I am a femin who is mostly atracted to the feminine, moderatly atracted to the androgene, and minorly atracted to the masculine.

Meaning i am more inclined to be attracted to the beautiful than to the magnificent, and more to the streamlined than to the gaudy.

But isn't beauty magnificent? And isn't magnificence (at least often) beautiful?

EvF

Quote:Have you ever been to Australia?

I was born and have lived in Adelaide South Australia most of my life.Have also traveled extensively within my country,as well as a bit of overseas travel over a 30 year period.


Aussies enjoy taking the piss out of themselves,but god help the visiting stranger who criticises our country. I've NEVER criticised a country to a local,it's crass and in some places health threatening.

A lot of Australians ARE anti intellectual. In my state 3% of the population have attended university.In my suburb it's 2%.

(May 19, 2009 at 6:10 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: But isn't beauty magnificent? And isn't magnificence (at least often) beautiful?

EvF

I have redefined many terms in response to new knowledge. For example... feminines did not come after masculines, but rather before, or at the same time, as them. I therefore no longer called them female and male. I later realized the differance between gender and sex, and still later observed that gender could describe several characteristics in objects, animals, artwork, and even music.

As these are my personally redefined terms, i understand that many have completely differant understandings for them. But even under my understandings... you are nearly correct. Beauty is magnificent, as magnificence is beautiful. For the longest time... i could find only vague differances between the two.

But then i came upon the realization of the Androgene: that which contains both beauty and magnificence, yet is neither. It is the curveture that connects both the Feminine and the Masculine. Without this spacing.... there can be no defining point for having both genders.

It is the lack of gender that gender is built upon... just as it is your skeleton that your muscles are built upon. Without this curveture: one would be a messy mass of angles and arcs. I then understood that beauty and magnificence were only defined by the rate of this curveture. Beauty is a dull curve, whereas masculinity is the sharp. The in-between curvetures are individually defined grey areas, with masculinity on one end, blurring into androgenity in the middle, blurring into beauty towards the other end.

That is the differance to me... think of it what you will. I arrived at these lines of thoughts by asking myself things like: 'why is beauty beautiful?'. I am sure that you will (or already have) come up with your own answers

I think beauty is beautiful simply because it is so to the evolved observer.

And for some reason I think that beauty is always magnificent...but magnificence isn't always 'beautiful'. I think magnificence could also be 'handsome', 'brilliant' 'astounding' or 'incredibly 'impressive' or something like that...I think - but that's just me maybe.

EvF

(May 19, 2009 at 7:23 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:Have you ever been to Australia?

I was born and have lived in Adelaide South Australia most of my life.Have also traveled extensively within my country,as well as a bit of overseas travel over a 30 year period.


Aussies enjoy taking the piss out of themselves,but god help the visiting stranger who criticises our country. I've NEVER criticised a country to a local,it's crass and in some places health threatening.

A lot of Australians ARE anti intellectual. In my state 3% of the population have attended university.In my suburb it's 2%.

Damn must have changed a bit recently. Seems to be heaps of gay people around the place. I haven't heard about any of them getting bashed. Did you live in a ghetto? (bad part of town).
I recommend you stay out of redneck pubs.

(May 20, 2009 at 11:11 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I think beauty is beautiful simply because it is so to the evolved observer.

And for some reason I think that beauty is always magnificent...but magnificence isn't always 'beautiful'. I think magnificence could also be 'handsome', 'brilliant' 'astounding' or 'incredibly 'impressive' or something like that...I think - but that's just me maybe.

EvF

Circular logic?

How circular?

What I am saying is that I think beauty is a subset of magnificence so is always magnificent. But it is different enough so it is different from the REST of the spectrum of magnificence which couldn't really described as beautiful because when you think of 'magnificence' you think of DIFFERENT to simply 'beauty' but I myself think beauty is a subset of magnificence so is always magnificent.

Hard to explain...but does that make sense to you? It does to me anyway.

EvF

(May 20, 2009 at 11:11 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I think beauty is beautiful simply because it is so to the evolved observer.

That's how circular

Quote:And for some reason...

So try to identify the reason Mine is just a hypothesis... but at least it has been given some rational thought. I have little doubt that my hypothesis is a fallacy however, as it does not apply to non-geometric beauty or magnificence... although it seemingly works in the physical.

But i haven't obtained much more insight than i had when i originally thought up the hypothesis. Instead of describing that magnificence is handsomeness, awesomeness, etc... why not think of: "Why is it handsome, or awesome, or beautiful?"... or: "What makes a thing beautiful?"

I'm sure the answer is so glaringly simple... that i will smack myself upon my forehead in response to my stupidity.

(May 20, 2009 at 11:11 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I think beauty is beautiful simply because it is so to the evolved observer.

(May 22, 2009 at 6:53 pm)Saerules Wrote: That's how circular =

Oh...that.

Well...that's not circular! Because I do not in any way believe in OBJECTIVE beauty. I believe it is entirely subjective. So all I am saying is that beauty is beautiful to whoever thinks it is. It's entirely subjective - it's just often shared at times.

Quote:I'm sure the answer is so glaringly simple... that i will smack myself upon my forehead in response to my stupidity.

I believe these matters are all entirely subjective. I know of no evidence whatsoever for there being OBJECTIVE 'beauty' or 'magnificence' or whatever. Just as I don't know of any whatsoever of any 'ultimate meaning', 'ultimate purpose' or objective morality.

What I think is that FOR ME at least, beauty is a specific subset of magnificence. So beauty is always magnificent. But because beauty is more specific when I think of 'magnificence' in and of itself I do not think of specifically beauty. Beauty, although being a subset of magnificence is different enough to it for me to think of it as separate in the sense THAT when I think of magnificence I do not think of specifically 'beauty' because I think magnificence as much broader than that so I do not think of magnificence as being specifically beautiful. Although I do think beauty is always magnificence because it is a more concentrated, specific subset of that.

But this is all entirely subjective. I do my best to stick to the definitions but words are flexible too (as with poetry for instance). Words are our servants not our masters and I do my best to get the message across.

As far as I know these matters are all subjective - I know of no evidence of objectivity in it.

So when I say that beauty is whatever is beautiful to whoever thinks it is...I just mean it's entirely subjective! Beauty is beautiful to whoever thinks it is!

EvF