Beauty and Being in the Moment

[Takuin Minamoto]

Originally Posted by Freelancer

I'd say that sums it up.

Yes, and it prevents further questioning, as well.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Takuin Minamoto

Yes, and it prevents further questioning, as well.

On the other hand, it equates both awareness and beauty with emptiness. There is more to do to a statement (or lack thereof) than simply questioning it.

[Freelancer]

Originally Posted by Takuin Minamoto

Yes, and it prevents further questioning, as well.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

I am well aware of what 'to be in the moment' means, yet I am not sure whether I want to ever reach it. From what I know right now I realize that we can create both heaven and hell on earth for ourself, besides I am attached to my ego at this point. So answer me this although I can sense what you'll answer;
Why would I want to transcend?

The answer I predict would be;
Why would you not want to transcend?

In a well known tradition to answer questions with more questions.

Since I am in the process of answering my own question anyway;
Because I am scared shitless of the outcome...

Feel free to question me further...

[Takuin Minamoto]

So answer me this although I can sense what you'll answer;
Why would I want to transcend?

The answer I predict would be;
Why would you not want to transcend?

Almost, but not quite. My question is:

Is there anything to transcend? Why would someone think they need to go anywhere or be something else in order to meet the present?

My biggest failing was, I thought there was something to be free from. When I realized that the "I" that wanted to get away was the same thing as what I wanted to get away from, it all fell apart. Destroyed itself.

There is no other level other than where we are at any given moment.

[Freelancer]

Originally Posted by Takuin Minamoto

Almost, but not quite. My question is:

Is there anything to transcend? Why would someone think they need to go anywhere or be something else in order to meet the present?

My biggest failing was, I thought there was something to be free from. When I realized that the "I" that wanted to get away was the same thing as what I wanted to get away from, it all fell apart. Destroyed itself.

There is no other level other than where we are at any given moment.

I don't need to leave to meet the present, but constantly living in the present and eventually releasing the ego scares the me. Although you could say that ego is just a projection and nothing more than a illusion.

The real question is;
Why do I want to go this way and not follow the rest of the world?

As you said before its difficult to catch in words.

[DiscoDan]

Originally Posted by Takuin Minamoto

#1. What does it mean to be in the moment?

To rid yourself of all distractions of the past and future such that you are free to experience the beauty of everything that is also in this moment. Which, of course, then begs the question:

Originally Posted by Takuin Minamoto

#2. What is beauty to you?

Beauty is whatever you choose to describe as beautiful. In other words, beauty is an arbitrary choice subject to certain (fairly unrestrictive) assumptions. As a result, since beauty is an arbitrary choice, there can be no definition that captures the entirety of the concept it represents.

[Mark Lapierre]

I consider the two questions to be unrelated, though I can see how they have been linked, as so eloquently put by DiscoDan. Which means I must now say what I wanted to say, differently

To be in the moment means to be free of all worries of the past, present, and future.

Being free from the distractions of the past and future make it possible to fully enjoy the pleasures of the present, but it doesn't guarantee it. Suffering in the present also prevents enjoyment, and would make it difficult to appreciate beauty.

But to consider the question in the spirit it was asked; I believe the reason to be in the moment is to be free of the unnecessary distractions of the past and future. Once free of those distractions we can deal with the distractions of the present and, once they're dealt with, fully enjoy the present moment, and thus our entire life.

Beauty is a quality we perceive in something else, which invokes feelings of pleasure, meaning, satisfaction, admiration, or other positive emotions.

So as DiscoDan said, it's arbitrary. It's a quality we perceive, and so as we've discovered, it's difficult (perhaps impossible) to define and agree upon. To fully agree we would first have to agree on what we're seeing, and then agree on what we feel in response.

But it doesn't matter if we don't agree. In fact it's a good thing that we don't. If we did it would mean our perceptions are the same, and that would mean our personalities are the same.

I think that the reason some of us see beauty more clearly than others is because we already experience those positive feelings and are not relying on anything else to invoke them. I say us, but I shouldn't; I certainly don't exist in such a state most of the time. But having had many experiences of varied pleasurable states, and being aware of how I perceived the world while in that state, I feel confident in stating that beauty is entirely subjective and that it's our emotions which 'create' beauty. We see something, pleasurable feelings are invoked, and we judge that thing to be beautiful. Or, we feel happy, we see something, it doesn't change our emotional state, and we judge that thing to be beautiful.

[Michael Chui]

Hrm... my latest riff on beauty is that it's the "upper margin of expectation". Raph Koster defines Fun as the upper margin of skill, where you're just good enough that the activity isn't frustrating, but just challenging enough that the activity isn't boring. Having recently listened to Leonard Bernstein examine Beethoven's 6th in purely musical terms, I concluded that beauty was the upper margin of expectation, where it's in keeping with past tradition (the original motif) just enough that it's familiar, but novel and surprising enough that it's not dull or plain.

Thus, of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's the beholder who has traditions. A beautiful landscape to me would be wild and insane to someone who'd just come out of a lifetime in a closet. And it's the beholder who has a threshold of enduring novelty: how much change, transformation, can you put something through before it's no longer beautiful, but weird?

Idle thoughts.

[Mark Lapierre]

Michael, I'm having trouble associating the "upper margin of expectation" with beauty, as opposed to familiarity. Though familiarity does inspire pleasurable feelings. But still, the link is tenuous in my mind. If you feel like exploring those idle thoughts in greater depth I'd love to read it.

Someone just posted this quote on my blog. I think it's apt.

“In fact, everything we encounter in this world with our six senses is an inkblot test. You see what you are thinking and feeling, seldom what you are looking at.” Shiqin

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Michael, I'm having trouble associating the "upper margin of expectation" with beauty, as opposed to familiarity. Though familiarity does inspire pleasurable feelings.

