "generally unattractive".
Still, if we look at the male preferences, one for the large chest, one for
long legs, one for the shapely backside, we're looking at some variations in
what would designate someone as "beautiful".
They aren't variations, they're different parts of a weighted sum.
And, if you toss in the
changes in individual values pertaining to beauty over the decades, I think
the idea that there is some objective "beauty" just because many people may
favor the same item, simply doesn't hold up.
There's no reason to "toss in" those changes. Looking like what
*was* beautiful two decades ago won't make you beautiful now. There
clearly is an objective definition of beauty, otherwise why are there
models?
so on. If social skills were different for everyone, this wouldn't be
the case. Somewhere, there would be somebody who believed the
opposite of one or more of these things because their perception of
confidence/social skills would be different enough that the actions
taken by the actor would correspond differently with it.
to the heart we plan to win than to the heart once we have won it. I think
we all have our concept of "good enough". When we see someone go beyond
that they are "skillful". When someone falls short, thru background or not
caring to do "the right things", they are less skillful. Still, I don't
think that means we don't recognize those "smooth" things that the skillful
do.
You're arguing my point. If there's an objective standard of
"smooth", which everyone recognises as being a property of "the
skillful", then that disproves the point that social skills are the
same for everyone - which means that the list of correct (or "smooth")
actions can be written down...
.
|
|
|
| User: "SpiritQuest" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
15 Jul 2003 08:56:15 PM |
|
|
"Mark Green" <mark.green@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:88139ee2.0307150226.44dc70e5@posting.google.com...
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<JUFQa.1145$7P4.265@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
I wouldn't go as far as to say "define". Granted, I've seen some
examples
here of people "far from the norm" in explaining "generally
unattractive".
Still, if we look at the male preferences, one for the large chest, one
for
long legs, one for the shapely backside, we're looking at some
variations in
what would designate someone as "beautiful".
They aren't variations, they're different parts of a weighted sum.
I would expect that if the parts are a matter of individual valuation, then
the sum of those valuations can hardly be seen as objective.
And, if you toss in the
changes in individual values pertaining to beauty over the decades, I
think
the idea that there is some objective "beauty" just because many people
may
favor the same item, simply doesn't hold up.
There's no reason to "toss in" those changes. Looking like what
*was* beautiful two decades ago won't make you beautiful now. There
The original premise is that something which is beautiful is universally
beautiful, and is not based on perceptions.
clearly is an objective definition of beauty, otherwise why are there
models?
To display clothing, and induce us to buy calendars :)}
so on. If social skills were different for everyone, this wouldn't be
the case. Somewhere, there would be somebody who believed the
opposite of one or more of these things because their perception of
confidence/social skills would be different enough that the actions
taken by the actor would correspond differently with it.
to the heart we plan to win than to the heart once we have won it. I
think
we all have our concept of "good enough". When we see someone go beyond
that they are "skillful". When someone falls short, thru background or
not
caring to do "the right things", they are less skillful. Still, I don't
think that means we don't recognize those "smooth" things that the
skillful
do.
You're arguing my point. If there's an objective standard of
"smooth", which everyone recognises as being a property of "the
skillful", then that disproves the point that social skills are the
same for everyone - which means that the list of correct (or "smooth")
actions can be written down...
Idon't think there is an objective standard. I think there is an idea of
"good enough" that varies from one person to the next, just as "tall" is one
thing to a person 5'2" and quite another to an NBA coach. I would think
that anyone "smoother" than the observer has more than adequate social
skills, while the more polished person may well see that "smooth" individual
as below par.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
16 Jul 2003 06:49:30 AM |
|
|
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3h2Ra.1162$WV6.323@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>...
Still, if we look at the male preferences, one for the large chest, one
for
long legs, one for the shapely backside, we're looking at some
variations in
what would designate someone as "beautiful".
They aren't variations, they're different parts of a weighted sum.
I would expect that if the parts are a matter of individual valuation, then
the sum of those valuations can hardly be seen as objective.
No. But all the same, if you can develop all three of them then
you're sure to be beautiful.
And, if you toss in the
changes in individual values pertaining to beauty over the decades, I
think
the idea that there is some objective "beauty" just because many people
may
favor the same item, simply doesn't hold up.
There's no reason to "toss in" those changes. Looking like what
*was* beautiful two decades ago won't make you beautiful now. There
The original premise is that something which is beautiful is universally
beautiful, and is not based on perceptions.
No. The original premise is that there exist SOME things which are
beautiful in all perceptions.
