Beauty, Art and Appearance

Lyssa wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Since order is what the living organism tends towards, it finds all order attractive ...symmetry or power, or beauty are different words describing this order. That which is inferior in order/symmetry, is naturally attracted to that which is above it.
It seeks there a source for its own completion.
Beauty is symmetry/order in the material context.
Intelligence is order/symmetry in the psychological/mental context.[Encapsulation 10]

Where does the resentment of not being high-order overtake the attraction to the high order?
When does life choose to turn away from order and seek the opposite?

Quote :

Where does the resentment of not being high-order overtake the attraction to the high order?

Nowhere.
Nihilism simply tries to bring down what is high, to a level it can attain - secretly unable to be repulsed by what it finds inspiring.
Resentment can express itself as self-agradizement, and exaggerated self-love - raising itself to that which it can never become.

Quote :

When does life choose to turn away from order and seek the opposite?

It never does.
Even when it turns to chaos it does so to punish itself for not being perfect, or appreciated as such, validating its overestimation of itself.

The body is always attracted to what is most like itself or a superior version of itself.
The mind may turn away, creating a mind/body splintering - schizophrenia - craving for an idealized antithesis to the body's hunger.
Resentment is of the mind - resenting the body it is part of, and serves. A resentment of itself.

So when they say "opposites attract" they mean the mind is attracted to what is least like itself, exposing a disappointment with its physicality - corporeality - and the inherited limitations and implications of its organic form. The mind dreaming of escaping the body.

The ideal can never defeat the real - it can only deny, negate and try to forget.

You are literally describing homosexuality, homo as in "equal".

So you may want to rethink this. Nature isnt homosexual as a rule, procreation does not work through attraction to the same.

A bee is not attracted to a flower because it is the same.

No, simpleton ...the elements....not the entire being.
The patterns that are interpreted as eidos, kinds....
Life is attracted to what is part of itself, as a kind of element, matter, energy...pattern.
We crve chicken because chicken is made of some of the same elements, energies, we are made of.

Ironic that the Kabbalah promoted a hermaphrodite deity.

Listen, if you are going to lie, and say you never visited, when you have for years or that you cannot mock me because i don't say anything worth mocking, then do not contradict yourself the next minute.
You are exposing your distress.

I know you know you are a hypocrite and a liar...many of your ex-followrs know it....and in time everyone eventually realizes what underlies your VO.
I hope you remain hopeful, though...you need this.....
It's why you are repeating it on-line to nobodies....hoping to test its power....and it is impotent.
Words salads, referring to iconic figure to create impressions ...
you are a charlatan....a snakeoil salesman.
Fools will buy...but for how long?

Here, let me give you something small to help you "mock" me.
No intent required.

How do the particles, elements, hold together in a stone....or how does life begin?

Interactivity - meaning attraction/repulsion.
No will, no intent, so far.
How?
All is energy - dynamic Interactive ....I can get into what that means but why bother when you are here to sell a product?

What is more in harmony is that which is closes in vibration/oscillation - minimal friction, minimal repulsion versus attraction...ergo.
Could be that two patterns - vibrations/oscillations, i.e., energies - may have a higher repulsion to each other which may be balanced by a third pattern, creating the beginning of a particle.
So all, including life and non-live is energy, and energy is vibration/oscillation, and this implies diemsions...so a pattered vibration oscillates across dimensions at a particular rhythms/rate/sequence, which identifies it as different form another.
Oscillation/Vibration implies interactivity - the possibility of interactivity within each dimension.

These different patterns are perceived and interpreted by life as kinds of "mater/energy".

Now have at it...Messiah of mediocrity.

So, the different patterns - energies - participating in relative harmony within an organism are attracted to energies in nature in order to replenish what is being lost due to attrition - constant interactivity.
This is basic.


Now the order the mind is attracted to is slightly different because the mind deals with abstractions - ideas/ideals.
Where the body is attracted to more harmonious combinations of patterns - symmetrical proportional - the mind is attracted to more sophisticated forms of abstract symmetry/proportionality - and this is where art and language can exploit this and offer it nonsensical abstractions - like those you pedal - which remain useless outside human intercourse - psychology - because liberated from remaining disciplined by reality - world - the creative mind can fabricate more perfect symmetries/proportionalities which, though entirely impotent, are potent within the minds that share them.

