What is Beauty?

S wrote:

Quote :

Anything a man does is good....noble, perfect, beautiful.
He is not subject to nature, he is nature's god.

Are you saying the beauty of nature is only a reflection of the beauty of the mind, only an imperfect beauty, which as to its essence is included in that of the mind.

I would like you to expalin in more detail he is not subject to nature, he is nature's god. if you will please.

S wrote:

Quote :

The Moo, in the ChatBox - I also erased that

Philosophy is not a picking and choosing what body of thought one would like to call one's own or would like to believe in, a choice based upon personal preferences or feelings.  Is not Philosophy a pursuit and all are entitled to be heard.

reasonvemotion wrote:

S wrote:

Quote :

Anything a man does is good....noble, perfect, beautiful.
He is not subject to nature, he is nature's god.

Are you saying the beauty of nature is only a reflection of the beauty of the mind, only an imperfect beauty, which as to its essence is included in that of the mind.

I would like you to expalin in more detail he is not subject to nature, he is nature's god. if you will please.

Sarcasm, dear.
Man's appreciation of beauty is determined by his self-knowledge and his own mental symmetry.

Quote :

Sarcasm, dear.

Absolutely not.

I was genuinely interested in your response.

It is so easy to misinterpret the written word and I do tend to be abrupt.

I meant that I was being sarcastic when I wrote the phrase....

Old Decrepit Man wrote:

Anything a man does is good....noble, perfect, beautiful. He is not subject to nature, he is nature's god.

Nature, order, symmetry, the world, preexists the emergence of man, or the emergence of any consciousness that can appreciate it.
Of course a mind that is the product of ordering, of sexual methods, of a natural balance, would find these phenomena inspiring, awesome, valuable, beautiful.

Man began worshiping nature, the sun, the plants, the animals, because he was dependent on them....they gave him life.
The order he discovered around him gratified his own need for order.

Even a harsh order is an order a man could understand and appreciate as necessary.

This is also why conspiracy flourish. Man wants to believe that behind every event is a reason, a motive, an order he can comprehend. Randomness scares man.

The concept of beauty and how to define it, or how undefinable it is, pops up whenever liberals are faced with appearances as being more than superficial.

Perspectivism places the subjective human mind, at the center of reality and declares all perspectives equally valid, so as to discredit objectivity, and nullify a world that remains indifferent to human needs and hopes.
Anthropomorphizing becomes anthropocentric delusion.

No gods in human form, but man, Humanity, as the new divine.
A world-creating species now able to live within its own contexts, or, to be more precise, to sell the idea of self-referential identity to those it wishes to divide and conquer, to those it wishes to manipulate and exploit.

And so, beauty becomes another Modern toy.
It is undefinable, mysterious, magical, and totally up to the eye of the beholder, as if the eye of beholding did into evolve to behold what it needed, and that a species no longer shares the same past/nature.
The individual cut-off from himself, his past/nature, is sold what (s)he so desperately wishes were true.

Beauty, or the appreciation of it has a common grounding in human nature, and in existence in general.
We, as organisms, as self-organizing, emergent unities, never complete, never perfect, never absolute, never Being but Becoming, moving towards, struggling towards, are attracted to what we lack...as a hungry animal has a taste for energies it lacks in itself and so must appropriate from other organisms.

As an ordering life is attracted by order, or the assimilation of energies into an ordered state.
This order represents a possibility, a probability, for the organism - an extension of self in time.
Beauty, in the physical form of proportionality, seduces with its superior order, exposing a past, inherited, virility, a stronger resistance to the Flux.
In sex proportionality also reveals the specialized form's reproductive health - its potential to produce and to replicate a higher type of order (organism).

But there is order to be found in many places. We find it in color schemes where the spectrum relationships and the color vibrations are recognized as proportions; we hear it in sonar sequences, we call music, or melody, where sound harmony reflects an order, a symmetry of sound; we see it in vistas where natural vitality promises us renewed energies, or landscapes offer us open spaces (space is a projection of possibility) to expand our order, to extend ourselves.

Beauty is not subjective but objective.
It is not manufactured by the human mind, according to whims and tastes detached from the world, but man (re)cognizes it, because it evolved to harvest and appropriate it as a product of its need, its lack.

Beauty, again, is about order, perceived as symmetry, proportionality, pattern exhibiting an internal harmonious relationship.
It attracts as increased possibility (probability), as potential.
Probability being another term for order, predictable, repeating, consistency.
An organism evolved to use sex to cope with its limited lifespan and with flux, beauty becomes a (re)cognition of health, reproductive potential, an increased probability that an viable order will be produced.

In the mental context this symmetry of mind is called intelligence, personality, humor.

Satyr wrote:

The concept of beauty and how to define it, or how undefinable it is, pops up whenever liberals are faced with appearances as being more than superficial.

Perspectivism places the subjective human mind, at the center of reality and declares all perspectives equally valid, so as to discredit objectivity, and nullify a world that remains indifferent to human needs and hopes.
Anthropomorphizing becomes anthropocentric delusion.

No gods in human form, but man, Humanity, as the new divine.
A world-creating species now able to live within its own contexts, or, to be more precise, to sell the idea of self-referential identity to those it wishes to divide and conquer, to those it wishes to manipulate and exploit.

And so, beauty becomes another Modern toy.
It is undefinable, mysterious, magical, and totally up to the eye of the beholder, as if the eye of beholding did into evolve to behold what it needed, and that a species no longer shares the same past/nature.
The individual cut-off from himself, his past/nature, is sold what (s)he so desperately wishes were true.