I don't deny that there are some things that some people think are
beautiful and others do not. The claim, however, is that there are
SOME things which EVERYONE thinks is beautiful and therefore, if you
want to be beautiful, you would be far better targeting those than
just "expressing yourself" or whatever.
clearly is an objective definition of beauty, otherwise why are there
models?
To display clothing, and induce us to buy calendars :)}
That's not the point. If there were no universal standards of
beauty, nobody would be hired as a model because there would be no way
to judge who should be one - the agency scout would have no way of
judging what a general opinion would be.
we all have our concept of "good enough". When we see someone go beyond
that they are "skillful". When someone falls short, thru background or
not
caring to do "the right things", they are less skillful. Still, I don't
think that means we don't recognize those "smooth" things that the
skillful
do.
You're arguing my point. If there's an objective standard of
"smooth", which everyone recognises as being a property of "the
skillful", then that disproves the point that social skills are the
same for everyone - which means that the list of correct (or "smooth")
actions can be written down...
Idon't think there is an objective standard. I think there is an idea of
"good enough" that varies from one person to the next, just as "tall" is one
thing to a person 5'2" and quite another to an NBA coach. I would think
that anyone "smoother" than the observer has more than adequate social
skills, while the more polished person may well see that "smooth" individual
as below par.
But this doesn't really count as "varying from one person to the
next". Yea, an NBA player and a 5'2" person have different ideas of
tall - but an NBA player is "tall" to *both* of them. Same with the
scale of "smoothness". This means that you can write down the most
"smooth" behaviour and be liked by everybody just by following those
instructions..
.
|
|
|
| User: "SpiritQuest" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
21 Jul 2003 12:25:10 PM |
|
|
"Mark Green" <mark.green@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:88139ee2.0307160349.1224bea5@posting.google.com...
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<3h2Ra.1162$WV6.323@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>...
The original premise is that something which is beautiful is universally
beautiful, and is not based on perceptions.
No. The original premise is that there exist SOME things which are
beautiful in all perceptions.
I don't deny that there are some things that some people think are
beautiful and others do not. The claim, however, is that there are
SOME things which EVERYONE thinks is beautiful and therefore, if you
want to be beautiful, you would be far better targeting those than
just "expressing yourself" or whatever.
Well, certainly, I'd target the audience emotions in getting "beauty", just
as I'd go for "tastes like chocolate" in marketing to kids rather than using
some "healthy like broccoli" approach. If we take the human desire for
health, long life, security, freedom from conflict, we may find that those
things which we come to believe are associated with them are "beautiful".
The price associated with some athletic shoes made those shoes "cool" or
beautiful to teenagers, not that the shoes were superior, but that they were
signs of wealth, ability to obtain the best, being part of the "in crowd".
Still, as brand prices adjusted up and down, they fell and others rose,
sometimes within months.
We believe and conform. We are told what is "proper". If a few of our
friends declare that someone is "beautiful", whether we had that particular
impression or not, some relationship with her is like having the also-touted
Mercedes rather than the Chevrolet. She actually "becomes" beautiful
through competition, or some infection-like idea that securing her affection
constitutes "success".
The oversized houses made of the more expensive materials signify success,
are a "step up" for most of us, and are "beautiful". The healthy athletic
body that signals capability and lack of disease is "beautiful". When lie
was feast or famine, the larger woman who would survive was more beautiful.
Now, with all the health advisories, and a stronger social structure, she is
less so.
I would think that beauty most often equates to meeting other needs, if not
in the having sense, then in the target sense. And, yes, there are other
emotional connotations not involving other persons. Those things that
remind us of spring, release from our partial confinement indoors, are
"beautiful", flowers, the greening of the earth. However, we can find
"beauty" in the pristine snowfall, in it's relationship to peace and lack of
hurried activity. Beauty in itself? I am not convinced that there is such
a stand-alone thing.
That's not the point. If there were no universal standards of
beauty, nobody would be hired as a model because there would be no way
to judge who should be one - the agency scout would have no way of
judging what a general opinion would be.
We know what kind of music marks us as cool and sophisticated. We know what
kind of clothing signals success. We know how to accomplish congeniality.
Why wouldn't we know what we had convinced each other of?
Generally, being grabbed, lifted and tossed around would annoy and anger
either of us. Ah, but if everyone were steaming excitement about it, we'd
become as convinced as we do in other areas of our life that the crowd must
be right, adopt their viewpoint of the event, and continue to wait in line
at the roller coaster.
