The perception of beauty in the body is the result of the evolutionary
need to detect people  with sucessful traits to meet or mate them.

Male face masculine traits, designed for avoiding strokes of other men.

http://ilevolucionista.blogspot.com.es/2008/06/evolutionary-design-of-human-face.html

The dimorphism in men and women are adaptive: Fro example, the high
eyebrow of the women help them to monitor the surrounding when they
are recolecting vegetables. The prominet and bigger eyebrow permits
more peripherical vision. They protective traits are much less
prominent.  In contrast the low eyebrows of men protect better the
eyes against strokes (see the post)

2012/10/10 Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net>:
> Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>
> Well, one could refer that definition of beauty back to the One,
> maybe that's what plotinus does. Instead of the many coming out of the
> one, the one comprises the many.  A work of art is a whole of parts, compete.
>
> But practically speaking....
>
> When I see a beautiful painting it seems to be well-made,
> well crafted, just right". Homer was good at that. Also,
> it's complete, nothing need be added.
>
> Similarly with music, there is a "whole" that seems complete when the music 
> is done.
> Composers used to slam this in your ear with a series of parting phrases.
>
> Movies also seem to tie up the whole by zooming out to give a more panaramic 
> view at the end.
>
> Novelists seem to know when they've completed things and begin
> a sense for the ending.
>
> In my limited experience at writing poetry I have learned to end the poem
> with a sense of wholeness by either freferring back to the beginning or
> zooming out as in the movies.  In the fdollowi9ngf poem of mine, I refer
> back to the beginning of the poem, and that wraps it up, saying it's 
> ciomplete.
>
>
>  Salzburg
>
> A vase of flowers on a table
> Is touched by a spring breeze
> As she opens the door and leaves for school,
> Just as she opened the grand piano
> Before playing a Mozart sonata
> To see the steel strings
> Strong and tight, not like her soft hands
> As gentle as can be on the keyboard.
> The hammered steel and the warm wood
> inside filling the room with music,
> and Mozart within the music and
> the music within her being.
>
> But with the last note it is quiet.
>
> I reach over and straighten an imprecision
> of the flowers.
>
> - Roger Clough
>
> If you wish to unsubscribe from these occasional postings, simply reply with 
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
>
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 10/10/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-10-09, 10:24:27
> Subject: Re: On Beauty
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>
> Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>
> The definition of beauty that I like is that
> beauty is unity in diversity.
>
>
>
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> As I mentioned, I think its very hard/perhaps impossible to tie down like 
> that, even though I think I can grasp what you mean. For instance, concerning 
> the definition you mentioned: is that diversity harmoniously completing 
> itself, starkly contrasting itself, even in conflict with itself to appear 
> unified on some other level? Picking up the last: you can have a narrative 
> pitting protagonists against each other say in a film with heavy conflict. 
> And their conflict produces a more convincing unified whole that is 
> beautiful. Then take the wholeness of humans or machines on this planet and 
> look at the conflict of war.
>
> Placing now aside, that people "die physically" in wars and not in fiction 
> (there are many stuntmen that have died...) and pretending all were fiction 
> to exercise more aesthetic, instead of moral, judgement: in both cases you 
> have diversity as conflict and a wholeness (protagonists/whole film against 
> vivid description of humanity in war). Still, Its really difficult to answer 
> whether one is more beautiful than the other in some absolute sense, or to 
> pin down properties or hierarchies that would make this so. But show a person 
> both films you've made, and they will prefer one over the other. In other 
> words, we know it when we meet it, or we see it in past or future through 
> introspection. So employing fuzzy metaphors instead of defining it: it is a 
> wild animal hard to catch, but universally present and always easily 
> accessible.
>
> m?
>
> ?
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 10/9/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-10-08, 11:58:53
> Subject: Re: On Zuckerman's paper
>
>
> Hi Stephen, Bruno, and Jason,
>
> Do I understand correctly that comp requires a relative measure on the set of 
> all partial computable functions and that for Steven "Both abstractions, such 
> as numbers and their truths, and physical worlds must emerge together from a 
> primitive ground which is neutral in that it has no innate properties at all 
> other that necessary possibility. It merely exists."
>
> If so, naively I ask then: Why is beauty, in the imho non-chimeric sense 
> posed by Plotinus in Ennead I.6 "On Beauty", not a candidate for 
> approximating that set, or for describing that "which has no innate 
> properties"?
>
> Here the translation from Steven MacKenna:
>
> http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/beauty.htm
>
> Because, what drew me to Zuckerman was just a chance find on youtube... and 
> seeing "Infinite descending chains, decorations, self-reference etc." all 
> tied together in a set theory context, I didn't think "Wow, that's true" but 
> simply "hmm, that's nice, maybe they'll elaborate a more precise frame." I 
> know, people want to keep separate art and science. But I am agnostic on this 
> as composing and playing music just bled into engineering and mathematical 
> problems and solutions, as well as programming and the computer on their own. 
> I apologize in advance, if this is off-topic as I find the discussion here 
> fascinating and hate interrupting it.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to