Sure, sure, let's see what comes out of this.

I see two starting points for exploring the concept of beauty. The first is theoretical: the concept of pleasure. The second is observational: noting one example of something that I consider beautiful, then generalizing what I see across as diverse a field as possible, including others' perspectives.

So, let's start with theory.

What is pleasure? Clinically, it's an endorphin rush: some stimulus triggers a surge of endorphins which makes you feel good. (I'm very ignorant on the subject of biochemistry, so I'll undoubtedly make slip-ups.) This increase in endorphins is tempered by the presence of some other chemical, differentiated by stimulus and intensity... and the result is that there are myriad types of pleasure, such as (the list is from Raph Koster's Theory of Fun) schadenfreude, fiero, naches, kvell, grooming, and fun.

Oddly enough, in going back to that book, I've found an entire page on aesthetic appreciation. I will reproduce it in full at the bottom of this post.

In keeping with Cicero's assertion ("No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure."), we may presume that pleasure is a biological feedback mechanism of reward. Anything pleasurable is so because it triggers some evolutionary advantage, vestigial or not. We may consider beauty to be pleasurable, but it is tempered by some other set of reactions that makes it different from other pleasures. It is not a pleasing smell or taste; it is not a product of victory, like fiero, or sadism, like schadenfreude; it is not visceral, like orgasm or embrace.

Thus, we can understand what it is not, while remaining within the frame of what it is. In order to dig deeper, we need to bridge into the second starting point: observation.

What is beautiful? Common agreement suggests that works of art, whether by human being or nature, evokes visual beauty. It suggests that musical masterpieces, like Beethoven or Bach, is beautiful. It suggests that narrative can create imaginative beauty beyond the visual. And I can discern only one other category of beauty: that of people. But in a sense, human beauty seems to be a sum of the above three with the addition a sense of kinship. A sense of, "We have something in common, even if it is only our humanity."

But we run into a slight problem here. It is easy to agree that one person's notion that someone is beautiful will clash with another's idea that the same person is ugly. Less commonly, we find this disagreement in narrative beauty, even less often, in musical beauty, and rarely, but present, in visual beauty. Ask a hundred people about the beauty of a Picasso. (That it is fantastic art is another story.)

So what does this have to do with expectation?

Visual beauty is almost always presented in a single instant. Certainly, you may take years to inspect its details, but there is minimal anticipation from the first sight to full appreciation. You do not view a painting by inspecting a corner and then sweeping back and forth to the opposite; that's absurd. You take it all in at once!

Your reaction, on the other hand, comes in stages. There's the first impression, where you recognize the most obvious elements, then upon study, you see other recognizable elements, if they're there. And then (and this is seconds past the first impression), you notice what you didn't notice before and decide whether or not it's beautiful.

Musical beauty, on the other hand, takes time. You are presented, first, with an initial trigger, the opening bars. Classical music is the simplest to analyze, and I encourage you to view Leonard Bernstein's lecture (four parts, a-d). YouTube - Bernstein Beethoven pastoral symphony a. I will let his commentary stand in place of my own.

Narrative beauty, in the same sense, builds upon the various stories that we have heard again and again before. The rising action, the climax, the falling action. The Hero's Journey. The problem and its resolution. Boy meets girl. Saving the world. Etc. ad nauseum. By this, we would suggest that beauty comes from the slight twists. Perhaps the hero is a dark and self-centered man, an anti-hero. Maybe the world that needed to be saved, instead, needs to die. Are such stories beautiful? We'd have to read them to answer that question.

But we spoke of beauty as a moderation in expectation, falling between familiarity (blonde hair, blue eyes, expert swordfighter, wooer of ladies, blah, blah, blah) and consternation (the hero is a... monster out of a horror story who is going to save the world? wtf?).

And lastly, of course, we have people, but I've gone on and on so long that I think I should stop. Suffice to say that people are generally either everything we expect ("compatible", to pull a word from Van Wilder's nemesis, Richard) or completely shocking ("they use... lids from opened cans as... jewelry?"). The middle seems to be where we find beauty, where everything is anticipated, but then there's this extra that we didn't expect, but that we still like.

In any case, here's Raph's bit:

Originally Posted by Raph Koster, Theory of Fun, p94

Aesthetic appreciation is the most interesting form of enjoyment. Science fiction writers call it "sensawunda." It's awe, it's mystery, it's harmony. I call it delight. Aesthetic appreciation, like fun, is about patterns. The difference is that aesthetics is about recognizing patterns, not learning new ones.

Delight strikes when we recognize patterns but are surprised by them. It's the moment at the end of Planet of the Apes when we see the Statue of Liberty. It's the thrill at the end of the mystery novel when everything falls into place. It's looking at the Mona Lisa and seeing that smile hovering at the edge of known expressions and matching it to our own hypothesis of what she's thinking. It's seeing a beautiful landscape and thinking all is right in the world.

Why does a beautiful landscape make us feel that way? Because it meets our expectations and exceeds them. We find things beautiful when they are very close to our idealized image of what they should be but with an additional surprising wrinkle. A perfectly closed off plot, with just a couple of loose threads. A picture of a farmhouse, but the paint is peeling. Music that comes back to the tonic note and then drops a whole step further to end on an unresolved minor seventh. It sends us chasing off after new patterns.

Beauty is found in the tension between our expectation and the reality. It is only found in settings of extreme order. Nature is full of extremely ordered things. The flowerbed bursting its boundaries is expressing the order of growth, the order of how living things stretch beyond their boundaries,e ven as it is in tension with the order of the well-manicured walkway.