SpiritQuest
.
|
|
|
| User: "TheShiest" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
22 Jul 2003 02:52:26 PM |
|
|
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<WlVSa.1666$hr6.1520@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
"Mark Green" <mark.green@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:88139ee2.0307160349.1224bea5@posting.google.com...
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<3h2Ra.1162$WV6.323@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>...
The original premise is that something which is beautiful is universally
beautiful, and is not based on perceptions.
No. The original premise is that there exist SOME things which are
beautiful in all perceptions.
I don't deny that there are some things that some people think are
beautiful and others do not. The claim, however, is that there are
SOME things which EVERYONE thinks is beautiful and therefore, if you
want to be beautiful, you would be far better targeting those than
just "expressing yourself" or whatever.
Well, certainly, I'd target the audience emotions in getting "beauty", just
as I'd go for "tastes like chocolate" in marketing to kids rather than using
some "healthy like broccoli" approach. If we take the human desire for
health, long life, security, freedom from conflict, we may find that those
things which we come to believe are associated with them are "beautiful".
The price associated with some athletic shoes made those shoes "cool" or
beautiful to teenagers, not that the shoes were superior, but that they were
signs of wealth, ability to obtain the best, being part of the "in crowd".
Still, as brand prices adjusted up and down, they fell and others rose,
sometimes within months.
We believe and conform. We are told what is "proper". If a few of our
friends declare that someone is "beautiful", whether we had that particular
impression or not, some relationship with her is like having the also-touted
Mercedes rather than the Chevrolet. She actually "becomes" beautiful
through competition, or some infection-like idea that securing her affection
constitutes "success".
The oversized houses made of the more expensive materials signify success,
are a "step up" for most of us, and are "beautiful". The healthy athletic
body that signals capability and lack of disease is "beautiful". When lie
was feast or famine, the larger woman who would survive was more beautiful.
Now, with all the health advisories, and a stronger social structure, she is
less so.
I would think that beauty most often equates to meeting other needs, if not
in the having sense, then in the target sense. And, yes, there are other
emotional connotations not involving other persons. Those things that
remind us of spring, release from our partial confinement indoors, are
"beautiful", flowers, the greening of the earth. However, we can find
"beauty" in the pristine snowfall, in it's relationship to peace and lack of
hurried activity. Beauty in itself? I am not convinced that there is such
a stand-alone thing.
SpiritQuest
I totally agree with you!
People feel subjectively that some things in their environments are
beautifull but are normally incapable of explaining why they feel so.
What you said above can be thought as a first step in a process to
devise a "software system" capable of recognizing beauty the same way
we, human, do.
I would say, summarizing my own thoughts about this issue: "beauty" is
a set of statistical quantities extracted (produced) in our brain as a
result of the stream of preception-data comming from our senses and
past memories. These quantities affect later how we will react to new
perception-data (if we will feel good and say "ah, these things are
beautifull"; or if we will feel bad and say "uh, these things are
bad-looking").
The connections between rather different senses linked beauty feelings
can be explained by the fact that actuall perception-data came into
our brain as a whole and not partioned into different sensory
datasets.
So the "well being feeling" (=beauty) linked to a particular sense
(eye, for example) can be triggered by new perceptions originated in
different senses (ear, for example).
Finally, I thinks also that beauty is linked to simplicity. If the
above cited statistical quantities align/group themselves in simple
patterns, I think the associated subjective feeling will be of
"beauty".
Tchuss
TheShiest
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
24 Jul 2003 03:34:16 PM |
|
|
SpiritQ, we'd all like to think that everyone would see beauty as you
described it. Unfornately, most begin with the external and don't get
to see what a person is "made up" of.
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<BgHTa.1146$oa3.245004386@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...
"TheShiest" <TheShiestOfThemAll@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4a44201e.0307221152.7fda11b1@posting.google.com...
"SpiritQuest" <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<WlVSa.1666$hr6.1520@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
I would think that beauty most often equates to meeting other needs, if
not
in the having sense, then in the target sense. And, yes, there are
other
emotional connotations not involving other persons. Those things that
remind us of spring, release from our partial confinement indoors, are
"beautiful", flowers, the greening of the earth. However, we can find
"beauty" in the pristine snowfall, in it's relationship to peace and
lack of
hurried activity. Beauty in itself? I am not convinced that there is
such
a stand-alone thing.
SpiritQuest
I totally agree with you!
