Originally Posted by Stahlberg
Jim, I think you're putting the cart before the horse - you can't have beauty first, then evolve the senses to experience it. A random attribute comes first (pick one, anyone), then a lifeform may evolve to find it beautiful.
There can be no objective beauty at all. Aliens with outer surfaces like raw concrete who live in dark caves and communicate with radio waves might say the same thing you said about beauty, but they would mean completely different things. Why be anthropocentric about it? Our sense of aesthetics is not the only possible one. Take an example closer to home; to a dog some of the most beautiful things in the world are dog-butts and rotting flesh. Subjects which are hard to make aesthetically pleasing to humans. Possible, yes, if we make it look like something else, or almost abstract, by playing with lighting and composition etc. But not in and of itself.
I think you missed a spot. It's probably true that senses must develop first. Everything that happenshas a reason especially in lifeforms.
But there is the thing of the golden cut that just keeps on repeating. It's too mathematically accurate to be a random event. Something to just happen just because. And I don't believe in religious philosophy and science excluding eachother either. The best example for that is physics(the only true science of nature other than behavioral sciences), and the eightfold path.
That easily brings me to the improbability of so many things of beauty. How is it that whichever form a creature has it amazingly enough has to obey the phi ration(=golden cut=ca. 1 : 0.618618 with 618 constantly recurring, hence the improbability of little germs or insects inventing it for fun or communication). A dog might find another dog butt attractive but you'll also find them staring at things in their evirnment, things they enjoy looking at. Just like human beings might sometimes stare at a corner of the room where the light is striking oddly. I am quite certain that once we have the capacity to travel to other planets we will find ourselves measuring the same proportional ratio on creatures who have evolved completely besides us. But that's cutting air.
I love these complicated discussions in the morning!
PS: As to stick figures: I think it went hand in hand with the advent of holidays abroad and television and more competent photography. When television and photography came about as a medium that could eb used on a massive scale they had to use enormously powerful lights and they lights and/or lighting situations which had a flattening affect. The "bony models" simply caught more shadows in these circumstances. Research on this beauty issue has also proven that the ratio's we find attractive are in the bones, not in the flesh.
I myself prefer skinny agile, meaning not too much meat to get up and run off to the trainstation. Just me, wanna have fun.The fun culture just asks that, we can go anywhere on the planet just for kicks, but when I see a fat woman having trouble getting of a sofa I positively feel almost repulsed.