Beauty, or the appreciation of it has a common grounding in human nature, and in existence in general.
We, as organisms, as self-organizing, emergent unities, never complete, never perfect, never absolute, never Being but Becoming, moving towards, struggling towards, are attracted to what we lack...as a hungry animal has a taste for energies it lacks in itself and so must appropriate from other organisms.  

As an ordering life is attracted by order, or the assimilation of energies into an ordered state.
This order represents a possibility, a probability, for the organism - an extension of self in time.  
Beauty, in the physical form of proportionality, seduces with its superior order, exposing a past, inherited, virility, a stronger resistance to the Flux.
In sex proportionality also reveals the specialized form's reproductive health - its potential to produce and to replicate a higher type of order (organism).

But there is order to be found in many places. We find it in color schemes where the spectrum relationships and the color vibrations are recognized as proportions; we hear it in sonar sequences, we call music, or melody, where sound harmony reflects an order, a symmetry of sound; we see it in vistas where natural vitality promises us renewed energies, or landscapes offer us open spaces (space is a projection of possibility) to expand our order, to extend ourselves.

Beauty is not subjective but objective.
It is not manufactured by the human mind, according to whims and tastes detached from the world, but man (re)cognizes it, because it evolved to harvest and appropriate it as a product of its need, its lack.  

Beauty, again, is about order, perceived as symmetry, proportionality, pattern exhibiting an internal harmonious relationship.
It attracts as increased possibility (probability), as potential.
Probability being another term for order, predictable, repeating, consistency.
An organism evolved to use sex to cope with its limited lifespan and with flux, beauty becomes a (re)cognition of health, reproductive potential, an increased probability that an viable order will be produced.

In the mental context this symmetry of mind is called intelligence, personality, humor.    

I see Modernity as universal mysticism: a superficial facade, or appearance which is content with their own feel good, sugar-coated version of its impulses, satisfied with reckoning with the nongiven as opposed to the given.
In regards to "love is blind," to them it's not because it is a ploy for the subject to cope with asymmetry, ugliness, unpleasantness, of both the shortcomings of itself and its object, but because they have the enlightened ability to perceive "what's underneath," or to see past appearances and accept some inexplicable, magical, force, which is not meant to be explained; it's just there.

Those who claim appearances are superficial and marry and even make children with the unfit are ruled by their own appearances - their image as to how they appear in the eyes of a God, or a community, or peers, - the supplanted memetic conscience. Their judgements are a product of how they are seen and they call this being broad-minded.

Civility is the resignation and submission before the fashionable "I am just a cog in the vast network of interdependence", with all the fake humility, as more clearly, it is the fear of isolation.

They changed every dog has its day, to, every dog Must have its day.

Diversity is experimentation become ends and for its own sake. And this is what hedonism is - the thirst for the pleasure of novelty, irrespective of the quality of the output.

The hedonist Mill on the need to be eccentric:

Quote :

"In this age, the mere example of nonconformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor and moral courage it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric marks the chief danger of the time."

Contra,

Nietzsche wrote:

"The world, even if it is no longer a god, is still supposed to be capable of the divine power of creation, the power of infinite transformations; it is supposed to consciously prevent itself from returning to any of its old forms; it is supposed to possess not only the intention but the means of avoiding any repetition; to that end, it is supposed to control every one of its movements at every moment so as to escape goals, final states, repetitions-and whatever else may follow from such an unforgiveably insane way of thinking and desiring. It is still the old religious way of thinking and desiring, a kind of longing to believe that in some way the world is after all like the old beloved, infinite, boundlessly creative God-that in some way "the old God still lives" - that longing of Spinoza which was expressed in the words ("deus sive natura"). (he even felt "natura sive deus")." [WTP, 1062]

Many confuse the perception of physical beauty with mental beauty (mental symmetry) we call intelligence, or they confuse it with character and/or personality, the others ability to make them feel beautiful, or good about themselves, which makes them, immediately, attractive, as a source of this pleasing sensation.
They attribute this to the subjectivity of beauty, revealing, for one more time, how obtuse, and desperate, the average Modern is, to escape reality, and its, sometimes, immutable, indifferent, determinism.

Three types of appreciating order in otherness.

1- Physical symmetry, commonly called as beauty or sexual attractiveness.
2- Mental/Brain symmetry, commonly called intelligence, or personality.

These two are interrelated, and one may give way to the other in the course of generations, and (inter)activity.
These are erotic.

3- The way the other makes us feel, by flattering, comforting, making us feel important, special beautiful...
This is agape.
Here no symmetry is required to be present, only the sensation of being made to feel symmetrical by the other, either because (s)he compensates for our weaknesses.
Most confuse how the other makes them feel with how the other is.
The other may makes us feel beautiful and/or symmetrical (harmonious) but need not be beautiful or symmetrical himself/herself.
And if the other makes us feel bad, or ugly, or in turmoil, breaking out internal harmony, we ascribe to him/her this ugliness, even if (s)he might be symmetrical and sexually appealing from an objective standpoint.
The modern cannot separate his/her feelings from his/her perceptions, and so subjectivity dominates objectivity to the point where the latter is debased towards non-existence.
In this last category the beauty or ugliness of intent, or of spirit, the motive, of the other, or his/her character in regards to us and our interests, is what is being described.
No matter how attractive (s)he is (s)he is ugly to us, and no matter how ugly (s)he is (s)he is beautiful to us.