Ah, *finally* another intelligent human :)}
People feel subjectively that some things in their environments are
beautifull but are normally incapable of explaining why they feel so.
What you said above can be thought as a first step in a process to
devise a "software system" capable of recognizing beauty the same way
we, human, do.
Well, if you've ever dealt with real estate, you know that some cinnamon on
a sheet of aluminum foil in the oven will result in a house that is
statistically more likely to sell......as the mind goes back to grandma's
pies. Similarly, the well mowed lawn does *not* remind you of having to mow
that particular lawn. School athletic insignia on the walls takes us back
to the good old days.The house becomes more beautiful and it has *nothing*
to do with the house.
I would say, summarizing my own thoughts about this issue: "beauty" is
a set of statistical quantities extracted (produced) in our brain as a
result of the stream of preception-data comming from our senses and
past memories. These quantities affect later how we will react to new
perception-data (if we will feel good and say "ah, these things are
beautifull"; or if we will feel bad and say "uh, these things are
bad-looking").
Anyone who reminds me of my first love is beautiful, and though my memory
would disagree with *any* objective statement, my first love was probably no
more than average. Still, the excietment that approaches fear, the
intensity, the passion, emotional as well as physical.
The connections between rather different senses linked beauty feelings
can be explained by the fact that actuall perception-data came into
our brain as a whole and not partioned into different sensory
datasets.
I think of colognes, and just the *right* amount of body exposure, dressing
in acceptable style, all those "presentation" things that surround the
human. One with the right decorations will appear more "beautiful". One
poorly dressed, or soiled will be less so. People who smile at us are more
"beautiful", as our feeling of being accepted is keyed. There are a host of
things that make a human beautiful that may have nothing to do with that
particular person at all, but with our pasts. Still, that's what we're
both saying.
So the "well being feeling" (=beauty) linked to a particular sense
(eye, for example) can be triggered by new perceptions originated in
different senses (ear, for example).
I think that's about it.
Tchuss
TheShiest
SpiritQuest
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mathieu78" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
24 Jul 2003 06:36:53 PM |
|
|
Beauty in itself? I am not convinced that there is such
a stand-alone thing.
Of course, a rock cannot appreciate beauty.
Beauty is a concept. It doesn't exist on it's own. That's very self evident
yet you pointed it out. That's fine.
Just like 2+2=4 doesn't exist on it's own.It's a concept, or an equation or
whatever.
when a large group mostly agrees as to what is beautiful (and what is ugly)
we can say some things (like non-deviation from average and symmetry) are,
objectively beautiful. Not because they can exist on their own (with no mind
to appreciate them) but because people react to the same basic things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SpiritQuest" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
24 Jul 2003 09:09:11 PM |
|
|
"mathieu78" <nomail@n.com> wrote in message
news:n4_Ta.7142$1I5.906187@news20.bellglobal.com...
Beauty in itself? I am not convinced that there is such
a stand-alone thing.
Of course, a rock cannot appreciate beauty.
Beauty is a concept. It doesn't exist on it's own. That's very self
evident
yet you pointed it out. That's fine.
Just like 2+2=4 doesn't exist on it's own.It's a concept, or an equation
or
whatever.
Sorry. I sometimes write in "common man shorthand", or what I consider to
be essentially that. I'm not talking the equivalent of "if a tree falls in
the forest". I'm saying that "black is beautiful" does not make black
beautiful. Neither do some of the old southern inclinations make it
shameful.
when a large group mostly agrees as to what is beautiful (and what isugly)
we can say some things (like non-deviation from average and symmetry) are,
objectively beautiful. Not because they can exist on their own (with no
mind
to appreciate them) but because people react to the same basic things.
I still don't agree. If a large group mostly agrees that we will never land
on the moon, does that make it a "fact"? If the gross majority of our
population had built fallout shelters in the 50's that would have not made
nuclear war "imminent".
The original premise was that somethings simply *are* *universally
beautiful* and I find serious fault with that reasoning since, except for
things that appeal to our primal emotions as to safety and self-awareness,
things that were beautiful last century generally are not in this century,
nor will todays standards and viewpoints be the viewpoints of the next
century, including what is beautiful.
SpiritQuest
.
|
|
|
| User: "mathieu78" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
25 Jul 2003 06:28:25 AM |
|
|
SpiritQuest <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bj0Ua.21$6k.19@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
"mathieu78" <nomail@n.com> wrote in message
news:n4_Ta.7142$1I5.906187@news20.bellglobal.com...
