We've Moved! Visit our NEW FORUM to join the latest discussions. This is an archive of our previous conversations...

You can find the login page for the old forum here.
CHATPRIVACYDONATELOGINREGISTER
DMT-Nexus
FAQWIKIHEALTH & SAFETYARTATTITUDEACTIVE TOPICS
12NEXT
Theory on beauty Options
 
Guyomech
#1 Posted : 5/7/2012 10:07:33 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator | Skills: Oil painting, Acrylic painting, Digital and multimedia art, Trip integration

Posts: 2277
Joined: 22-Dec-2011
Last visit: 25-Apr-2016
Location: Hyperspace Studios
So why do humans have an innate sense of beauty? We definitely respond in a deep emotional way to things that are beautiful or ugly. Much in our culture is built upon these feelings.

But why? What purpose could such a sense have, in terms of evolutionary survival? How does it fit the larger understanding of how we've evolved?

My wife and I are both artists, and we try to make beautiful art. We were talking about this subject recently, and here's what we came up with:

A group of humans that has inherited a sense of beauty will be less likely to trash their surrounding environment, therefore more likely to have these natural resources available when the next generation comes along.

Too strong of a sense of beauty and you may end up paralyzed- cant go outside for fear of disrupting an aesthetically flawless pile of leaves. Too little, and things get trashed, leaving future generations with nothing. So a balance is necessary... And in a natural setting, humans do tend to honor and care for their surroundings (look at Brazilian tribal cultures, for example)

Any thoughts/ reactions to this theory?
 

Good quality Syrian rue (Peganum harmala) for an incredible price!
 
jbark
#2 Posted : 5/7/2012 10:32:47 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Senior Member

Posts: 2854
Joined: 16-Mar-2010
Last visit: 01-Dec-2023
Location: montreal
Great Question Guyomech!

My answer:

Biological imperative: ugly things are (can be) deformities, and in order to propagate "healthy" genes we rely on visual symmetry, good smells, pleasant sounds and softness/firmness (and, frankly how someone tastes also!) for attraction, which is a (beautifulThumbs up ) mating mechanism and nothing more.

An appreciation of beauty beyond this is an immaculately fortunate perversion of this instinct!

Wow, is this answer going to be unpopular!Shocked

JBArk
JBArk is a Mandelthought; a non-fiction character in a drama of his own design he calls "LIFE" who partakes in consciousness expanding activities and substances; he should in no way be confused with SWIM, who is an eminently data-mineable and prolific character who has somehow convinced himself the target he wears on his forehead is actually a shield.
 
daedaloops
#3 Posted : 5/7/2012 10:38:11 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 426
Joined: 02-Mar-2012
Last visit: 29-Sep-2014
That's a very interesting subject.. I think a good part of whether something is beautiful or ugly has to do with pattern recognition. Everything is basically patterns, and the way they're organized can either be beautiful or neutral or ugly to an intelligent organism. Why it happens? Well you just mentioned quite good evolutionary reasons.

That got me thinking, on a basic digital image of 256x256 pixels there's 16 million color choices for each pixel, so about 1 TRILLION different choices on how the picture could be formed. And that's just a very small digital image, now let's think about reality.. It makes me very dizzy. Drool

There's an infinite amount of patterns that can be formed, so art and the sense of beauty will always keep evolving.. It would be cool to see some art from the future.
 
Guyomech
#4 Posted : 5/7/2012 10:41:28 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator | Skills: Oil painting, Acrylic painting, Digital and multimedia art, Trip integration

Posts: 2277
Joined: 22-Dec-2011
Last visit: 25-Apr-2016
Location: Hyperspace Studios
We are making it right now!!!
 
onethousandk
#5 Posted : 5/7/2012 10:48:30 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 278
Joined: 30-May-2011
Last visit: 11-Mar-2017
Location: Here & Now
There's an interesting journal article I read once were a group of scientists postulated that when flowers were evolving to communicate with insects that rather than creating an entirely new language the flowers pointed towards a universal aesthetic that the insects would recognize. A beauty that falls outside of environmental bias.
 