[mentalmosaic]

I love this thread!

#1 Being in the moment:

To me, this means "coming to your senses" - literally! Paying attention to everything that you personally experience: see, hear, touch, taste, smell... I like to take walks to reconnect with all my senses.

#2 What is Beauty

Hmmm... this one is harder for me to define. When I am happy and in the moment, nearly everything seems beautiful to me. I think people miss out on a lot of the beautiful things going on around them.

I think beauty is a choice we make - a way of perceiving the world.

I don't think I did a very good job describing how I feel about either of those, but it's a start... I need to think about it more, read more posts and try again!

Thanks for a thought-provoking thread!

Tui

[Mark Lapierre]

Michael:

So beauty, as found in the tension between expectation and reality (I love that phrasing), is a kind of beauty, a more appealing beauty, rather than a requirement for all kinds of beauty? For example, a woman who has all the attractive physical characteristics that I'd expect, plus a surprise (a quirky smile), would be more beautiful than one without that specific smile, but the latter would still be beautiful.

In the latter case, where my expectations are not exceeded, I think the main difference is a reduced degree of pleasure. My emotional response would be less, though it would still be strong enough for me to consider her beautiful. In order to get to the point where beauty would be lost, my expectations would have to go unmet, by either raising them (i.e., certain attributes become common and thus less appealing (everyone has blue eyes, but green is where it's at)), or by certain attributes no longer satisfying them (you know, I used to love dimples, but now...). But before that point, where my expectations are met perfectly, there seems to me still beauty to be found.

Though it could be that neither you nor Koster are saying that expectations must be exceeded, where expectation is linked to beauty, in order for something to be considered beautiful. Just that it makes the beauty more apparent. Am I even close?

[ken nubo]

<b>#1. What does it mean to be in the moment?</b>

It's just simply attention . Attention to your sense and thoughts.

[Angela]

#1 -- For me to be in the moment means that I am accepting and welcoming what is so, right now. I am not judging or arguing with reality. Another poster suggested "living like a dog" which I love; I feel my eyes widen and clarify, I am grateful, and I feel hungry for the aliveness that is already feeding me, right now.

#2 -- YOU are beautiful, Takuin Minamoto. And there is nothing that isn't you.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

So beauty, as found in the tension between expectation and reality (I love that phrasing), is a kind of beauty, a more appealing beauty, rather than a requirement for all kinds of beauty?

Hm, I didn't think of it in terms of degrees or requirements. I'm coming at this from the angle of, "That's beautiful, but why?" rather than "That's more beautiful than this, why?" A description of beauty, rather than a how-to guide to beautification. I'm not terribly convinced you can measure beauty, even when you can predict it.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

For example, a woman who has all the attractive physical characteristics that I'd expect, plus a surprise (a quirky smile), would be more beautiful than one without that specific smile, but the latter would still be beautiful.

Too isolating. Part of the problem of beauty is that it always seems to accompany a deep complexity that couldn't possibly be described in a few words.

One of my favorite lines of literature is from the Wheel of Time (and I suspect he stole it from somewhere else). The protagonist is being grilled on his affection for another woman, and he responds, "How do you compare two sunsets?"

I think that beauty is, or isn't. I don't think there are degrees.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

where my expectations are not exceeded, I think the main difference is a reduced degree of pleasure. My emotional response would be less, though it would still be strong enough for me to consider her beautiful.

Certainly. Emotions, and the chemicals underlying them, have long been deeply mysterious. My hypothesis is that the mixture of chemicals is what produces emotion, but the myriad ways, the incredible number of possible combinations, you can mix and match them are so diverse that the emotions are almost always different. Kind of like a chess game. Simple, rigid rules, and yet impossible to really predict where a game will go.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

In order to get to the point where beauty would be lost, my expectations would have to go unmet, by either raising them (i.e., certain attributes become common and thus less appealing (everyone has blue eyes, but green is where it's at))

Right. Blue eyes would be boring. What's so special about blue eyes? A person would be very unlikely to remark on the beauty of your eyes; instead, they might find you beautiful for a different reason.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

or by certain attributes no longer satisfying them (you know, I used to love dimples, but now...).

That seems to address something different. Since beauty is part and parcel an emotional response, any accompanying emotional response may change one's reaction to it. "He was such a beautiful guy... but now that he's dumped me..."

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Though it could be that neither you nor Koster are saying that expectations must be exceeded, where expectation is linked to beauty, in order for something to be considered beautiful. Just that it makes the beauty more apparent.

No. If expectations are not exceeded, I would say that it won't strike you as beautiful. (One of the greatest things about human beings is their constant change: thus, no matter how well you know a person, you can always been surprised just enough to trigger beauty.)

Without the extra twist, it's far more unlikely to register, because you already anticipate everything about it and nothing will trigger a change in perception. The low end of that is that you notice it. The high end of it is beauty.

So, let's take a spectrum. On one end, we write, "It meets every expectation." Here, it's unextraordinary. Boring. Invisible. On the other, we write, "It violates every expectation." Here, it's too weird. Uncanny Valley. Disturbing. Alien.

In the middle, we have two axes. One is horizontal (from "meets" to "violates"), and the other is vertical (reactions from "positive" to "negative"). Fix the zero point at the "meets" end of the horizontal axis, and at the center of the vertical axis. I would say that beauty is found in the region of 40-80% towards the "violates" end, and somewhere in the positive portion. This merits a diagram.



Heh. I'm actually rather unconvinced by my own ideas. I feel like something was missed. But I've spent more time than I expected to on this, so I wonder if you might spot it.

[George Eliot]

First I want to tackle the question, "What is beauty?" Or perhaps more fittingly, "What makes something beautiful?" I'll think about the other question regarding "being in the moment" at a later time.