Beauty in itself? I am not convinced that there is such
a stand-alone thing.
Of course, a rock cannot appreciate beauty.
Beauty is a concept. It doesn't exist on it's own. That's very self
evident
yet you pointed it out. That's fine.
Just like 2+2=4 doesn't exist on it's own.It's a concept, or an
equation
or
whatever.
Sorry. I sometimes write in "common man shorthand", or what I consider to
be essentially that. I'm not talking the equivalent of "if a tree falls
in
the forest". I'm saying that "black is beautiful" does not make black
beautiful. Neither do some of the old southern inclinations make it
shameful.
when a large group mostly agrees as to what is beautiful (and what
isugly)
we can say some things (like non-deviation from average and symmetry)
are,
objectively beautiful. Not because they can exist on their own (with no
mind
to appreciate them) but because people react to the same basic things.
I still don't agree. If a large group mostly agrees that we will never
land
on the moon, does that make it a "fact"?
That's a retarded analogy.
Other than that, there has been some objective things (like non deviation
from average and bilateral symmetry) that have been shown to be attractive
in every cultures in every time period of human history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SpiritQuest" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
25 Jul 2003 02:52:22 PM |
|
|
"mathieu78" <nomail@n.com> wrote in message
news:sv8Ua.10018$Wh.1057067@news20.bellglobal.com...
SpiritQuest <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bj0Ua.21$6k.19@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
I still don't agree. If a large group mostly agrees that we will never
land
on the moon, does that make it a "fact"?
That's a retarded analogy.
Why, it was hardly delayed at *all* :)}
Other than that, there has been some objective things (like non deviation
from average and bilateral symmetry) that have been shown to be attractive
in every cultures in every time period of human history.
If we talk bilateral symmetry as a tendency, however slight, toward
"deformed", then I can understand some aversion, since deformed is equated
with illness (with perhaps an eye towards one's potential offspring).
Therefore, the more symmetrical, the more healthy. Whether we see signs of
"health" as equating to natural beauty or not is an area where we would
probably differ.
Still, if we look at exceptionally slim and exceptionally toned supermodels,
I would not call them a group that doesn't deviate much from the average.
And, yes, we tend to find those things beautiful if we are more comfortable
with them. Still, that comfort, that familiarity are things that I would
not say make something beautiful in and of itself, but reflect our reaction
to our comfort.
The original premise has had a twist or turn here or there, but seemed along
the lines that beauty exists in beautiful objects, rather than in the
interpretation of those objects based on the mass of emotions and needs in
the observer.
If you are saying that there are some things that many find beautiful as
they perceive them, I have no inclination to ammend that. If someone said
that some things simply *are* beautiful, in the way that a color simply *is*
cobalt blue, I would still have some problem in that.
SpiritQuest
.
|
|
|
| User: "mathieu78" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
25 Jul 2003 03:01:38 PM |
|
|
SpiritQuest <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WTfUa.1353$ol5.1086@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
[snip rambling]
Still, if we look at exceptionally slim and exceptionally toned
supermodels,
I would not call them a group that doesn't deviate much from the average.
I'm talking about facial features, stupid.
If someone said
that some things simply *are* beautiful, in the way that a color simply
*is*
cobalt blue, I would still have some problem in that.
Why? You're some kind of literal high functionning autistic or something?
.
|
|
|
| User: "SpiritQuest" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
25 Jul 2003 08:45:09 PM |
|
|
"mathieu78" <nomail@n.com> wrote in message
news:z0gUa.8692$1I5.1069634@news20.bellglobal.com...
SpiritQuest <SpritQuest@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WTfUa.1353$ol5.1086@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
[snip rambling]
Still, if we look at exceptionally slim and exceptionally toned
supermodels,
I would not call them a group that doesn't deviate much from the
average.
I'm talking about facial features, stupid.
Ah, another discussion turns to sophomoric testosterone.
If someone said
that some things simply *are* beautiful, in the way that a color simply
*is*
cobalt blue, I would still have some problem in that.
Why? You're some kind of literal high functionning autistic or something?
I'm someone who has the options to enter intelligent discussion, and decline
to deal with those who have some inner need for verbal combat.
SpiritQuest
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mathieu78" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
25 Jul 2003 03:08:23 PM |
|
|
I'm talking about facial features, stupid.
And I guess it also applies to a large extend to the (rest of the) body.,as
someone with four legs probably won't be judge to be particularly
attractive.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TheShiest" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
28 Jul 2003 07:18:57 AM |
|
|
"mathieu78" <nomail@n.com> wrote in message news:<qkeUa.8653$1I5.1059408@news20.bellglobal.com>...
