Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Ansiktsburk »

https://youtu.be/9MTAhQIPMOU

https://youtu.be/1RNWjbRzieY

Take a moment to listen to my links above.

The first, all of you who remember the cold war will remember this. Some people will turn their noses up, but, having been a DJ back in the days, the dance floor was dullish, this was like pumping adrenaline into the crowd. And going back to the OP, a lot is there. The simplicity, the repetitivity. But without the little coloring of chords in the refrain, it would have been so much worse.

The second one, from my home country, has far more complexity. Still, the repetitions are there. But it evolves - do listen to all of it! - much like the Bolero of Ravel. The element of complexity is so important.

And isn’t that part of what have made us humans so succesful? Life aint always that simple. On the savannah, all kind of mean animals interact. You have to eat and avoid eating. And seeing the complexity in it, finding anomalies, making little stories, adding flavors would have been succesful strategies. Still, sun goes up and down, your preys follows habits. An anomaly in a face might indicate genes less favorable to produce succesful offspring. Simplicity and complexity, regularity, but preparedness for the unforseen. All in a mix.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Sculptor »

Ansiktsburk wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 10:53 am
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say.
It is not a natural construct but a social one.
Nature does not adjust itself to our point of view, we adjust ourselves to nature.

My thinking on this is that over the billions of years of evolution the feeling of joy has been a great advantage, initiating feelings of enthusiam, and positive attitude whilst suffering with hunger and the search for food and a mate that has driven evolution.

At this moment the sun has decided to break through the clouds. There are real physical changes in the body which have set me to feel a bit better with the urge to get out and walk the dog. I can say that the sky looks beautiful, eventhough I know that my pituitary is being stimulating me to action. Were I not in a comfortable house, I would be going out into the world with a positive attiude to seek sustainence. Humans are diurnal creatures so now would be the time to go forth.
Were I not to be responsive to this "beauty" I would not be such a successful organism.

Maybe 80 million years ago my ancestors we just acquiring this adaptation. Maybe the dinosaurs who thrived on the morning warm up like other reptiles already has the presursors of these feelings.

Does this amount to "Nature Favour Beauty"? I think not. It is more like the ability to conceive Beauty is an adaptive trait which enhances survival.

Thankfully I did not watch your video choices before I answered.
Vid 1. Katrina and the waves might have been Beautiful 30 years ago, but their style is out of date, and the song overplayed.
Vid 2. Whenever I hear this sort of music it makes me feel awful. I imaging all those monks whose life was taken by an oppressive regime and stuck in cloisters their whole life never being able to enjoy the feel and taste of a woman, good food or the orsdinary freedoms we so eaily take for granted.
So - no beauty there.
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Ansiktsburk »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:05 am
Ansiktsburk wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 10:53 am
:

Thankfully I did not watch your video choices before I answered.
Vid 1. Katrina and the waves might have been Beautiful 30 years ago, but their style is out of date, and the song overplayed.
Vid 2. Whenever I hear this sort of music it makes me feel awful. I imaging all those monks whose life was taken by an oppressive regime and stuck in cloisters their whole life never being able to enjoy the feel and taste of a woman, good food or the orsdinary freedoms we so eaily take for granted.
So - no beauty there.
Still works, still works even if street cred is even more important now than back in the days when Katrina received as much hate as happy, simple music always get. I’ve got millenials jumping to this as well.
To correct you on the second one, you are of course excused, my uncouth mother language is known to few outlanders, it has zero zip nada to do with religion. It’s romantism at is fullest, singing about the beauty and the force of the sea.

So yes, plenty beauty there but not so much streetcred. Streetcred is not beauty. Neither in Mayfair, nor on skid row or in the academies.
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Ansiktsburk »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:05 am
Ansiktsburk wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 10:53 am
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say.
It is not a natural construct but a social one.
Nature does not adjust itself to our point of view, we adjust ourselves to nature.

My thinking on this is that over the billions of years of evolution the feeling of joy has been a great advantage, initiating feelings of enthusiam, and positive attitude whilst suffering with hunger and the search for food and a mate that has driven evolution.

At this moment the sun has decided to break through the clouds. There are real physical changes in the body which have set me to feel a bit better with the urge to get out and walk the dog. I can say that the sky looks beautiful, eventhough I know that my pituitary is being stimulating me to action. Were I not in a comfortable house, I would be going out into the world with a positive attiude to seek sustainence. Humans are diurnal creatures so now would be the time to go forth.
Were I not to be responsive to this "beauty" I would not be such a successful organism.

Maybe 80 million years ago my ancestors we just acquiring this adaptation. Maybe the dinosaurs who thrived on the morning warm up like other reptiles already has the presursors of these feelings.