Beauty, in all its forms is about symmetry, or order; a repeating, consistent, pattern which is superior in relation to the observer and to a perceived average - all value judgments being comparisons.
Some put more emphasis on physical beauty, being more shallow and base, and being unable to appreciate mental symmetry, or understand it completely, they feel its power and are intimidated by it; others prefer mental symmetry, or a harmony of spirit, of intellect, which is on a level they can appreciate and exceeds the ephemeral shallow perception of physical symmetry, which is inherited and displays a past health and a reproductive potential but not, necessarily, an immediately individual attribute.

In both cases the sex of the individual appreciating is a decisive factor, for men are more interested in using other as a means, whereas female is burdened with the sexual role of having to be a means for another, which forces her to be more careful about who she chooses to dedicate the next 5-7 years to, in first gestating his genetic material inside of her, and then birthing, with the unavoidable risk this entails, and weening this offspring to an age where it can fend for itself.
For the male the "work" the cost, the risk, comes before the moment of coitus, whereas for the female it is present and then it follows.
This makes each sex's interests and their standards of judging the other different, but not entirely so.
Symmetry, physical proportionality is an indication of genetic superiority, which may or may not produce mental symmetry, because once inherited this advantage results in lethargy, or in taking the path-of-least-resistance, the individual born beautiful, or with the genetic markers attractive to the opposite sex, need not compensate or work for anything – this is the bimbo effect.
The one born with an inferior display of genetic markers must compensate by developing his mental symmetry, but this does not mean that he can exceed the potentials he's inherited as genetic predispositions, only that he can cultivate whatever he was born with to compensate for his other deficiencies.

Here the practice of faking-it comes into play, and the female sex, being the genetic filtering agency, has evolved the perceptions to not be fooled by pretenses that display an imitated superiority which is not actual.
In this age where human techniques and technologies has reached a level where all have access to them and can use them to compensate for their inherited deficiencies, pretentiousness becomes a common behavior, creating the illusion of parity.
But all can sense on some level and to some degree, on an intuitive visceral level, who is truly intelligent, or mentally symmetrical, just as they all know who is beautiful, no matter what kind of modernistic claptrap they employ to make it seem like beauty is subjective, or culturally determined, and that all are potentially beautiful to someone – offering the psychological relief perspectivism is supposed to offer in an age of sheltering and political-correctness.

Physical symmetry, which we call beauty, and mental symmetry, which we call intelligence, is directly linked to genetic potentials, appreciated differently by the sexes because of their different reproductive roles.
This is called sex appeal – an attraction based on the desire to either use the other as a means to an end, by uniting his genetic material with hers, or as a desire to be the others means, as to not waste her time on potentially inferior genes.
This leaves us with the third category mentioned, which is not an objective judgment of the others physical/mental symmetry, but of how (s)he makes us feel, which is the subjective element.
Because Modernity is about subjectivity, and feelings, rather than objective awareness, this last category is used to define all other conceptions of beauty.

Satyr wrote:

Many confuse the perception of physical beauty with mental beauty (mental symmetry) we call intelligence, or they confuse it with character and/or personality, the others ability to make them feel beautiful, or good about themselves, which makes them, immediately, attractive, as a source of this pleasing sensation.  
They attribute this to the subjectivity of beauty, revealing, for one more time, how obtuse, and desperate, the average Modern is, to escape reality, and its, sometimes, immutable, indifferent, determinism.

Three types of appreciating order in otherness.

1- Physical symmetry, commonly called as beauty or sexual attractiveness.
2- Mental/Brain symmetry, commonly called intelligence, or personality.

These two are interrelated, and one may give way to the other in the course of generations, and (inter)activity.
These are erotic.

3- The way the other makes us feel, by flattering, comforting, making us feel important, special beautiful...
This is agape.
Here no symmetry is required to be present, only the sensation of being made to feel symmetrical by the other, either because (s)he compensates for our weaknesses.
Most confuse how the other makes them feel with how the other is.
The other may makes us feel beautiful and/or symmetrical (harmonious) but need not be beautiful or symmetrical himself/herself.
And if the other makes us feel bad, or ugly, or in turmoil, breaking out internal harmony, we ascribe to him/her this ugliness, even if (s)he might be symmetrical and sexually appealing from an objective standpoint.
The modern cannot separate his/her feelings from his/her perceptions, and so subjectivity dominates objectivity to the point where the latter is debased towards non-existence.
In this last category the beauty or ugliness of intent, or of spirit, the motive, of the other, or his/her character in regards to us and our interests, is what is being described.
No matter how attractive (s)he is (s)he is ugly to us, and no matter how ugly (s)he is (s)he is beautiful to us.  

Beauty, in all its forms is about symmetry, or order; a repeating, consistent, pattern which is superior in relation to the observer and to a perceived average - all value judgments being comparisons.
Some put more emphasis on physical beauty, being more shallow and base, and being unable to appreciate mental symmetry, or understand it completely, they feel its power and are intimidated by it; others prefer mental symmetry, or a harmony of spirit, of intellect, which is on a level they can appreciate and exceeds the ephemeral shallow perception of physical symmetry, which is inherited and displays a past health and a reproductive potential but not, necessarily, an immediately individual attribute.  