TheShiest <TheShiestOfThemAll@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4a44201e.0307250705.511a57cf@posting.google.com...
"mathieu78" <nomail@n.com> wrote in message
news:<n4_Ta.7142$1I5.906187@news20.bellglobal.com>...
Beauty in itself? I am not convinced that there is such
a stand-alone thing.
Of course, a rock cannot appreciate beauty.
Beauty is a concept. It doesn't exist on it's own. That's very self
evident
yet you pointed it out. That's fine.
Just like 2+2=4 doesn't exist on it's own.It's a concept, or an
equation or
whatever.
when a large group mostly agrees as to what is beautiful (and what is
ugly)
we can say some things (like non-deviation from average and symmetry)
are,
objectively beautiful. Not because they can exist on their own (with no
mind
to appreciate them) but because people react to the same basic things.
Trying to extract reported "aesthetic perceptional invariants" from a
group of people or even different groups of people is a meaningful
exercise and could possibly lay out the foundations for a definition
of "beauty" that is, in the end, independent of the observer.
But you should be aware of the limits of such an exercise.
In the following text
[snip]
Of course, there are invidual preferences.But they don't vary greatly
between individuals.And when they vary it won't be on these basic biological
markers..
Philosophical crap and mental masturbation put aside, basically beauty is
the way that nature has to advertise to others our worth as mating partner.
Mathieu
Ah, so!
Well, you are trying to say that when somebody likes Beethovenīs 9th
Symphony that is somehow an "advertising to others (of) our worth as
mating partner".
How is this? Who is "advertising"? To whom?
The "philosophical crap and mental masturbation" cannot be put aside
if we want to see "beauty" in a general framework that includes
aestethic feelings linked to reproduction as well as aestetic feelings
that arise in other contexts.
Or do you think that not sexually attached aestethic feelings somehow
can be reduced to sexuallity? Freud, eh?
Please, expose your ideas about these issues.
Tchuss
TheShiest
P.S.:
I reiterate what I said before: "beauty" is something that arised from
the activity of our brain; therefore reflects partially our genetic
make-up (sexual preferences included); and reflects also, because of
the "plasticity" of our brain, what impressions we received earlier in
our lfe.
Different people can sense "beauty" in the same context because they
can have similar genetic make-ups and can have lived similar earlier
experiences.
.
|
|
|
| User: "matthew" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
16 Aug 2003 11:10:21 AM |
|
|
Ah, so!
Well, you are trying to say that when somebody likes Beethovenīs 9th
Symphony that is somehow an "advertising to others (of) our worth as
mating partner".
How is this? Who is "advertising"? To whom?
The "philosophical crap and mental masturbation" cannot be put aside
if we want to see "beauty" in a general framework that includes
aestethic feelings linked to reproduction as well as aestetic feelings
that arise in other contexts.
Or do you think that not sexually attached aestethic feelings somehow
can be reduced to sexuallity? Freud, eh?
Please, expose your ideas about these issues.
Tchuss
Heh, you lunatic, nobody was talking about music.
The subject at hand was physical beauty, in case you're too literal to have notice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bring When" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
21 Jul 2003 08:30:56 PM |
|
|
I find anything "uncool" beautiful and refreshing. Have no idea where this
thread started.. sounds like an interesting discussion.
Subject: Re: Is beauty really in the eye?
From: "SpiritQuest"
"Mark Green" <mark.green@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:88139ee2.0307160349.1224bea5@posting.google.com...
"SpiritQuest" < > wrote in message
news:<3h2Ra.1162$WV6.323@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>...
The original premise is that something which is beautiful is universally
beautiful, and is not based on perceptions.
No. The original premise is that there exist SOME things which are
beautiful in all perceptions.
I don't deny that there are some things that some people think are
beautiful and others do not. The claim, however, is that there are
SOME things which EVERYONE thinks is beautiful and therefore, if you
want to be beautiful, you would be far better targeting those than
just "expressing yourself" or whatever.
Well, certainly, I'd target the audience emotions in getting "beauty", just
as I'd go for "tastes like chocolate" in marketing to kids rather than using
some "healthy like broccoli" approach. If we take the human desire for
health, long life, security, freedom from conflict, we may find that those
things which we come to believe are associated with them are "beautiful".