Kobranek
#6 Posted : 5/8/2012 2:12:46 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 159
Joined: 05-Feb-2012
Last visit: 17-Feb-2024
Location: Hovering Over a Forever Sea of Vortices
"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder"
This statement rings true for me as everyone's definition is different as what beauty is to them. Some people prefer physical beauty while others prefer non-physical beauty. I prefer both...I can admit I was obsessed with physical beauty for quite sometime until my definition of beauty changed with the help of psychedelics of course. I hate to say it but the movie "Shallow Hal" is a good representation of beauty for me (such a dumb movie with a good message). Usually people who are physically attractive are god awful ugly within; not always, but most of the time. I see it as a sort of curse to be so attractive because you never know who are true to you unless you already have a good/fair definition of what beauty is to you and can associate peoples behaviors accordingly otherwise it could easily pull you from your true self all the more.
Beauty to me is like a delicate blooming flower, there are many things both good/bad that can influence the condition of the flower.
As far as an evolutionary perspective, according to what each one of us values most will be what we look for in a mate and will conjoin our genes to give the most probable chance of meeting the definition of what we want in a child. Sadly, the definition sometimes doesn't match up to what the parents have and then behave in ways that are counterproductive to this.
 
Eliyahu
#7 Posted : 5/8/2012 4:30:59 AM
סנדלפון


Posts: 1322
Joined: 16-Apr-2012
Last visit: 05-Nov-2012
Location: מלכות



I personally believe that to appreciate the beauty of nature is to look upon the face of divinity. While beauty may function as a biological imperative I would argue that there is much more to it than that. To say that beauty is a purely dry and biological phenomenon is like saying mercy and compassion are biological imperatives. I see a logical reason for beauty to exist but I do NOT see a logical reason for incredible beauty to exist other than for the sheer purpose of creating enjoyment.

If beauty was a strictly bio-scientific happening then wouldn't there rationally be just one or two levels of beauty? Why would there be such varying amazing breathtaking immaculateness that exists in the universe? I see no rational reason for that.

From my own psychedelic experiences I have found "beauty" to be an effective vehicle to reaching "Nirvana" type states. The genuine appreciation of Beauty in simple things like nature, artwork and music have directed me towards vivid visions of divinity.








And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not percieve the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "brother let me remove the speck from your eye", when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye?-Yeshua ben Yoseph
 
Guyomech
#8 Posted : 5/8/2012 5:02:00 AM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator | Skills: Oil painting, Acrylic painting, Digital and multimedia art, Trip integration

Posts: 2277
Joined: 22-Dec-2011
Last visit: 25-Apr-2016
Location: Hyperspace Studios
Well, I wouldn't say that beauty is "merely" a biological function... But we are experiencing life from a biological perspective here. The way we have evolved allows for not only an appreciation of beauty, but for a sense of it that can reach so much further than any description; a thing that feeds the soul. But this is something that has survived the rigors of natural selection, so it must have some benefit in terms of survival and the success of offspring.

My original suggestion was that a sense of beauty helps people to protect their surroundings (giving tribal people as an example, not modern people). Jbark suggested that it serves as a way of selecting healthy mates (or prey), which I would agree with.

Kobranek says, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." this is of course true, to a certain extent. Some things are fairly universal. For example, the majority of us find unspoiled Nature to be attractive, while polluted and ruined Nature is generally not perceived as being beautiful.

As far as mate selection goes, I'll agree with kobranek and quote another adage: "Opposites attract". This is generally true, and I believe it is Nature's way of keeping genes mixing, which makes for a healthier population.

As far as Eliyahu's comments go: yes, you don't have to convince me! I am an Earth worshipper.

But more to the point: I do like to believe that part of life's purpose is pure experience... The more vivid, the better.
 
Eliyahu
#9 Posted : 5/8/2012 6:10:41 AM
סנדלפון


Posts: 1322
Joined: 16-Apr-2012
Last visit: 05-Nov-2012
Location: מלכות
Guyomech said:

"As far as Eliyahu's comments go: yes, you don't have to convince me! I am an Earth worshipper."

Not to mince words but,,I'm not trying to convince you to worship the planet Earth...

I was trying to illustrate how I am able to establish communication with the Creator by admiring the Creation.