In both cases the sex of the individual appreciating is a decisive factor, for men are more interested in using other as a means, whereas female is burdened with the sexual role of having to be a means for another, which forces her to be more careful about who she chooses to dedicate the next 5-7 years to, in first gestating his genetic material inside of her, and then birthing, with the unavoidable risk this entails, and weening this offspring to an age where it can fend for itself.
For the male the "work" the cost, the risk, comes before the moment of coitus, whereas for the female it is present and then it follows.
This makes each sex's interests and their standards of judging the other different, but not entirely so.
Symmetry, physical proportionality is an indication of genetic superiority, which may or may not produce mental symmetry, because once inherited this advantage results in lethargy, or in taking the path-of-least-resistance, the individual born beautiful, or with the genetic markers attractive to the opposite sex, need not compensate or work for anything – this is the bimbo effect.
The one born with an inferior display of genetic markers must compensate by developing his mental symmetry, but this does not mean that he can exceed the potentials he's inherited as genetic predispositions, only that he can cultivate whatever he was born with to compensate for his other deficiencies.  

Here the practice of faking-it comes into play, and the female sex, being the genetic filtering agency, has evolved the perceptions to not be fooled by pretenses that display an imitated superiority which is not actual.  
In this age where human techniques and technologies has reached a level where all have access to them and can use them to compensate for their inherited deficiencies, pretentiousness becomes a common behavior, creating the illusion of parity.
But all can sense on some level and to some degree, on an intuitive visceral level, who is truly intelligent, or mentally symmetrical, just as they all know who is beautiful, no matter what kind of modernistic claptrap they employ to make it seem like beauty is subjective, or culturally determined, and that all are potentially beautiful to someone – offering the psychological relief perspectivism is supposed to offer in an age of sheltering and political-correctness.

Physical symmetry, which we call beauty, and mental symmetry, which we call intelligence, is directly linked to genetic potentials, appreciated differently by the sexes because of their different reproductive roles.
This is called sex appeal – an attraction based on the desire to either use the other as a means to an end, by uniting his genetic material with hers, or as a desire to be the others means, as to not waste her time on potentially inferior genes.
This leaves us with the third category mentioned, which is not an objective judgment of the others physical/mental symmetry, but of how (s)he makes us feel, which is the subjective element.
Because Modernity is about subjectivity, and feelings, rather than objective awareness, this last category is used to define all other conceptions of beauty.

Superb.

Second that.

Satyr wrote:

Maybe a clarification should be made between awe and aesthetic appreciation.

The rare can cause awe, even if it is ugly.

Why not a spontaneous appreciation of what is ugly?
Not to consider the ugly beautiful, but to appreciate the ugly "for its own sake,"  not for your own.

I don't think the body allows for a spontaneous appreciation of the ugly. It instinctively turns away and protects itself from getting too close. I.e. the immediate compulsion to emphasize with the physiology of an uglier person immediately raises the defenses of your own body. Talking to those that are not one's "kind" in a gracious and polite manner but without committing yourself to them.

Aesthetic appreciation follows from awe and it can quickly turn degenerate or in the case of certain religious types the initial awe is slowly made into something it never was to begin with by a nature that sublimates all its intelligence to serve the beautiful impression. It's almost like a bad feedback loop in which religious types devote all their intelligence to serving this impression which produces other impression/visions which in turn gives him further "proof" of his belief in the first impression. Which all reflects the nature of the observer, or rather how healthy his nature was to begin with. The "danger" is that when these types devote all their intelligence to serving the beautiful impression(often becoming celibate), they become incredibly clever and good at winning over those people that live off their "quick love" for beautiful impressions. The "chaste" visions of these religious types then reinterpret the meaning of a healthy body(and its purpose and place) in a "healthy" society. You gotta love all those Apollonian-esque statues of Christ that fill those "beautiful" Catholic cathedrals.... And all this reworking of beauty is brought to Northern European cultures(with their own unique polytheism) and the whole thing becomes one big clusterfuck.

Quote :

Origin of the beautiful and ugly.'28-Biological value of the
beautiful and the ugly.- That which is instinctively repugnant to
us, aesthetically, is proved by mankind's longest experience to be
harmful, dangerous, worthy of suspicion: the suddenly vocal
aesthetic instinct (e.g., in disgust) contains a judgment. To this
extent the beautiful stands within the general category of the
biological values of what is useful, beneficent, life-enhancing-but
in such a way that a host of stimuli that are only distantly associated
with, and remind us only faintly of, useful things and states give
us the feeling of the beautiful, i.e., of the increase of the feeling
of power (-not merely things, therefore, but also the sensations
that accompany such things, or symbols of them).

Thus the beautiful and the ugly are recognized as relative
to our most fundamental values of preservation. It is senseless
to want to posit anything as beautiful or ugly apart from this. The
beautiful exists just as little as does the good, or the true. In every
case it is a question of the conditions of preservation of a certain
type of man: thus the herd man will experience the value feeling
of the beautiful in the presence of different things than will the
exceptional or over-man.

It is the perspective of the foreground, which concerns itself
only with immediate consequences, from which the value of the
beautiful (also of the good, also of the true) arises.

All instinctive judgments are shortsighted in regard to the
chain of consequences: they advise what is to be done immediately.
The understanding is essentially a brake upon immediate reactions
on the basis of instinctive judgments: it retards, it considers, it
looks further along the chain of consequences.

Judgments concerning beauty and ugliness are shortsighted
(-they are always opposed by the understanding-) but persuasive
in the highest degree; they appeal to our instincts where
they decide most quickly and pronounce their Yes and No before
the understanding can speak.