The price associated with some athletic shoes made those shoes "cool" or
beautiful to teenagers, not that the shoes were superior, but that they were
signs of wealth, ability to obtain the best, being part of the "in crowd".
Still, as brand prices adjusted up and down, they fell and others rose,
sometimes within months.
We believe and conform. We are told what is "proper". If a few of our
friends declare that someone is "beautiful", whether we had that particular
impression or not, some relationship with her is like having the also-touted
Mercedes rather than the Chevrolet. She actually "becomes" beautiful
through competition, or some infection-like idea that securing her affection
constitutes "success".
The oversized houses made of the more expensive materials signify success,
are a "step up" for most of us, and are "beautiful". The healthy athletic
body that signals capability and lack of disease is "beautiful". When lie
was feast or famine, the larger woman who would survive was more beautiful.
Now, with all the health advisories, and a stronger social structure, she is
less so.
I would think that beauty most often equates to meeting other needs, if not
in the having sense, then in the target sense. And, yes, there are other
emotional connotations not involving other persons. Those things that
remind us of spring, release from our partial confinement indoors, are
"beautiful", flowers, the greening of the earth. However, we can find
"beauty" in the pristine snowfall, in it's relationship to peace and lack of
hurried activity. Beauty in itself? I am not convinced that there is such
a stand-alone thing.
That's not the point. If there were no universal standards of
beauty, nobody would be hired as a model because there would be no way
to judge who should be one - the agency scout would have no way of
judging what a general opinion would be.
We know what kind of music marks us as cool and sophisticated. We know what
kind of clothing signals success. We know how to accomplish congeniality.
Why wouldn't we know what we had convinced each other of?
Generally, being grabbed, lifted and tossed around would annoy and anger
either of us. Ah, but if everyone were steaming excitement about it, we'd
become as convinced as we do in other areas of our life that the crowd must
be right, adopt their viewpoint of the event, and continue to wait in line
at the roller coaster.
SpiritQuest
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "None" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
14 Jul 2003 12:52:29 PM |
|
|
Mark Green wrote:
skilled than Screech, that Chandler is worse with women than Ross, and
I think that's arguable. At least he's able to lead a marriage longer
than two weeks ;-).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is beauty really in the eye? |
18 Jul 2003 11:34:47 AM |
|
|
Ilya, I guess you told us huh? Bringing this thread back full circle
doesn't do away with what others feel and are rightfully able to
respond to. Why post if you don't wish for us to respond right? It's a
subject that many can contribute to experiencially even if it's
through observation.
ishambat@hotmail.com (Ilya Shambat) wrote in message news:<6d8c5a02.0307141925.137c25df@posting.google.com>...
pero1393@earthlink.net (pero1393@earthlink.net) wrote in message news:<f53cb9e1.0307140910.56ce86a4@posting.google.com>...
It's amazing to me how you can say beauty is NOT in the eye of the
beholder. I'm sure you look at someone and think WOW! It doesn't mean
the next person will think that same person is beautiful. That's just
how things are.
As I said, for those who refuse to read before responding:
----------------------------------------------
Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Let us examine the evidence.
A psychological study asked 20000 people to look at 500 faces and find
those that are the most beautiful. The proponents of the idea that
beauty is in the eye of the beholder point to the fact that every face
was picked at least once. What they neglect to say is that, among
those faces, there were some that were picked by many people and some
that were picked only by one. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? If
it was that and only that, every face would have been picked by about
40 people, plus or minus some. They weren't.
So,
some say, beauty is a cultural construct. Is it really? The
Spanish conquistadors, some of the most closed-minded, most brutish,
most chauvenistic people in the history of humanity, were nevertheless
able to tell us that in Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital, "there were
many beautiful houses" - houses constructed by designs that had
nothing in common with those of their homeland, that were made
according to entirely different models, that aimed at a very different
architectural conception than anything built in Europe at the time,
and that were inspired by far different gods. The same conquistadors
were able to tell us about the beauty of the apparel of Incan nobility
and about the beauty of Arawak women, the beauty in particular of an
Arawak woman that was presented to a European nobleman by an Arawak
chief. If a woman is presented as a trophy, it is likely that she is
regarded in her home town as beautiful. How could someone from a
different continent esteem her the same way, if
beauty is a cultural construct and nothing except a cultural
construct?
The stories of European sailors finding beauty in Polynesian women are
legendary. If beauty were cultural and only cultural, how could that
be? How could someone like Egyptian queen Neferteti be still
considered beautiful 3000 years after her death by people in other
civilizations? How could Japanese paintings be seen as beautiful? How
can poems by Indian poetess Maribu? How can Taj Mahal?