It seems there is more than one type of beauty, two that I perceive in the world, although I'm sure they both spring from the same source (whatever that ultimate source may be).

1. Beauty that inspires awe in a human being. That is to say, the beauty people see in nature, or in anything that exists on a grand scale. This type of beauty is interesting because, unlike other forms of beauty, everyone usually agrees that what they are perceiving is beautiful (maybe there are examples that refute this claim, but for the sake of argument, I'm going to stick with this idea).

The vast expanse of the Grand Canyon, an ocean, a clear blue sky, mountains, etc. are all described as beautiful. But why? When I think of how the word "beauty" is used in day-to-day vernacular, its use doesn't quite fit with the beauty found and appreciated in nature.

This is because "awe-inspiring" beauty is just that: awe-inspiring. The size and grandeur is almost overwhelming to the senses. Nature is literally bigger than us, and perhaps part of what we perceive as beautiful is the reminder of how small we are (in a sense) and that we are truly part of something much bigger than the individual.

Natural beauty doesn't have to be on a large scale though. It's true we also see beauty in detail. For example, the more you pay attention to the life that surrounds you in a forest, the more you see and the more you appreciate. What was just a tree, upon closer examination, is actually an intricately woven piece of bark with thousands of leaves, all varying slightly in color - the leaves have designs on them and stems, there are insects crawling around, bacteria growing, atoms, electrons, neutrons, protons etc! Of course, you don't see the latter, but I think our minds find the details in nature just as tantalizing as the big picture. Maybe seeing nature as beautiful is an appreciation of creation itself.

Beauty is also a term ascribed to that which has been created by humanity. Spiritually, many people already believe we are all reflections of God, so to see beauty in what we create here on earth would merely be an extension of the appreciation for God's creations in nature. Skyscrapers, for example, inspire an awe in me that is akin to the feelings I experience when contemplating a mountain range or a lush forest.

What do people create that is considered beautiful? Music, art, dance, literature - all the biggies.

All these things are beautiful because they reflect the perfection of existence. That is not to say, everything is perfect, but the fact that everything exists, is alive and breathes, makes it so.

2. Imperfection is beauty. This is, now that I think of it, related to the above statement about beauty, but I think it deserves its own explanation.

Have you ever noticed that when something is too "perfect" it doesn't come across as very beautiful? When people on television whiten their teeth to the extreme, it often looks odd, and not very attractive. Their teeth are too white. In fact, someone with a more natural-looking smile comes across as more beautiful.

A wooden floor that is super glossy and perfectly installed doesn't strike me as beautiful - on the contrary, a more rustic wooden floor without so much finish seems a millions times more beautiful (maybe this is just my preference though )

The world has dirt, mud, kinks, and bumps - it is hardly smooth, but that doesn't make it less beautiful. That's what makes it so beautiful.

Imperfection also provides the opportunity for contrast and comparison. Oftentimes we only appreciate the good things in our life because of the bad things. They balance each other out and that's what makes life beautiful.

Sunny days and warm weather are more meaningful after the rain, and after the cold snowy days of winter.

As someone mentioned in another post, it is often the unexpected diversion from the norm or from the "smooth road of perfection" that makes something wonderfully beautiful, and literally, Divine. When something hits you right in the heart as fundamentally beautiful, you feel a primordial connection to a truth we all share. Maybe it is this brief understanding of a deeper, shared truth that we perceive as "beauty."

Would we even have amazing poetry or music or literature if the artist had not undergone some sort of dark emotion or ventured through the grimy side of life? Probably not. Good art - beautiful art - taps into the Truth.

It is a creation of the human soul, a reflection of life - and life is beautiful in all its misery, joy, hardship, and bliss.

[Mark Lapierre]

Since it is such a complex concept I suspect much of our apparent disagreement stems from discussing specific aspects of beauty, while the other is considering another aspect. Or looking at the whole picture while another points to one small section.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I'm not terribly convinced you can measure beauty, even when you can predict it.

...

I think that beauty is, or isn't. I don't think there are degrees.

Apparently we're not all that good at predicting what will make us happy. Perhaps predicting what we'd consider beautiful is difficult for the same reason, whatever that reason is. Something to consider at another time

But while beauty can't be quantified, we can and do make qualititive judgements on what is and isn't beautiful. We differ in opinion here; I think there are degrees of beauty. Though what I consider beauty includes the strength of emotion felt when admiring something beautiful. Could that be why you don't think there are degrees? The quality itself is distinct from the emotional response?

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

A person would be very unlikely to remark on the beauty of your eyes; instead, they might find you beautiful for a different reason.

But people have remarked on the beauty of my eyes. I've never thought of them as beautiful, but at least 3 others have. Different expectations, different perception of beauty. Interesting...

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

That seems to address something different. Since beauty is part and parcel an emotional response, any accompanying emotional response may change one's reaction to it. "He was such a beautiful guy... but now that he's dumped me..."

Yes, hence considering something beautiful when happy, but not so when not. But I was referring to different people, not the same person's dimples at different times. But I suspect that for that change in preference to happen, my emotional response to dimples would have changed. Which supports the idea that expectation isn't a necessary element of beauty.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

No. If expectations are not exceeded, I would say that it won't strike you as beautiful. (One of the greatest things about human beings is their constant change: thus, no matter how well you know a person, you can always been surprised just enough to trigger beauty.)

Without the extra twist, it's far more unlikely to register, because you already anticipate everything about it and nothing will trigger a change in perception. The low end of that is that you notice it. The high end of it is beauty.