The most habitual affirmations of beauty excite and stimulate
each other; once the aesthetic drive is at work, a whole host of
other perfections, originating elsewhere, crystallize around "the
particular instance of beauty." It is not possible to remain objective,
or to suspend the interpretive, additive, interpolating, poetizing
power (-the latter is the forging of the chain of affirmations of
beauty). The sight of a "beautiful woman"-

Thus 1. the judgment of beauty is shortsighted, it sees only
the immediate consequences;

2. it lavishes upon the object that inspires it a magic conditioned
by the association of various beauty judgments-that are
quite alien to the nature of that object. To experience a thing as
beautiful means: to experience it necessarily wrongly-(which,
incidentally, is why marriage for love is, from the point of view of
society, the most unreasonable kind of marriage).

N - WTP 804

I don't think Nietzsche ever even calls man the more beautiful sex like schopenhauer either.... He only says somewhere to the effect that a mind can be more beautiful than the most beautiful body(and no reference to this being a man or woman's body) and that the "most beautiful type" is Caesar.  But it begs the question what type of bodies(or history of bodies) give rise to these "types"

Beauty is the physical (real/actual) manifestation of Superior (intelligent) breeding choices, compromised between males and females (a deal/transaction), that ultimately represents a risk (sex). Beauty is the result of placing good and successful bets, Trust, between men and women and forming a cooperation (Family/Aristocracy/Alliances/Society). Those who continue to make erroneous, bad bets, loss out, and manifest as ugliness and repugnance.

The danger of trend-setting rationalism is over-exactness and having to fight off false body-shaming, as was the case with Canadian Ms. World Siera Bearchell, accused of being fat, and 'XL' as unfit. From here, then naturally begins, the 'beauty is more than…', and ends in the imbalance of postmodern relativism…

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

Saw her yesterday on the Miss universe contest...and she was stunning.
Compared to the other girls she looked like a racehorse.

She's got meat in all the right places.

Lyssa wrote:

The danger of trend-setting rationalism is over-exactness and having to fight off false body-shaming, as was the case with Canadian Ms. World Siera Bearchell, accused of being fat, and 'XL' as unfit. From here, then naturally begins, the 'beauty is more than…', and ends in the imbalance of postmodern relativism…

Trying to chisel away at a woman's body until it's "perfect" is a fool's errand. Exactness will always be fleeting. The whole beauty industry is sick and a sign of the times.

A fine line between order, expressed as symmetry, and proportionality, expressed by function.

The ordering organism must survive within a fluctuating cosmos, and therefore it makes compromises for the sake of functionality.
This sacrifice is the compromise made to change, and the presence of chaos.  

If it were a matter of achieving perfect order, or the absolute, an organism, like matter would settles on a fluid sphere, but then it would be as fragile and ephemeral as a soap bubble.
Functionality is the compromises made to Flux.
Therefore beauty is characterized by symmetry incorporating functionality as proportionality.

This is demonstrated by the fitness triggers of body/waist proportions, as well as the ration between fat, and mass, which in women, in particular, may trigger a end to the menstrual cycle or difficulties ion conception.
It's, as if, nature has provided a safety-switch making fertility more difficult as the proportionality does outside certain functional relationships.

With males this does not seem to be the case because the proportionality switch is the female's sexual choice, her judgment, based on her genetic attractions, to certain male body proportions, and may also include, depending no the sophistication of the female, a appreciation of the intangible symmetry of brain, expressed through mind.
The male must be both physically and mentally/psychologically symmetrical, and proportional.
This symmetry/proportion is displayed in his movement, and flexibility of mind, his creativity, also expressed in humour and by an overall demeanour, a consistent state of mind.

Order is a relationships of patterns with each other and in relation to an infinitely receding central point.
The balance between patterns, as the relationship of rhythm with aggregate energy will find an infinitely receding point in space time as the receding centre of this relationship, or its focal point, where the relative patterns achieve a balance of distance and force - attraction/repulsion finding a near perfect, fluctuating, equilibrium.

This receding central point in space/time, is the singularity's one/point, and the patterns relating create an attraction/repulsion field of effect, which is the emergent singularity's perceptual-event-horizon.
To an external observer, one not part of the relationship, the effect will be that of a boundary, taking shape, as an extension of the congruent pattern's relating and their combined field of effect.
This is what we call form.

Geometry is the study of these relationships and their noetic possibilities, within two, three, four, dimensional space - or within a noetic space, that excludes possibilities (dimensions) to create clear and simple relationships of  theoretical/noetic 'points' in space/time and how they relate to each other, drawing 'lines' representing their shortest distance of possibility.

Shape is a noetic construct representing the observer's relationship to the (inter)active patterns. Their relationship extending as a field of attraction/repulsion representation their relating, congruent, aggregate energy, interpreted as a boundary encompassing space/time, or possibilities, by excluding others.
With geometry the relationships are abstracted into mental models, with clear and distinct points and lines.
Fluidity is imploded into static form, and then manipulated to exclude one, two, or more dimensions, giving us two-dimensional shapes (square, triangle, circle...) or three-dimensional shapes (cube, sphere, prism....)

Organically the absence of absolutes means these relationships must take form within a fluid, (inter)active cosmos, achieving a higher or lower degree of symmetry, and necessarily incorporating functionality as a compromise made to Flux.
Attraction is drawn to symmetry of body parts, of organs, and how they relate, their functionality within a particular environment, and in relation to an evolved method of self-preservation, and growth, is what is appreciate as organic proportions, exhibiting fitness and health and most of all resistance to parasites and dis-eases.
This is called beauty.
Any degree of symmetry, above the average, displays a inherited resistance to cosmic flux, and proportionality reveals reproductive and resistance, to it, potential.
Potentials being an expression of encompassing space/time possibility, indicated by the field of attraction/repulsion - its field of effect  

An organism, dependent on order, is attracted to superior degrees of order, and potentials.