My first long-term girlfriend was not considered beautiful in America.
Every European and Japanese man she met, however, including myself,
fell in love with her. This would appear to validate the idea that
beauty is a cultural construct. My second long-term girlfriend was
regarded by every man of every culture and every nationality to be
incredibly beautiful. This would refute that notion. To fit the first
case scenario into a conceptual structure,
one does not need to challenge the findings afforded by second case
scenario. What one needs to conceive of is a third factor. That third
factor is deliberate lack of cultivation and civilization of tastes of
the American lower classes, where my first long-term girlfriend was
brought up and by whom she was attacked for looking and thinking like
a civilized human being.
If beauty were a cultural construct invented in the West for the
purposes of patriarchial domination, there would not be concepts of
beauty in other cultures. There are. One need look only at the beauty
of Chinese and Japanese paintings and furniture, the beauty of Indian
sculptures, the beauty of Burmese temples, the beauty of what is left
of Mayan and Incan civilizations. I suggest a different explanations.
Beauty is a universal human striving; a striving for an experience of
divinity; a striving for what is ennobling, what is dignified, and
what is high. It can be found in women, it can be found in men. It can
be found in art, in literature, in architecture, in nature. It can be
found in all things that strive to be the best thing they can be - and
to make the world the best place it can become.
Which is how beauty can become an inspiration for better existence.
The saying that beauty is only skin-deep is true only of some people;
there are others, like my second long-term girlfriend, that are
beautiful to the core. Schiller talked about the beautiful character,
and indeed the character that is loving, that is elegant, that is
generous, that is erudite and that is self-perfecting is very much the
recipe for and the bulwarks of a world worthy of human habitation. As
the world consists of the physical world and the people that live in
it, a world that is physically beautiful and filled with people who
look and behave in a beautiful manner is indeed a world worthy of
human habitation. Physical beauty is attainment of form, and from it
can be derived the character of the dynamics that shaped it. The
dynamics, that is, of struggling to be the best thing one can be - and
make the world the best world it can become.
What I am saying here is this. Beauty is not merely a decoration; it
is a way of living. It is something that is capable of producing a
better world for humanity to exist. Creating and cultivating beautiful
character, beautiful way of thinking, beautiful human beingness, leads
to a materially better civilization - one that is enriched by people
acting in beautiful ways. It is a world that reflects the best of
nature and the best of humanity. It is a world that is enriched with
the best that humanity is capable of being. ANd that, is the practical
use of beauty and its spiritual purpose.
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then it makes no sense to
attack beautiful women. How could there be an objective
differentiation between what is beautiful and what is not? One should
rather attack ALL women, including the frumpy ones, the fat ones, the
pimply-faced ones and the ones that don't shave their armpits and wear
tattoos. One should also attack all men, from the laborer to the
millionaire. And then one becomes an equal-opportunity nuisance,
revealing one's true character - basic nastiness. At which point
America can see one for one's true nature and let the pseudo-feminist
rhetoric that one is spouting be laid by the side for the hollow
disguise for one's nastiness that it is.
It makes no sense to attack beautiful people out of the belief that
beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One must rather attack those
that see those people as beautiful and oneself as not. At which point
people like me can come to the defense of these people. And tell these
nasties that do the attacking that, indeed, their ugliness is both
inner and outer. And that they have no business running a media
industry and having jobs disfiguring people of the magnificent
sensibilities that the best minds and hearts of the Western
civilization - indeed of every civilization - have sought over
centuries to convey to people's eyes, minds and hearts.
What kind of Communist usurpation is it to attack what is beautiful?
What kind of sick Maoist nastiness is it to attack the romantic, the
tender, the gentle, the loving, the elegant, the sublime? What kind of
purposeless, wanton, destructive, and irresponsible vileness is it to
seek to disfigure people of beauty and romance? Is beauty in the eye
of the beholder? Then attack the eye, not the thing that pleases the
eye. And then you'll be attacking humanity. And then your true nature
- that of a parasite on the living, that of an usurper of authority
that is not one's own, that of someone who seeks godlike powers
without possessing any of God's wisdom or love or intelligence - can
be seen.
If beauty is a cultural construct, then the fact that every culture
that lasted for any length of time and achieved anything whatsoever
beyond animalistic self-perpetuation has it shows that this is a
construct that's necessary for the long-term functioning of humanity.
It is ne | | |