Maybe it's just my Old Testament roots talking here but I guess I don't really take the word "worship" with a grain of salt.

And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not percieve the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "brother let me remove the speck from your eye", when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye?-Yeshua ben Yoseph
 
Guyomech
#10 Posted : 5/8/2012 6:50:46 AM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator | Skills: Oil painting, Acrylic painting, Digital and multimedia art, Trip integration

Posts: 2277
Joined: 22-Dec-2011
Last visit: 25-Apr-2016
Location: Hyperspace Studios
Well, I don't mean that lightly. I live in the woods and walk with my daughter through the trails every day. My spirit shrivels without it.
 
Eliyahu
#11 Posted : 5/8/2012 5:48:28 PM
סנדלפון


Posts: 1322
Joined: 16-Apr-2012
Last visit: 05-Nov-2012
Location: מלכות
Yeah I am currently stuck in a very crappy urban atmosphere. I am currently shriveling as we speak....

I have the ultimate repect for Big Momma Earth, but I would consider it a living being with a spirit like myself.

So basicilly I know what your getting at..

WORSHIP DEFINITION:
"reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred. "

So yeah the earth is sacred and alive so I'll buy it, I just don't veiw the earth as a Deity at all.
And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not percieve the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "brother let me remove the speck from your eye", when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye?-Yeshua ben Yoseph
 
Guyomech
#12 Posted : 5/8/2012 10:51:11 PM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator | Skills: Oil painting, Acrylic painting, Digital and multimedia art, Trip integration

Posts: 2277
Joined: 22-Dec-2011
Last visit: 25-Apr-2016
Location: Hyperspace Studios
I would agree... Jewel of creation that it is, it's still a manifestation of something much larger.
 
dromedary
#13 Posted : 5/8/2012 11:25:04 PM

Camelus dromedarius


Posts: 89
Joined: 05-Dec-2011
Last visit: 06-Jan-2021
Location: Australia
Why do we have a sense of beauty? I don't think that it could be anything so pragmatic or forward-thinking as preservation of the environment. Why do people find skyscrapers beautiful? Why do people find Bach's fugues beautiful? Whatever essence of beauty you find in the fugue, tell me where that is in John Cage's Imaginary Landscape No. 4. What definition of beauty can capture Bach's order and Cage's chaos without capturing things that are not beautiful? There is even a kind of sullen but undeniable beauty in death and decay, so well captured by artists like Beksinski:



One of my favourite writings on beauty is by Oscar Wilde, who created beauty in the act of discussing it:

Quote:
The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the
artist is art's aim. The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a
new material his impression of beautiful things.

The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. Those
who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming.
This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For
these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only
beauty.

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or
badly written. That is all.

The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own
face in a glass.

The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing
his own face in a glass. The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter
of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an
imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true
can be proved. No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an
artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The
artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist
instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.
From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the
musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type. All
art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at
their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the
spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a
work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics
disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making
a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a
useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless.


I like Wilde's take on art because of the superb brutality of it: beauty is our prize for conquering necessity. The products of need are useful but they are not beautiful; those who find beauty in a useful thing are themselves useful but not beautiful. This is how the middle class looks upon the working class, and how the middle class is looked upon by the aristocracy. Beauty is the discriminating function of social darwinism, it is the way we express our survival instinct when merely staying alive is no longer an issue. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder then it is the perfect asset: it can never be taken, it can only be given.

The final irony of beauty is that it the self-referential property that a definition of beauty itself is only beautiful to the extent that it is not useful. A useful definition of beauty is never beautiful, and a beautiful definition of beauty is never useful. Self-reference precludes satisfying categorisation, and ensures the pursuit of beauty will continue as long as we don't have anything better to pursue.
 
thymamai
#14 Posted : 5/9/2012 4:24:47 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 711
Joined: 22-Jan-2012
Last visit: 10-Mar-2023
Beauty is.
 
arcanum
#15 Posted : 5/9/2012 7:30:53 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 454
Joined: 28-May-2011
Last visit: 08-Aug-2013
Location: always on the move
"So why do humans have an innate sense of beauty?"

"For wanting" and by extension as a motivator "to own", "to reproduce" ( biological or artistic).