I'm trying to think of times where I've considered something beautiful, and to think of what about it exceeded my expectations. I've seen a similar sunrise at NYE the past two years, from the same vantage point out in some nearby mountains. Much about the experience was different the second time, and I had clearer, and therefore more expectations, but I still considered it as beautiful as the first time. I don't agree with Robert Jordan (or whoever he stole it from), I can compare two sunsets, and in doing so neither loses anything, in my mind.

The only thing that I can think of about the second sunrise that wasn't anticipated, was that I still felt it was beautiful despite not lasting long because of some low clouds. However it was beautiful before the clouds cut it short. If the clouds hadn't been as thick (and they weren't so thick the previous year) it would have still been beautiful.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

So, let's take a spectrum. On one end, we write, "It meets every expectation." Here, it's unextraordinary. Boring. Invisible. On the other, we write, "It violates every expectation." Here, it's too weird. Uncanny Valley. Disturbing. Alien.

In the middle, we have two axes. One is horizontal (from "meets" to "violates"), and the other is vertical (reactions from "positive" to "negative"). Fix the zero point at the "meets" end of the horizontal axis, and at the center of the vertical axis. I would say that beauty is found in the region of 40-80% towards the "violates" end, and somewhere in the positive portion.

There are two things which immediately strike me as not fitting my understanding of what you've said so far.

1) Beauty falling within a region implies degrees of beauty. It can't be the same beauty if one object meets some expectations and another meets less. Or if one object causes a stronger reaction than another. Unless, as mentioned before, we separate beauty from the emotional response, though I don't think that's possible in reality even if it is on paper.

2) The horizontal axis seems reversed. Unless "violates" means "exceeds" (which "Here, it's too weird" says it doesn't). But in that case the circle for beauty would extend to infinity; if something continues to exceed my expectations (in a positive way) it will only seem more beautiful.

George: I'll take the perfectly laid, polished boards, thanks

I agree about the beauty to be found in imperfection. I think, at least where people are concerned, it's partly because some attempts at appearing beautiful are so obviously attempts to cover up perceived lack of beauty, and that poor self-image, regardless of physical qualities, is unattractive. Too much make up, a "fashionable" dress that doesn't suit a woman's body shape, an otherwise nice shirt/t-shirt that doesn't fit well, a popular hairstyle that doesn't suit the person sporting it.

[Takuin Minamoto]

Originally Posted by Angela

YOU are beautiful, Takuin Minamoto. And there is nothing that isn't you.

How nice - I have a fan!

Seriously, when I originally posted this thread, I didn't know it would go this far or be this interesting.

Thanks for all of the interesting posts. Keep them coming.

Takuin

[George Eliot]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

That seems to address something different. Since beauty is part and parcel an emotional response, any accompanying emotional response may change one's reaction to it. "He was such a beautiful guy... but now that he's dumped me..."

Hmmmm...this got me thinking. "Beauty" has many layers, doesn't it? It's true that our emotions and individual perceptions can influence (or even taint) what we see as beautiful. A mundane childhood lunch box may appear extremely beautiful to someone who has a positive association with it. It may remind them of their mom packing their lunch and leaving a nice note in the box everyday for them to read. Looking at the lunch box in this case would invoke good feelings in the heart of the beholder.

On the other hand, the person who wasn't as lucky, and always opened an empty box at lunch time, may see it as an ugly reminder of a time in his or her life in which he/she experienced lack.

Someone with no emotional connection to that particular lunch box would see it as neither beautiful nor ugly, but as a neutral object existing in the world external to him or her self.

The artist, however (an entirely different creature from all the rest ) may see the ugliness of the lunch box as intertwined with the ugly emotions of the perceiver, and create a beautiful piece of art exposing this very truth The "ugly" now appears beautiful because it is "ugly."

I'm not entirely sure whether or not absolute Beauty exists, but if it does, and people fail to recognize it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just may mean we aren't always capable of recognizing it, especially when our perceptions are clouded by earthly matters.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Apparently we're not all that good at predicting what will make us happy.

Yet.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Could that be why you don't think there are degrees? The quality itself is distinct from the emotional response?

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

1) Beauty falling within a region implies degrees of beauty. It can't be the same beauty if one object meets some expectations and another meets less. Or if one object causes a stronger reaction than another. Unless, as mentioned before, we separate beauty from the emotional response, though I don't think that's possible in reality even if it is on paper.

There are two types of statements:

"It (is/is not) beautiful." and "This is (more/less) beautiful than that."

My opinion is that the former is a sensical statement, whereas the latter is not. I cannot take two people, put them side by side, and say, "You're more beautiful." I can't compare two paintings like that, or any other artwork. Falling within a region doesn't imply degrees at all. (It doesn't say anything about degrees.)

Consider your classic Venn Diagram. Does the presence of regions imply degrees?

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

But I suspect that for that change in preference to happen, my emotional response to dimples would have changed. Which supports the idea that expectation isn't a necessary element of beauty.

As I said, that feels too isolating. It's as if you're going down a checklist and saying, "Got dimples? Check. Got blue eyes? Check. Got blonde hair? Check." And from that concluding, "Yep. Score is above 60. That's in the beautiful range." You've separated everything out such that you aren't expecting the holistic entirety anymore anyways. It's not the person that's beautiful; it's their dimples, or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I'm trying to think of times where I've considered something beautiful, and to think of what about it exceeded my expectations. I've seen a similar sunrise at NYE the past two years, from the same vantage point out in some nearby mountains. Much about the experience was different the second time, and I had clearer, and therefore more expectations, but I still considered it as beautiful as the first time.

Did you honestly have a picture of the sunrise in mind just before you saw it?

I walk the same route to campus just about every day of the week. I've had the vast majority of my classes in the same building for the past two years. And it's never dull or dreary, because I can see differences all the time. I might perceive them without committing them to memory, but the pattern changes. I recognize it, but I also see what I don't recognize.