Satyr wrote:

That which is inferior in order/symmetry, is naturally attracted to that which is above it.

That's true in most cases.  But I think the strongest bond is between a man and woman whose "order/symmetry" is complementary (i.e. the man with superior symmetry (for a man) is most attracted to a woman with superior symmetry (for a woman))... I guess you could still say that even in this scenario the man has superior symmetry (does Aries have superior symmetry to Aphrodite, does Eros have superior symmetry to Psyche?)... But, if this true, why would the one with "superior" symmetry be so attracted to one with "inferior" symmetry?  Unless they are, in Shakespeare's words "Co-supremes and stars of love."  Doesn't the "superiority" of man, his overwhelming sense of pride, depend on him being so intensely attracted to his female opposite?

Black Panther wrote:

So you may want to rethink this. Nature isnt homosexual as a rule, procreation does not work through attraction to the same.

A bee is not attracted to a flower because it is the same.

Indeed.  And not just procreation in the base sense.  Knowledge/culture itself made possible through this attraction.

"“From women's eyes this doctrine I derive:
They sparkle still the right Promethean fire;
They are the books, the arts, the academes,
That show, contain and nourish all the world.”  -Sh

"So between them love did shine
That the Turtle saw his right
Flaming in the Phoenix' sight:
Either was the other's mine." -Sh

"Where both deliberate, the love is slight: Who ever loved, that loved not at first" -Marlow

See the poem in my signature as well. These short first/last moments between opposites are the very germ of culture, the basis of our identity and memory whose subtle effects are continuously working on us as we interpret the world.  What does a man value most if not these supreme moments?  What does man value most?  The invaluable, that which can not be be bought or sold, that continues to give like a sun only you can see if you remain dutiful to it, even to the point of "death."

perpetualburn wrote:

Satyr wrote:

That which is inferior in order/symmetry, is naturally attracted to that which is above it.

That's true in most cases.  But I think the strongest bond is between a man and woman whose "order/symmetry" is complementary (i.e. the man with superior symmetry (for a man) is most attracted to a woman with superior symmetry (for a woman))... I guess you could still say that even in this scenario the man has superior symmetry (does Aries have superior symmetry to Aphrodite, does Eros have superior symmetry to Psyche?)... But, if this true, why would the one with "superior" symmetry be so attracted to one with "inferior" symmetry?  Unless they are, in Shakespeare's words "Co-supremes and stars of love."  Doesn't the "superiority" of man, his overwhelming sense of pride, depend on him being so intensely attracted to his female opposite?

Mental versus physical symmetry/proportionality.
A female's physical and a male's mental symmetry/proportionality is complementary because humans have evolved a cooperative reproductive strategy - specialization, dividing traits to focus on so as to achieve efficiency via synergy.
This method then evolved into the social cooperative survival strategy.

As a rule, we are attracted to the opposite if and when we lack the traits, or feel insecure about them in ourselves; we are attracted to those who resemble us the most when and if we like ourselves and want to accentuate what we like about ourselves, or in order to overcome mortality so as to preserve these traits into the next generations.
Even in reproduction we see the compromise forced upon life by tis lifespan.

This is also why proportionality disrupts/corrupts symmetry, for the sake of utility.

Satyr wrote:

Mental versus physical symmetry/proportionality.
A female's physical and a male's mental symmetry/proportionality is complementary because humans have evolved a cooperative reproductive strategy - specialization, dividing traits to focus on so as to achieve efficiency via synergy.
This method then evolved into the social cooperative survival strategy.

As a rule, we are attracted to the opposite if and when we lack the traits, or feel insecure about them in ourselves; we are attracted to those who resemble us the most when and if we like ourselves and want to accentuate what we like about ourselves, or in order to overcome mortality so as to preserve these traits into the next generations.
Even in reproduction we see the compromise forced upon life by tis lifespan.

This is also why proportionality disrupts/corrupts symmetry, for the sake of utility.    

Are you saying females are only attracted to man's mental symmetry?  Instant attraction is physical (from both the male and female's perspective)... and intelligence (mental symmetry) can be seen in the eyes (physical symmetry) of the other.