Probably mediated in the brain via dopaminergic mechanisms. Depressives, burnt out crack and meth. addicts have their sense of beauty severely impaired.
 
Guyomech
#16 Posted : 5/10/2012 7:54:14 AM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator | Skills: Oil painting, Acrylic painting, Digital and multimedia art, Trip integration

Posts: 2277
Joined: 22-Dec-2011
Last visit: 25-Apr-2016
Location: Hyperspace Studios
Dromedary: all very interesting stuff. But I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Wilde. You cannot separate beauty from the everyday aspects of life. Plenty of useful things are beautiful- I think it's an odd statement to try asserting otherwise.

I agree that our sense of beauty is massively more deep, subtle, complex and nuanced than is strictly necessary for survival. That is the gift of the human brain- any useful function can be beautifully exaggerated.
 
Vodsel
#17 Posted : 5/10/2012 9:13:48 AM

DMT-Nexus member

Senior Member | Skills: Filmmaking and Storytelling, Video and Audio Technology, Teaching, Gardening, Languages (Proficient Spanish, Catalan and English, and some french, italian and russian), Seafood cuisine

Posts: 1711
Joined: 03-Oct-2011
Last visit: 20-Apr-2021
You made me think of Huxley's Heaven and Hell.

Aldous Huxley wrote:
Gems are very rare on earth. Few people possess them. To compensate themselves for these facts, the spokesmen for the poverty-stricken majority have filled their imaginary heavens with precious stones. This 'pie in the sky' hypothesis contains, no doubt, some element of truth; but it fails to explain why precious stones should have come to be regarded as precious in the first place.

Men have spent enormous amounts of time, energy, and money on the finding, mining, and cutting of coloured pebbles. Why? The utilitarian can offer no explanation for such fantastic behaviour. But as soon as we take into account the facts of visionary experience, ever/thing becomes clear. In vision, men perceive a profusion of what Ezekiel calls 'stones of fire', of what Weir Mitchell describes as 'transparent fruit'. These things are self-luminous, exhibit a praeter-natural brilliance of colour and possess a praeternatural significance. The material objects which most nearly resemble these sources of visionary illumination are gem-stones. To acquire such a stone is to acquire something whose preciousness is guaranteed by the fact that it exists in the Other World.
 
thymamai
#18 Posted : 5/16/2012 5:38:42 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 711
Joined: 22-Jan-2012
Last visit: 10-Mar-2023
I was more thinking of Huxley's Doors of Perception.
And more precisely the following passage:

Quote:
From the French window I walked out under a kind of pergola covered in part by a climbing rose
tree, in part by laths, one inch wide with half an inch of space be tween them. The sun was shining and
the shadows of the laths made a zebra-like pattern on the ground and across the seat and back of a
garden chair, which was standing at this end of the pergola. That chair -shall I ever forget it? Where the
shadows fell on the canvas upholstery, stripes of a deep but glowing indigo alternated with stripes of an
incandescence so intensely bright that it was hard to believe that they could be made of anything but
blue fire. For what seemed an immensely long time I gazed without knowing, even without wishing to
know, what it was that confronted me. At any other time I would have seen a chair barred with alternate
light and shade. Today the percept had swallowed up the concept. I was so completely absorbed in
looking, so thunderstruck by what I actually saw, that I could not be aware of anything else. Garden
furniture, laths, sunlight, shadow - these were no more than names and notions, mere verbalizations, for
utilitarian or scientific purposes, after the event. The event was this succession of azure furnace doors
separated by gulfs of unfathomable gentian. It was inexpressibly wonderful, wonderful to the point,
almost, of being terrifying. And suddenly I had an inkling of what it must feel like to be mad.
Schizophrenia has its heavens as well as its hells and purgatories. I remember what an old friend, dead
these many years, told me about his mad wife. One day in the early stages of the disease, when she still
had her lucid intervals he had gone to talk to her about their children. She listened for a time, then cut
him short. How could he bear to waste his time on a couple of absent children, when all that really
mattered, here and now, was the unspeakable beauty of the patterns he made, in this brown tweed
jacket, every time he moved his arms? Alas, this Paradise of cleansed perception, of pure one-sided
contemplation, was not to endure. The blissful intermissions became rarer, became briefer, until finally
there were no more of them; there was only horror.