The physical and the metaphysical merge.

Intelligence evolves in relation to physical symmetry/proportionality, as a compensating, and accentuating development of the nervous system, particularly the brain, that focuses the organisms energies to multiply its aggregate force.
Intelligent is a multiplier of already present symmetry, other accentuating what already exists, or compensating for a deficiency, in relation to others.

In this context proportionality takes the form of balance, displayed as graceful movement, control of the body, a controlled demeanour that may express itself in social organisms as self-confidence, tolerance, easy going attitude, mental flexibility, humour, an innate ability to read and to adjust self and other to the circumstances, and all participating in what we call charisma.
Proportionality of mind expressing a proportionality of reactivity to stimuli - absence of hyperbole, controlled and measured , able to adapt to fluid circumstances.

Putting the other at ease, gaining trust, being amicable are all part of reading (empathy) and controlling one's reaction to other (sympathy) - harmonizing self to other (mirroring).
The other perceives this as himself reflected back, producing the sense of ease this recognition of self in other produces.
Prolonged contact, such as with long-term friendships and erotic relationships, the effect is one of character harmonization.

Excerpt:

What is more beautiful than something which requires much skill, talent, practice and grace? Beauty is the danger within the demonstration - all the unseen danger which has yet to come and could, or the danger which had been conquered before in order that the skill may manifest. Do we feel horrified when we watch a man cross a rope across two skyscrapers because he may fall, or that we insert ourselves into his position and from our lack of skill imagine that we may die? (Do people wail during the rapture for the presence of the Lord or for what is to come next?) Do we see the talent of a man's skillful placing of knives between his fingers because of what actually happens or the risk of that which might happen? Beauty, then, is a demonstration of (the often maligned as being "brutish") power. It is horrific because of its beauty, that we fail to live up to. Even the Bible, if seen from a non-theist manner, demonstrates God like this - that He is terrific in His Goodness and that He is Beautiful, so much so that to behold Him would cause you to tremble in fear and humility. Have you ever experienced something astoundingly beautiful, some skillful, nigh-supernatural and otherworldly phenomenon, judging it for that which it balances with grace, and then it suddenly seeks to balance you - and then horror overcome you as a result? For example, watching a fighter jet wreak destruction on an enemy which you have the deepest pits of hatred for, with its automatic canon. It is measuring out your justice and you suddenly develop a heavy appreciation for it. But, when it turns against you - would that not be horrific? Another example is if you are watching a beautiful woman and only wish to behold her beauty without being seen - only for her to suddenly turn and lay her eyes upon you. As an even more adolescent version, when you were a child in class and watched as the teacher utilized power to call upon students to answer questions - is there not a beauty and grace to it? A momentary vacuum of lukewarmness, where hierarchy manifests. You sigh in relief that you are not called upon at first, but then you are and experience the terror? In this way, beauty is power.

So, then, if beauty is power - how can this be just? Cannot power be abused? It often is, as someone oversteps their bounds and begins to take pride in something they do not deserve to. They cease to act with grace and then cause the resentment of others.* Balance and sensitivity to the world, to avoid such mishaps, is necessary.



*off topic: Is it the case the only the Abrahamist religions conceive of a world which is infinite, or accompanied by a plentiful, hot/cold afterlife? The irony being that God seeks to separate wheat from chaff, and He sets chaff to eternal hell fire and good to eternal heaven - but still says there are hierarchies within each. That is, this concern is only ethically valid in a world which is not zero-sum. Instead of saying the world is zero-sum, they say the afterlife is... The bible saying God put Eternity in our hearts... The "real fruits" of life are afterward, where it is zero-sum.

The way I see it is as the appreciation of potential, within order.

What do we find beautiful?
The symmetrical, as potential higher order.
The proportional, as potential physical reproduction.
The inspirational, as unknown potential, undiscovered potential, as possibility.
We find music beautiful, as sonar symmetry, expressing our own becoming.
We find charm beautiful as higher intellectual order; the promise of something as yet unknown.

Whatever expands or adds to our own possibilities, as potential becoming, is what is beautiful.

Order, in the absolute sense, is another way of describing the absent-absolute.
Chaos is essential for the emergence of life.
We are always speaking of a degree of order, or an approach to the absolute, to the idea(l) of order.
Pagans are in the in-between absolute chaos and absolute order, the poles that engulf Nihilists, trapping them in a binary either/or dualistic paradigm, constructed by words/symbols that have to be taken literally - absolutely, not representationally or as degrees.
Another way to describe it is: perfect, whole, one, omniscient, omnipotent, immutable, indivisible etc.
We, as life are none of those things.
But we are ordering, nevertheless.
We value order, measure it, relate to it, deify it, appreciate it, admire it. because we live in a cosmos where chaos, randomness, is increasing.

As four dimensional life-forms we can conceptualize the absolute, as a singularity - a single point, in space/time that would encompass all possibilities as a single certain probability.
We can also conceptualize it as a perfect, complete, symmetrical, uniform, whole, dot - a spherical indivisible, eternal, immutable, point.
This is how we conceptualize it, because it is non-existent outside our mind.