And it's a beautiful campus.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I don't agree with Robert Jordan (or whoever he stole it from), I can compare two sunsets, and in doing so neither loses anything, in my mind.

Hrm, but that's not how he meant it, as I thought I'd conveyed. Like the sunrises, both women were very beautiful. Different, true, and beautiful for different reasons, but that did not diminish either for it. By responding with the question, "How do you compare two sunrises?", he was saying that a sunrise is as beautiful as another sunrise. They aren't the same, but that takes nothing away from either.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

2) The horizontal axis seems reversed. Unless "violates" means "exceeds" (which "Here, it's too weird" says it doesn't). But in that case the circle for beauty would extend to infinity; if something continues to exceed my expectations (in a positive way) it will only seem more beautiful.

Hrm, you're right. I think I carried Aristotle a mile too far on my back. I was so busy thinking about moderation as virtue (and thus extremes as vices) that I didn't realize what I'd done.

The idea of infinite beauty is a fascinating concept; I have no idea. If your idea of degrees of beauty is right, I'd imagine that "absolute beauty" is a threshold point after which everyone agrees on its beauty.

Let me present a new idea that others (incl. myself) have hinted at, but haven't actually said:

Does beauty depend on narrative?

[MilesTyler]

Originally Posted by Takuin Minamoto

#1. What does it mean to be in the moment?

and

#2. What is beauty to you?

#1 Being in the moment is the act of being fully aware and conscious of what you are experiencing in the present. This involves paying attention to and appreciating the finer details.
For me, this effect is extremely pronounced during conscious astral projection but I also experience it during different brief moments throughout the day.

#2 Beauty is a potential that is inherent within every finite particle in the universe.
In other words, there is a spark of beauty that can be recognized in all things.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Falling within a region doesn't imply degrees at all. (It doesn't say anything about degrees.)

Consider your classic Venn Diagram. Does the presence of regions imply degrees?

Not in a Venn diagram, no, but a Venn diagram doesn't have axes which imply scale.

But that's ok, I misinterpreted.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I cannot take two people, put them side by side, and say, "You're more beautiful." I can't compare two paintings like that, or any other artwork.

...

As I said, that feels too isolating. It's as if you're going down a checklist and saying, "Got dimples? Check. Got blue eyes? Check. Got blonde hair? Check." And from that concluding, "Yep. Score is above 60. That's in the beautiful range." You've separated everything out such that you aren't expecting the holistic entirety anymore anyways. It's not the person that's beautiful; it's their dimples, or lack thereof.

But I still do perceive the holistic beauty. Or more accurately, I feel it. And the conscious process is the opposite of what you've stated. Awareness of the feeling comes first, and then if I want to, an analysis of what causes the feeling can take place. So it's a matter of feeling that something is beautiful, and then trying to determine why. What makes it so?

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Did you honestly have a picture of the sunrise in mind just before you saw it?

No, but I did know what it would look like. Not an exact picture, but still an expectation.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Hrm, but that's not how he meant it, as I thought I'd conveyed. Like the sunrises, both women were very beautiful. Different, true, and beautiful for different reasons, but that did not diminish either for it. By responding with the question, "How do you compare two sunrises?", he was saying that a sunrise is as beautiful as another sunrise. They aren't the same, but that takes nothing away from either.

Sorry, I guess I was being a little pedantic

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Does beauty depend on narrative?

My immediate answer is no, but I'm not sure why, or that I even understand what you mean by narrative. Do we tell ourselves a story (including a story told purely in emotions) when we perceive something beautiful? Or do we perceive something as beautiful because something similar has featured prominently and positively in stories we've heard again and again?

In the latter case it definitely plays a very strong part. If someone tells an emotional tale of the beautiful lakeside cabin they stayed at during summer, nestled at the base of snow-capped mountains, then we're likely to find a similar location quite beautiful. But would we find it beautiful if no-one had ever said it is beautiful? I honestly don't know.

I'll stop there because I don't know if I'm going anywhere near where you were headed

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Not in a Venn diagram, no, but a Venn diagram doesn't have axes which imply scale.

But that's ok, I misinterpreted.

Yeah, I realized that. I've seen plenty of diagrams that use that technique, so I'm used to it.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Awareness of the feeling comes first, and then if I want to, an analysis of what causes the feeling can take place. So it's a matter of feeling that something is beautiful, and then trying to determine why. What makes it so?

Right. But can such an analysis succeed in identifying exact distinction, if there is an exact distinction? Maybe. I'm not sure it can't, either.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

My immediate answer is no, but I'm not sure why, or that I even understand what you mean by narrative.

Well, by narrative... oh dear, what a hole I've dug myself. How do I describe narrative in the way I mean? It's a story, sure, but it's kind of an... awareness of facts. An awareness of context. An awareness of the timeline that led up to the present state.

So, I guess what I mean is... does beauty depend on how it came to be that you, the beholder, came into contact with whatever it is we are pondering the beauty of?

[Mark Lapierre]

Hmmm... How could someone be aware of something they're pondering the beauty of without being aware of the current context? I'm not sure if narrative is necessary, but by that description it's inextricable.

What if someone suddenly woke in a hospital bed with no memory of how they got there, or of anything at all before that moment. Could they look through their window and see the scene outside as beautiful? Again, I honestly have no idea. Though I would guess they'd be too distracted by thoughts of how they got there to notice anything beautiful...