Most takers of mescalin experience only the heavenly part of schizophrenia. The drug brings hell
and purgatory only to those who have had a recent case of jaundice, or who suffer from periodical
depressions or a chronic anxiety. If, like the other drugs of remotely comparable power, mescalin were
notoriously toxic, the taking of it would be enough, of itself, to cause anxiety. But the reasonably healthy
person knows in advance that, so far as he is concerned, mescalin is completely innocuous, that its
effects will pass off after eight or ten hours, leaving no hangover and consequently no craving for a
renewal of the dose. Fortified by this knowledge, he embarks upon the experiment without fear - in
other words, without any disposition to convert an unprecedentedly strange and other than human
experience into something appalling, something actually diabolical.

Confronted by a chair which looked like the Last Judgment - or, to be more accurate, by a Last
Judgment which, after a long time and with considerable difficulty, I recognized as a chair - I found
myself all at once on the brink of panic. This, I suddenly felt, was going too far. Too far, even though the
going was into intenser beauty, deeper significance. The fear, as I analyze it in retrospect, was of being
overwhelmed, of disintegrating under a pressure of reality greater than a mind, accustomed to living
most of the time in a cosy world of symbols, could possibly bear. The literature of religious experience
abounds in references to the pains and terrors overwhelming those who have come, too suddenly, face
to face with some manifestation of the Mysterium tremendum. In theological language, this fear is due to
the in- compatibility between man's egotism and the divine purity, between man's self-aggravated
separateness and the infinity of God. Following Boehme and William Law, we may say that, by
unregenerate souls, the divine Light at its full blaze can be apprehended only as a burning, purgatorial
fire. An almost identical doctrine is to be found in The Tibetan Book of the Dead, where the departed
soul is described as shrinking in agony from the Pure Light of the Void, and even from the lesser,
tempered Lights, in order to rush headlong into the comforting darkness of selfhood as a reborn human
being, or even as a beast, an unhappy ghost, a denizen of hell. Anything rather than the burning
brightness of unmitigated Reality - anything!

The schizophrenic is a soul not merely unregenerate, but desperately sick into the bargain. His
sickness consists in the inability to take refuge from inner and outer reality (as the sane person habitually
does) in the homemade universe of common sense - the strictly human world of useful notions, shared
symbols and socially acceptable conventions. The schizophrenic is like a man permanently under the
influence of mescalin, and therefore unable to shut off the experience of a reality which he is not holy
enough to live with, which he cannot explain away because it is the most stubborn of primary facts, and
which, because it never permits him to look at the world with merely human eyes, scares him into
interpreting its unremitting strangeness, its burning intensity of significance, as the manifestations of
human or even cosmic malevolence, calling for the most desperate countermeasures, from murderous
violence at one end of the scale to catatonia, or psychological suicide, at the other. And once embarked
upon the downward, the infernal road, one would never be able to stop. That, now, was only too
obvious.
"If you started in the wrong way," I said in answer to the investigator's questions, "everything that
happened would be a proof of the conspiracy against you. It would all be self-validating, You couldn't
draw a breath without knowing it was part of the plot." "So you think you know where madness lies?"
My answer was a convinced and heartfelt, "Yes."
 
Bill Cipher
#19 Posted : 5/16/2012 6:04:47 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 4591
Joined: 29-Jan-2009
Last visit: 24-Jan-2024
I don't have time to contribute my own $.02 at the moment, as I am mired in the world of usefulness and running out the door to a business appointment, but I just wanted to say that I love this place. You're a beautiful lot, youse nexians.
 
Deliria_Oilbird
#20 Posted : 5/17/2012 1:23:43 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 21
Joined: 13-May-2012
Last visit: 27-Jun-2012
you are beautiful, Art

I do think that being in a beautiful environment is beneficial for a person. I try to make my surroundings/self look as appealing as possible. It's true that flowers are universally appealing, never seen an ugly flower
 
12NEXT
 
Users browsing this forum
Guest (6)

DMT-Nexus theme created by The Traveler
This page was generated in 0.048 seconds.