I don't see how proportionality would disrupt/corrupt symmetry... Why would there be a loss in symmetry?  Also, attraction doesn't just entail "preservation;" it entails destruction as well (Venus/Adonis).

perpetualburn wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Mental versus physical symmetry/proportionality.
A female's physical and a male's mental symmetry/proportionality is complementary because humans have evolved a cooperative reproductive strategy - specialization, dividing traits to focus on so as to achieve efficiency via synergy.
This method then evolved into the social cooperative survival strategy.

As a rule, we are attracted to the opposite if and when we lack the traits, or feel insecure about them in ourselves; we are attracted to those who resemble us the most when and if we like ourselves and want to accentuate what we like about ourselves, or in order to overcome mortality so as to preserve these traits into the next generations.
Even in reproduction we see the compromise forced upon life by tis lifespan.

This is also why proportionality disrupts/corrupts symmetry, for the sake of utility.    

Are you saying females are only attracted to man's mental symmetry?  

Female/Male are not absolute categories.
A female can be more feminine or more masculine - sometimes more than a very feminine male.
This determines sexual fitness.
Weininger made it into a formula of sexual attraction = a 80/20% feminine/masculine individual will be attracted to a 20/80% individual.
Another factor is the individual's body/mind hierarchy, viz., how dominant the brain is within the organism.
A more brainy female, for example, will have a different degree of attraction to a male's mind than a less brainy, i.e., intelligent, female.
I consider organ hierarchies what determines personality, and such things as tastes in food, art, and sexual partners.

In general sexual attraction goes like this:
For males it starts from the body and moves to the mind.
For females it starts with the mind and moves to the body.
The body is the hook, since we perceive body before we ever perceive mind.

A woman has to be seduced mentally first, and her body follows.
Therefore a females physical symmetry/proportionality is primary for males, and the male's mental/psychological symmetry/proportionality is primary to females.
This changes with age and when a relationship moves from eros to agape, or from reproductive, sexual, to platonic friendship and mate one has become accustomed to, i.e., comfortable.
Comfort, of course, is a lust killer, mostly for females.

Quote :

Instant attraction is physical (from both the male and female's perspective)... and intelligence (mental symmetry) can be seen in the eyes (physical symmetry) of the other.

The physical is first because we perceive it, even at a distance...whereas the mind we must engage it to know it.

Quote :

I don't see how proportionality would disrupt/corrupt symmetry... Why would there be a loss in symmetry?

Symmetry is sacrifices to functionality.
A perfect symmetrical form would be a sphere...entirely impractical in a world where the organism must be muti-functional.
Heart is not symmetrically positions in the human body - the two brain spheres are not perfectly symmetrical....
Limbs, organs, force a compromise, determined by the species reproductive and survival strategy.  

Quote :

 Also, attraction doesn't just entail "preservation;" it entails destruction as well (Venus/Adonis).

All is agon.

As I said interaction as I use the term, means attraction/repulsion.
Where attraction exceeds repulsion there is harmony; where repulsion exceeds attraction there is disharmony.
Furthermore to create one must destroy.

Female's body is severely altered when she procreates.

Sexual attraction requires a degree of tension....
For example a woman must be a little intimidated by the male to feel attracted to him....if the male does not evoke this anxiety in her she feels no erotic feelings, and only feels friendship, agape, philia.

Like many cities across Europe, Zuphten (NL) suffered damage during WW2. But also like many European cities, there is a rediscovery of the classical tradition. A warwound turned parking was thus recently not reconstructed, but instead a new traditional court building was erected. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Michael Diamant (@michael_diamant) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Deeply mixed feelings about AI art - but these attempts to turn countries into various sorts of visuals are always interesting.

Enjoy them while you can, before adjustments are made to ensure all such experiments yield Heinz 57 monstrosities (‘global citizens’) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Asha Logos (@AshaLogos) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Edinburgh, Scotland ???????????????????????? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Tudor for architecture (@ArchitectureTud) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I hate flat design
I hate flat design
I hate flat design [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— ???????????????????????? (@vikare06) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The opening ceremony of the Athens Olympics back in 2004. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— βάλλ' εἰς κόρακας (@meticusdeatenas) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Medieval armour is the pagan exoskeleton of western personality.

Hard, shiny, absolutist, it is a product of that radiant Apollonian thing-making which passes from Egypt to Greece and Rome and resurfaces in the High Middle Ages as military design.

-Camille Paglia [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Russell Walter (@RussellWalterrr) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]