If narrative is the beholder's pathway to the present moment, including everything that influenced the beholder while on that path, I think beauty does depend on narrative, though not on conscious awareness of that narrative. Our reactions to what we perceive are shaped by things that we've perceived before, and by our previous reactions to them. Though if that's true it begs the question, how do we first perceive something as beautiful? Is there a point where the current context doesn't include any prior concept of beauty? If that's not the case, then we're born with an ability to perceive beauty.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Though if that's true it begs the question, how do we first perceive something as beautiful? Is there a point where the current context doesn't include any prior concept of beauty? If that's not the case, then we're born with an ability to perceive beauty.

Hm. You seem to have sidestepped my perpsective, though whether that's a bad thing is questionable.

My idea was that beauty itself is a product of that narrative. The context comes first, and then the conclusion is that it is beautiful. It would be an interesting experiment to find a thousand parents with newborns and ask them to record when, where, and how their child first speaks of beauty. Of course, that would presume that the parents had shared that concept with their child in the first place... hm. Feels very dead-endish to me.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

What if someone suddenly woke in a hospital bed with no memory of how they got there, or of anything at all before that moment. Could they look through their window and see the scene outside as beautiful? Again, I honestly have no idea. Though I would guess they'd be too distracted by thoughts of how they got there to notice anything beautiful...

I think it's certainly possible, even plausible. Perhaps, as you have suggested before, there are different degrees--I wanted to call them levels--of beauty.

A sudden experience, like a single note, an utterance, a scene, might be the first level, might be beautiful. But why? And diving deeper into contexts, knowing the region, the reason, the history, perhaps those are higher levels of beauty.

Why that first level... perhaps the sheer surprise of seeing it. Of an experience that fits, but that they didn't expect to be there.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I think beauty does depend on narrative, though not on conscious awareness of that narrative.

So, I think you're right, though perhaps a conscious awareness of it brings out deeper sense of beauty? Or would it no longer be considered beauty, but something else?

[Mark Lapierre]

This reminds me of your essay on love, that love is a function of sapience, that love is undetectable, and that love's manifestations differ because of context. Could it be that love and beauty are different interpretations of the same thing? Or could love be what beauty becomes once our conscious awareness deepens the experience of beauty?

What prompted this train of thought was your idea of different levels of beauty being the result of delving deeper into context and increasing conscious awareness, i.e., greater understanding. Perhaps it is that beauty itself doesn't exist in degrees or levels, but our appreciation and experience of it does. As our understanding increases, of the context within which we and the beautiful thing exist, so does our feeling of its beauty.

So why that first level? What allows us to begin that process of delving deeper and appreciating more? I suspect it's simply the emotional response. Unless I'm hugely mistaken, there's no doubt that we're born capable of experiencing emotions. We can't understand or interpret them, but we still feel them (and apparently remember them at some deep level). So when we first encounter something that fits, but is surprising in a positive way, or something expected, but with an aspect that exceeds our expectation, we respond to it with glee. At that point we probably don't know any words, let alone "beautiful". Eventually we learn to make the association. Similarly with love.

And then not long after we hit puberty we start combining the two. "I love you, you're so beautiful!" And things really start to get confusing

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Could it be that love and beauty are different interpretations of the same thing? Or could love be what beauty becomes once our conscious awareness deepens the experience of beauty?

Hm. I might think that love is a possible (the only?) deepening agent. Remember that I conceive of love as a process, not an emotional response. As an emotional response, I allow that love is the same word used, and in that case, I might consider beauty to be occasionally synonymous with love... but not always. But I'm not sure why.

I've lately begun to wonder why I separate discrimination from compassion and I've realized that it was wrong of me to do so. I would consider love now to be when there is more compassion than discrimination. But I'm off-topic now and I'll have to revise my definition sometime.

It's interesting to note that various aspects pertaining to love have often been described as beautiful, from the object to the process to the emotions.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Perhaps it is that beauty itself doesn't exist in degrees or levels, but our appreciation and experience of it does. As our understanding increases, of the context within which we and the beautiful thing exist, so does our feeling of its beauty.

Hrm. Yet this notion disagrees with the idea that beauty is the emotional response itself. If beauty simply is, and our emotional response changes such that we gain a deeper appreciation of it, then beauty is not the emotional response; it's something which our emotions respond to.

And I think that applies a layer of false abstraction. Though, maybe that's not what you're saying. I'm not sure now. (This is why it's taken me so long to respond. It's hard to really grasp what you've said.)

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Unless I'm hugely mistaken, there's no doubt that we're born capable of experiencing emotions. We can't understand or interpret them, but we still feel them (and apparently remember them at some deep level).

True, but I wonder... is emotion the chemical response, or is it the interpretation of it? Can happiness be mistaken for sorrow? Or anger for indifference? It seems so; the phrases "tears of joy" and "passive-aggressive" come to mind. But then again, perhaps it's more accurate to say that there are simply no words for the emotions described by those phrases.

I don't know. This might be excessively abstract as well.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

And then not long after we hit puberty we start combining the two. "I love you, you're so beautiful!" And things really start to get confusing

The reason beauty and love are easily intermingled is because of the creative nature of human beings. Learning is recursive. The reason a relationship of friends is stable is because there are frequent discoveries about each other, but nothing so excessive that expectations are smashed. (There are billions of stories of discovery of WTF moments. Had this discovery occurred more gently, over the course of perhaps a year, the relationship is generally more likely to stick. Because it would slowly enter the field of expectation.) Back to moderation, I guess.

I'm off-topic again. But I have long argued that you can love, for example, a painting or a piece of music. It's much simpler to find them beautiful. It would make sense... yes, it would make sense.

*ponders*

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Hrm. Yet this notion disagrees with the idea that beauty is the emotional response itself. If beauty simply is, and our emotional response changes such that we gain a deeper appreciation of it, then beauty is not the emotional response; it's something which our emotions respond to.

