Thank you, Lorraine. You make an excellent point. Including beauty in our self image not only creates beauty within us, but in our world through our perceptions.
On Jul 7, 2:18 pm, "Lorraine Belge" <[email protected]> wrote: > Molly, your messages are always an inspiration. Part rational, part > spiritual and part personal insights, what a combination for seeing the world > the way it "might" be, is or could be. thanks I always and I underline > that, read your contributions. They are always part of the positive way of > seeing the world. As a psychologist I call that reframing and try to > practice it when I read, see or hear or even think (not just even, because > that is where most of us spend our personal life). That is, reframing the > evil or what is not functional and hurts ourselves or our neighbors which is > my reframing definition of evil, into a positive spin so that we can grow > from it, contribute positively to the lives of others, our loved ones, and > most of all ourselves. If we don't become beautiful in our own eyes as you > suggest, we will not be seen or thought to be "beautiful" whatever that means > to others. Beauty to me is a positive no matter how you define it. Beauty > just is. Our perceptions play a major role, as does our childhood > experiences, genetic predispositions and our training. It is not necessary > to have beuaty, however, goodness willsuffice, goodness and love which to me > are the same things embode the ultimate way of transcending the evil, ugly or > impractical dysfunctional aspects of our lives. > > You presented an impressive review of the major viewpoints on beauty, but my > real intention in writing, since I do not write very much is not to have a > discourse so much, but is to thank you for allowing your mind to be a > resource, a source of beauty and goodness. A source of encouragement and > hope. thank you, Maria > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Molly Brogan<mailto:[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye"<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:14 AM > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Spend the Day in Beauty > > What is beauty? Is being beautiful like tasting good to Bob > (subjective) or being 150 lbs. (objective)? The saying “beauty is in > the eye of the beholder” suggests subjective. But other sayings > —“beauty is truth” or “beauty is eternal”—suggest there is some > objective quality to beauty. Advocates of the subjective view > emphasize how difficult it is to get people to agree on aesthetic > judgments. Advocates of the objective view make arguments like: “The > Grand Canyon would be beautiful regardless of whether anyone was there > to see it, so beauty is in the object.” > > Aristotle believed that there was no absolute beauty, but that it was > based on perception. As a general term, the Greeks perceived beauty as > interchangeable with excellence, perfection, and satisfaction. > Plotinus believed that beauty did not include symmetry. However, > "beauty is that which irradiates symmetry, rather than symmetry > itself." > > Plato introduced to the ideal of "Platonic love:" Plato saw love as > motivated by a longing for the highest form of beauty—The Beautiful > Itself, and love as the motivational power through which the highest > of achievements are possible. > > Kant argues that such aesthetic judgments are 'judgments of taste', > and insists that universality and necessity are in fact a product of > features of the human mind (Kant calls these features 'common sense'), > and that there is no objective property of a thing that makes it > beautiful. > > The Taoist sage also thinks it is human judgment that what happens is > beautiful or ugly, right or wrong, fortunate or not. The sage knows > all things are one (equal) and does not judge. Our lives are snarled > and jumbled so long as we make conventional discriminations, but when > we set them aside, we appear to others as extraordinary and enchanted. > > Benedetto Croce, originator of the modern “expressionist theory” of > aesthetic, maintains that the difference between the beautiful and the > ugly is that: “expression in the naturalistic sense simply lacks > expression in the spiritual sense, that is to say, the very character > of activity of the spirituality, and therefore the bipartition into > the poles of beauty and of ugliness.” He sees beauty as part of the > process of aesthetic expression that has four stages: impressions, > expression or spiritual aesthetic synthesis (intuition), pleasure of > the beautiful, translation of the aesthetic fact into physical > phenomena. The expressive process is exhausted when these four phases > have been passed through. > > What do YOU think? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