Does this amount to "Nature Favour Beauty"? I think not. It is more like the ability to conceive Beauty is an adaptive trait which enhances survival.
Nature do not favor beauty but we obviously do. If human minds are a part of “nature”, that can be discussed of course. If you morph a thousand faces the resulting picture is allegedly supposed to be perceived as beautiful. You can find symmetrys in the human face that is perceived as beautiful by humans all over the world(there are even manuals on reddit beauty rating pages, awful). That isnt to say that beauty is in nature more than it is favorable for us humans. Collectivly, if you like.

I think that OP is on the right track,not in the sense that repetition is “by nature beautiful”, but we have observed and liked. Still, it is a bit strange, the mathematicatility of music. Octaves, rythms…
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Ansiktsburk »

Further on, does things have to be nice to be beautiful? Watch the number of views on WWII on YT or anywhere. A battleship is a thing of beauty, and there is certainly beauty in catastrophies. Beautiful does certainly not correspond anywhere near perfectly to good. Monks in a monastery do certainly not sound like an altogether hoasome construction, but yes, a lot of beauty can be found in monasteries and monastery life.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Sculptor »

duplicate.
Last edited by Sculptor on Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Sculptor »

Ansiktsburk wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:35 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:05 am
Ansiktsburk wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 10:53 am
:

Thankfully I did not watch your video choices before I answered.
Vid 1. Katrina and the waves might have been Beautiful 30 years ago, but their style is out of date, and the song overplayed.
Vid 2. Whenever I hear this sort of music it makes me feel awful. I imaging all those monks whose life was taken by an oppressive regime and stuck in cloisters their whole life never being able to enjoy the feel and taste of a woman, good food or the orsdinary freedoms we so eaily take for granted.
So - no beauty there.
Still works, still works even if street cred is even more important now than back in the days when Katrina received as much hate as happy, simple music always get. I’ve got millenials jumping to this as well.
To correct you on the second one, you are of course excused, my uncouth mother language is known to few outlanders, it has zero zip nada to do with religion. It’s romantism at is fullest, singing about the beauty and the force of the sea.

So yes, plenty beauty there but not so much streetcred. Streetcred is not beauty. Neither in Mayfair, nor on skid row or in the academies.
No. Zero beauty. The langauge is not relevant. beauty is what we feel. Since the music "reminds" me (as I said) of singing monks then that the feeling I get comes from that.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as I said.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Sculptor »

Ansiktsburk wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:32 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:05 am
Ansiktsburk wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 10:53 am
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say.
It is not a natural construct but a social one.
Nature does not adjust itself to our point of view, we adjust ourselves to nature.

My thinking on this is that over the billions of years of evolution the feeling of joy has been a great advantage, initiating feelings of enthusiam, and positive attitude whilst suffering with hunger and the search for food and a mate that has driven evolution.

At this moment the sun has decided to break through the clouds. There are real physical changes in the body which have set me to feel a bit better with the urge to get out and walk the dog. I can say that the sky looks beautiful, eventhough I know that my pituitary is being stimulating me to action. Were I not in a comfortable house, I would be going out into the world with a positive attiude to seek sustainence. Humans are diurnal creatures so now would be the time to go forth.
Were I not to be responsive to this "beauty" I would not be such a successful organism.

Maybe 80 million years ago my ancestors we just acquiring this adaptation. Maybe the dinosaurs who thrived on the morning warm up like other reptiles already has the presursors of these feelings.

Does this amount to "Nature Favour Beauty"? I think not. It is more like the ability to conceive Beauty is an adaptive trait which enhances survival.
Nature do not favor beauty but we obviously do. If human minds are a part of “nature”, that can be discussed of course. If you morph a thousand faces the resulting picture is allegedly supposed to be perceived as beautiful. You can find symmetrys in the human face that is perceived as beautiful by humans all over the world(there are even manuals on reddit beauty rating pages, awful). That isnt to say that beauty is in nature more than it is favorable for us humans. Collectivly, if you like.

I think that OP is on the right track,not in the sense that repetition is “by nature beautiful”, but we have observed and liked. Still, it is a bit strange, the mathematicatility of music. Octaves, rythms…
Nicely subjective.
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Ansiktsburk »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:57 pm
Ansiktsburk wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:35 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:05 am
:

Thankfully I did not watch your video choices before I answered.
Vid 1. Katrina and the waves might have been Beautiful 30 years ago, but their style is out of date, and the song overplayed.
Vid 2. Whenever I hear this sort of music it makes me feel awful. I imaging all those monks whose life was taken by an oppressive regime and stuck in cloisters their whole life never being able to enjoy the feel and taste of a woman, good food or the orsdinary freedoms we so eaily take for granted.
So - no beauty there.
Still works, still works even if street cred is even more important now than back in the days when Katrina received as much hate as happy, simple music always get. I’ve got millenials jumping to this as well.
To correct you on the second one, you are of course excused, my uncouth mother language is known to few outlanders, it has zero zip nada to do with religion. It’s romantism at is fullest, singing about the beauty and the force of the sea.