And I think that applies a layer of false abstraction. Though, maybe that's not what you're saying. I'm not sure now. (This is why it's taken me so long to respond. It's hard to really grasp what you've said.)

Don't worry you're not alone in failing to grasp something I'm trying to get across. It happens fairly often. I'm working on it

There is a layer of abstraction there, but I don't think it's false; in my mind beauty is an abstract concept of which the emotional response is one part. The other part is our perception of the object we label as beautiful. The reason I think the emotional response is part of the concept of beauty, is that without that emotional response something wouldn't be considered beautiful.

Consider someone who has an aversion to everything green; they feel sick whenever they see a tennis ball because it's green. But if they saw a tennis ball in very low light, it would just be grey, so they wouldn't be nauseated. The tennis ball itself does have a property which makes it nauseating for one person, but not for anyone else, and when that person's perceptions are altered (the ball looks grey), it is no longer nauseating for them. So what real link is there between the colour green, and being nauseated?

To isolating?

When I said what you quoted I was trying to reconcile our different views of beauty. I tried to consider beauty as something that just is, but also incorporate my own experiences of beauty.

But the more I consider it the more it seems I can't reconcile beauty as distinct from perceptions and feelings, with my own understanding of what beauty is.

I think part of the problem lies in the language that we use. We generally say something is beautiful, not that it looks beautiful. We imply that beauty is inherent, yet as you've said, we don't/can't define exactly what it is that makes something beautiful. Could it be partly romanticisation? Saying something is beautiful is much more of a compliment than saying it merely looks beautiful. In the latter case it's an opinion, in the former it's an observation of fact. "I think you're beautiful" as opposed to "you are beautiful and everything should think so!"

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

True, but I wonder... is emotion the chemical response, or is it the interpretation of it? Can happiness be mistaken for sorrow? Or anger for indifference? It seems so; the phrases "tears of joy" and "passive-aggressive" come to mind. But then again, perhaps it's more accurate to say that there are simply no words for the emotions described by those phrases.

I don't know. This might be excessively abstract as well.

I think it's relevant. Perhaps it's the reason there are so many differing opinions of what beauty is, and of what is beautiful. Not only do we experience different chemical responses, but our interpretation of those responses is also different. And as this thread shows, our interpretation of our interpretations also differs

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I'm off-topic again. But I have long argued that you can love, for example, a painting or a piece of music. It's much simpler to find them beautiful. It would make sense... yes, it would make sense.

We feel an emotional response to our perception of something, and in this case since it's similar to the emotional aspect of love, we call it love instead of beauty?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

To isolating?

No, bad example.

You've shown that there is a connection between the color green and nausea.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

But the more I consider it the more it seems I can't reconcile beauty as distinct from perceptions and feelings, with my own understanding of what beauty is.

Hm. Well, at this point, I need to know more about neuroscience and biochemistry than I have at my fingertips. Perception, as I understand it, is the transmission of sensation to the brain, at which point the sensation is either accepted or discarded. In the former case, we call it perception; in the latter case, we don't really have a term, but we have an example in change blindness.

What I don't know is how, at this point, chemicals are manipulated to form an emotional response. I don't even know if there is such a connection, though I expect there is one.

I wonder. I would also hypothesize that cognition produces chemical response as well. In which case, the question arises... maybe beauty is only felt as an emotional response to perception, but not cognition? My immediate reaction is that that's ridiculous. I don't know. I don't even know if the distinction is meaningful; the terms aren't from a medical book, after all.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Saying something is beautiful is much more of a compliment than saying it merely looks beautiful. In the latter case it's an opinion, in the former it's an observation of fact. "I think you're beautiful" as opposed to "you are beautiful and everything should think so!"

Well, that's no different from saying, "The apple is red." The apple is not red. The actual truth is that the hue on the apple skin is perceived as red. As you showed with your earlier example, a change in lighting conditions can change that hue.

Though, you do have a point that we assume it's an inherent fact, when it is not. But haven't we agreed that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? That it's always a subjective opinion? (Fact to me; opinion to you.)

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Not only do we experience different chemical responses, but our interpretation of those responses is also different.

*muses* To me, that suggests that beauty isn't even definable. Because we would no longer be defining the emotional response, but rather the interpretation of that response, and... we can't. Just as we've never really been able to pin down any of the other emotions. That's a bit of a let down.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

We feel an emotional response to our perception of something, and in this case since it's similar to the emotional aspect of love, we call it love instead of beauty?

But we don't. As you said, "I love you; you're beautiful."

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

You've shown that there is a connection between the color green and nausea.

Yes, as strong a connection as there is between dimples and beauty

(I also spelt 'too' wrong. How the?!)

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Though, you do have a point that we assume it's an inherent fact, when it is not. But haven't we agreed that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? That it's always a subjective opinion? (Fact to me; opinion to you.)

Did we? I thought your opinion was that beauty just is, that it exists separate from the observer. I must have got lost along the way somewhere.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

*muses* To me, that suggests that beauty isn't even definable. Because we would no longer be defining the emotional response, but rather the interpretation of that response, and... we can't. Just as we've never really been able to pin down any of the other emotions. That's a bit of a let down.

Yup. Except that I still consider it possible to define the aspects of something which lead to a perception of beauty. I remember a study which determined that symmetrical faces are considered more beautiful than those which aren't symmetrical. But as with the tennis ball example, it's not that those aspects in themselves are beautiful, but our emotional response to their perception which makes it so.

Maybe we can't define beauty itself, but perhaps one could define what one considers beautiful.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

But we don't. As you said, "I love you; you're beautiful."

In the case of another person, perhaps. But we mix it up with objects, music, scenery. I rarely say that I love snow capped mountains. But I guess it's true.