But beauty is also about functionality, represented by organ or body-part proportions.
It emerges in a cosmos of Flux, so perfection is impossible, and would mean an end, so it is also, for us Pagans, undesirable.
How does this manifest in reality but as form with a specific specialized functionality.
We corporeal becomings are attracted to the roundness of a female form, but she must also display functionality in a world that is void of absolutes.
Sexual functionality is displayed as skin & hair texture, hip to waist ratio and so on.
This signals potential.
Reproductive potential. We have evolved to appreciate it as attractive, because ti indicates an increase on reproductive fitness, fertility, health.  

Why do different species consider different proportions attractive?
Because they evolved a different specialized form of survival and reproduction, and so this imposes upon them a different organ functionality and therefore a different proportionality.
Chaos or Flux, imposes upon order the needs of functionality - order, symmetry, is sacrificed to the necessity of functionality.
An organism is beautiful when its symmetry and proportionality give it the closest to the idea(l), within the context of its evolved specialized forms of survival, within world, and reproduction.
A beautiful horse is one that has the shape and proportions to make it an ideal runner, and grazer, because running and grazing, and whatever other specialized methods it has evolved, is essential to its survival...and its survival indicated increased potentials/probabilities, and is not an end in itself, as many degenerates like to think.

Now transfer this potential to a non-sexual context.
Why are we inspired, by a natural panorama?
Why do you call it beautiful?
Because it promises potential, as well.
We find spatial expanses beautiful, because it is potential.
Space = possibilities, and order, is probability.
Space is possibility with no limitations....probability is potential within limitations.

Beauty is an appreciation of possibility and/or probability, depending on our psychology.
If experiences have failed to satisfy us, then possibility is more attractive because it implies a potential not yet experienced - the unknown.
This excites us with hope.
If, on the other hand, our experiences have been satisfying then probability is more attractive - the tried and tested.

Youth is attracted to limitless possibilities, because of its seemingly endless supply of energies, and its erroneous sense of indestructibility.
It has also not made any investments, yet....so it must remain open to risks and opportunities.
As age increases probability is more attractive - movement towards more conservative attitudes.

The pattern is...it is not something that has pattern.
The pattern is what we call order, and we experience as energy/matter.
How patterns relate is what we call meaning, and/or understanding - patterns within patterns.
The more sophisticated the mind the more discriminating it becomes - it perceives details in what for a dullard appears uniform.
Patterns relating to each other, is what we interpret, we evaluate, as potential/possibility.
We are constantly evaluating, judging, patterns (inter)acting, or relating.

Chaos, is unattractive because it has no possibility we can evaluate.
We call it ugly, and are terrifying by randomness, because of this.

We use  the word 'beauty' in many different ways - as we do many other words, and this is what creates confusion.
If we use it precisely, and not metaphorically, it always refers to symmetry and proportionality....like with music, opening our minds to possibility/probability.
We are swept away by it, towards different possibilities - it ignites our imagination, expands our field of potentials.
This is why music affects people differently, and why different musical styles and songs are preferred by different people.  
Years ago I defined [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
If we keep in mind that an organism is an aggregate of patterns - different elements in congruity - we can imagine a slight difference between every individual's resonance - what has been called life force or aura...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Think of it as a magnetic field around the body.
It's the excess attraction/repulsion forces produced by the different patterns participating in what you call your body/mind.
Your metabolic rate is also a measure of this.
This aura harmonizes with specific musical patterns; is affected by different tempos, rhythms, feeling in-harmony or out of harmony with them.
Harmonious music we feel as pleasing, and call it beautiful, because it is an expansion, extension of our aura beyond the body - increased possibility/probability, and because our body/mind is affected by it, through the energy field of attraction/repulsion.

We also do not use language properly.
Most of us, due to convention, and habituation, use the same words, in the same ways, sometimes inappropriately, sometimes metaphorically.

Take the word 'strong'.
It can be used in so many different contexts that the meaning can be convoluted by douche-bags and hypocrites, to ridicule the very real phenomenon of physical and mental strength.
They use the same illiterate, dishonest, techniques when talking about 'intelligence', 'beauty', or any word that comes close to a soft-spot.
Our vocabulary has become so poor, in the west, among English speakers, that attempting to communicate complex concepts to a dishonest, prejudiced by his need to remain safe, retard, is next to impossible.
Like talking to a child that simply does not want to work, but only wants to play...is not interested in anything that will distract it from its fantasy games.  
Has no talent for words, and does not want to learn how to use words, because this might limit its game-play.

The Greeks defined, and described beauty using geometrical and mathematical codes....and then they  transferred their insights into their art.
We know what beauty is, in the context of human beings, when we know that the designation 'human' is a species designation, and that a species designation is one of reproduction and nothing more.
So, when we speak of beauty in relation to humans, we mean it in a reproductive context...and this also applies to a beautiful mind, wit, humor, disposition, imagination - creativity being another form of reproduction.

Why do we admire a creative mind, and call it beautiful?
Because it creates and by creating it offers us potentials, possibilities and probabilities.
Because it fertilizes our mind with ideas that can germinate and be born as something new.

We always consider beautiful what offers us, based on our judgment, the most potential in relation to our goals, conscious or not, or in relation to our genetically evolved goals, conscious or not.
Our awareness is not necessary.
If anything it is detrimental to the process...as the dozens of unmarried, childless philosophers, throughout history, can attest to.

That would also explain why the Jays like ugliness in art so much, it helps them along with their objective of dismantling the European elements in the West.

Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder after all but the beholder is not free and there is no such thing as a universal beholder or that all beholders are equal individual when it comes to seeing reality for what it is or what their destiny, their developmental trajectory, is about.

Most use words expressing positive/negative value judgments to describe how a phenomenon makes them feel.
The internalize the external, and mistake the reaction for the activity that produced it - they subjectify it, to make it intimate, malleable.
Consider what degenerates do with copulation.
They regress to an animal level of experiences, connecting the activity with how it makes them feel - with pleasure.
Why it gives them pleasure, what function does the activity serve, is rejected.
An animal does not know why it has to copulate. It surrenders to the need, the desire,. the frenzy.
All an animal knows is what it feels, and how to gratify it.

This is why I call Moderns Degenerates, as representatives of the Last Man, the Nihilist.
I used to call them retarded for the same reason...but I find degeneration to be more appropriate because they regress, calling it progress, to a state of infancy, an animal state they then deny.
Retardation denotes a stunting of development, which is also true, but with a minority of Moderns maturity is achieved and then regressed.
We can also use 'regression' to express the state them call idea(l) in relation to their potential - their possibilities/probabilities, as these have been inherited genetically.

Regression could be full-blown, in all context, or it is usually selective, compartmentalized.
Consider their reaction to sex and race.
They've inherited eyes and senses in general, to discriminate, to distinguish the slightest divergence from a norm, to differentiate similar from different; they perceive an obvious aesthetic difference.
But they react to it, due to memetic influences, cultural norms, by blinding themselves to what they cannot help but see, or by dismissing it as illusory, or superficial.
If their 'truth' cannot be validated, then all truths must be made into lies.
We evolved the means to perceive the slightest patterns, so as to gain an advantage over those that do not and cannot perceive them, and these degenerates blind themselves noetically, because of an emotional directive, based mostly on their own traumatic experiences and their social anxieties and their existential horrors.
They castrate and lobotomize themselves psychologically, mentally.

These degenerates know what is beautiful, in regards to human form, but they cannot accept it because of the implications upon them, and their life choices and their investments and the psychological settlements with reality they've had to make - they call this their 'growth' their maturation.
They automatically react and appreciate beauty, but they cannot bring themselves to accept it, because of what this would imply about them and their circumstances.
They theoretically, ideologically reduce all to an idea(l), a theory, an abstraction, a social construct, so as to cope with the implications of some concepts being rooted in past/nature, where they can do nothing about it.
Some selectively reject sensual input, and others reject it all, so as to remain consistent with their own nihilism.
Self-Contradiction is a norm among nihilists.

I remember a moron from ILP, can't recall which one of the women it was, who claimed that sex was beautiful and not aggressive, as I had described it, and all deserved love, and that appearances are superficial and blah, blah blah. The entire litany of post-modern filth was regurgitated and vomited out, and then I asked her:
"If this is so, then to remain true to your on ideals you should find a bum at the nearest street corner, take him home, and fuck him, or pleasure him, give him love, make love to him. Be proactive with your principles."

Nihilism is so dishonest and intentionally naive, and retarded and degenerate, that it cannot live-up to its own principles - it cannot follow through with its own 'logic' of inversions, of ideological detachments from the apparent.
This is to be expected, because the world does not give a shit about how humans perceive it, or what methods they use to cope with it.
The world does not care if humans decided there are no races, or no differences between males and females, other than superficial, and physical ones....nor does it care if humans decided appearances are superficial, beauty is in the 'eye of the beholder', 'all deserve love' and all that Abrahamic, Marxist crap.
The clever Nihilists are hypocrites.
They say one thing, think another, and do a third.
If they did not, they would die.
Nihilism is how they cope with the world psychologically, while physically they contradict their own ideologies and do what must be done to survive and to flourish.

How would a hypocrite deal with his arousal at the sight of a developed under-age female?
He automatically reacts, as he has evolved to react to particular stimuli, indicating fertility and health, but the meme, the culture prohibits such truths, so he feels shame, or he lies to himself, pretending it never happened.
How does a hypocrite deal with his own ianbiltiy to find a fertile, healthy female?
He lies to himself, telling himself that beauty is in the 'eye of the beholder', confusing how someone makes them feel, with how they are.
How does a degenerate deal with an inferior child, because she chose to put her ideology to rpactice and amrry a black man?
She accuses the world of prejudices, to explain why her child is under-performing academically and over-performing athletically. She demands that the system accommodate her choice, by mitigating between her and the negative consequences, so that her own judgment, and her own choices are never doubted, or judged.

And, if copulation is not aggressive, is not an act of evasive, intrusion into the private space of another being, necessitating the evolution of particular psychological, and physical mechanisms, then why are females so distressed by rape?
Nihilists cannot even maintain a cohesiveness in their own ideologies, because its a chaotic self-contradicting hodge-podge of adopted ideals, that serve only the purpose of comforting therm, and offering them a sense of belonging to a unity.
They can't even define or justify their own beliefs, because they are parroted, regurgitated, like a poem, adopted because ti hides their real purpose: to comfort and protect a fragile ego.
They aren't interested in philosophy, they are only interested in psychology, and how to justify whatever they find comforting and soothing and sheltering, without exposing the true underlying motive.
They say so, indirectly,.
All is subjective, means all is self-serving.
They cannot imagine any other motive, so they suspect all of being exactly like them.
No, they need all to be exactly as retarded and pretentious and unjustifiably arrogant, and shallow as they are.