So yes, plenty beauty there but not so much streetcred. Streetcred is not beauty. Neither in Mayfair, nor on skid row or in the academies.
No. Zero beauty. The langauge is not relevant. beauty is what we feel. Since the music "reminds" me (as I said) of singing monks then that the feeling I get comes from that.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as I said.
Granted. Whatever rocks your boat.

Funny, have seen that a lot communicating with anglophones, that choir music is amost seaminglessly connected with christianity. Guess we Scandinavians did away with God earlier than most. And our version of Henry VIII did a better job than Henry in obliterating monasterys.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by Sculptor »

Ansiktsburk wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:02 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:57 pm
Ansiktsburk wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:35 am
Still works, still works even if street cred is even more important now than back in the days when Katrina received as much hate as happy, simple music always get. I’ve got millenials jumping to this as well.
To correct you on the second one, you are of course excused, my uncouth mother language is known to few outlanders, it has zero zip nada to do with religion. It’s romantism at is fullest, singing about the beauty and the force of the sea.

So yes, plenty beauty there but not so much streetcred. Streetcred is not beauty. Neither in Mayfair, nor on skid row or in the academies.
No. Zero beauty. The langauge is not relevant. beauty is what we feel. Since the music "reminds" me (as I said) of singing monks then that the feeling I get comes from that.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as I said.
Granted. Whatever rocks your boat.

Funny, have seen that a lot communicating with anglophones, that choir music is amost seaminglessly connected with christianity. Guess we Scandinavians did away with God earlier than most. And our version of Henry VIII did a better job than Henry in obliterating monasterys.
In my experience Scandies are obsessed with Christianity.
In part, at least the British experience is that Christianity is associated with the power of the state, and refusing to go to church is an assertion of independance from the state's indoctrination.

There is a wonderful paradox in the anglophone world. In the USA where the church and state are disestablished, religion is seen as an expression of choice and christianity is so strong that it is political suicide for a presidential candidate to hint he might not be devout. IN disestablishing religion Americans have saddled themselves with it, and is effectively a theocracy.

Wheras in the UK, the church gers represention in the Lords (largely powerless), but politicians never talk about god and rarely make any reference to whether or not they believe in god. Tony Blair admitted he was embrassased to admit to his christianity. So in the UK where the church is established it has almost no power at all.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by popeye1945 »

-" First-time encounters with patterns are cognitions that create a perceivable reality.
- A cognition lodged into memory will subsequently cause recognitions in new experiences, and these recognitions may override cognitions of what's actually going on.
- Dependence on recognition can inhibit cognition.
- For instance, if one should see a never-before-seen phenomenon, one might not see what is actually there.

- Using a logical extrapolation to make an example ... rather than cognizing a previously unencountered form/consciousness entity, because of a biological affinity with particular patterns among many patterns in nature, one may instead recognize clouds in the sky, or recognize shifting patterns of mist in the dales amongst the hills, at dawn.
[/quote]

Hi Walker,

Gods and demonds arising from the frothy mists, clashing Titans who dance to waves curling twists, embrace in temporal changing myths, the dark ocean's gift. In deed, you have a poets soul.
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by trokanmariel »

Nature should favour beauty, as a scientific principle, but, the universe has historically consisted of the parody of what one might say anti-beauty governing reality. And a cynic would say that nihilism is the force which creates the balance.

My current predicament, is the sanity of the logistics of reset. Daylight's reset means airstriking, as a historical fact, so there obviously needs to be a change to the system.

Essentially, the predicament is people having no time to do something, conflated with the daylight system of infinity using the system

To which there now might be a solution: relative to the predicament, of the daylight system, there is the "force" of the left to right sequence.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

. wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:14 pm
In my experience Scandies are obsessed with Christianity.
Oh my, how very racist. Of course, there is one rule system for wokies and another for everyone else...
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by promethean75 »

Trok, just wear sunscreen and put some sunglasses on. The sun isn't going anywhere for hundreds of millions of years, so you're not gonna get rid of the daylight bro.

Also, consider moving to Alaska. They've got the shortest daytimes on erf.

Here man listen to this. It'll make you feel better.




I wuz kidding man! Take it easy! Sheesh.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Would nature favour beauty? If so, can we define it?

Post by popeye1945 »

There is the beautiful which is paramount to being, the further one gets away from the beautiful one enters the area of monstrosity to non-being. We find beauty in fine form and function, the two play off one another. A fine sample of the perfection of the species of organism bespeaks of health. Art, the beautiful, are celebrations of being, all being weather organism or object. Art speaks to the order of our own being, for humanity is not outside nature but speaks from within.
Post Reply