Grandpa Harley Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 LEast the males enjoy it...who needs to use those nasty vagina things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Probably from where the term bugfuck originated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 NO, when he said it, not when you asked... it meant he was going to explain it whether anyone asked or not... I mean... not one of us thinks it's going to be anything either convincing or original... OK, Yes I am sure you are right. I know I am going to hear it and really I can hardly wait. Was it worth the baited breath Hardly. It was no explanation at all. Now it seems we ran him off. Please come back Coolian (is this supposed to rhyme with hooligan?) -- don't disappoint us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Youth of today... no stamina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraphicsGuy Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Back to the sex lives of bed bugs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I was raised in a steel town... the chemical smog ove the place made the sunsets look like Van Gogh had got the 'painiting the sky' detail in some after life... abolutly gorgeous... The nights were less nice, since some nights you could read be the light of the sky when they were dumping the molten slag, and in winter, I didn't see significant snow that lasted more than a day until the pollution laws kicked in (I was about 7) Point taken; pollution makes great sunsets (and does a great job of snow removal by preventing it in the first place). Beautiful sunsets appeal to my aesthetic senses. Morals and aesthetics conflict. What must I choose? Obviously, God does not equal beauty. And beauty is not natural. God is out of the equation. I am not. I must live in this world. I have no power to change. I need to absorb inspiration where it may be found. Am I not allowed to draw inspiration from something as majestically beautiful as a smog-produced colourful sunset or global-warming induced pure white new snowfall against a deep blue sky? I think I'll go with Hans's suggestion that if it is smog that produces the beauty with which I find myself surrounded then I will appreciate the beauty I find around myself. After all, though we are working on it, this situation will probably not change drastically in my lifetime and I don't expect to have another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Hi Ruby I need to absorb inspiration where it may be found. Am I not allowed to draw inspiration from something as majestically beautiful as a smog-produced colourful sunset or global-warming induced pure white new snowfall against a deep blue sky? Me too! I love beautiful sunsets even if pollution has something to do with their beauty. It seems the Sun can even cause pollution to become beautiful! I love nature! Sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I think it is intrinsically beautiful because I would bet every human has found at least one part of nature to be beautiful. I've been patiently reading through this thread, trying to stop myself from saying anything until I'd read all the way through. But I just can't bear it any longer. Call it the curse of the philosophy graduate, but I just have to say something at this point. 'Intrinsic' beauty is as illogical as intrinsic left or intrinsic north. Even though every single human being is convinced about what direction north is - the reality of the situation is that north and south are pretty much interchangeable. In fact it's worse than that. Beauty is not only relative - it's also subjective. 'Intrinsic beauty' is like 'intrinsic boredom'. Nothing can be boring in its core - because boring is a subjective judgement laid on events by human beings. I'm sure that paint drying must be rivetingly exciting to all the little microbes in the wall that are surrounded on all sides by the chemical changes involved. So something being boring is a subjective judgement. Even if all human beings agreed that something is boring - it wouldn't mean that there is anything intrinsically boring about it, only that human psychology meant that all humans happened to find it unstimulating. The same is true of beauty. It is a human concept, invented by humans that only expresses things from a human perspective. I'm sure that dung beetles and blow flies find cowpats to be very, very beautiful. If every single dung beetle and blow fly found cowpats to be beautiful would that make cowpats intrinsically beautiful? And what about the creatures that must find a rotting corpse beautiful? Human beings find sunsets, green trees and gently flowing streams beautiful. Every single human being on the planet may agree with that. But that doesn't mean that there is any intrinsic state of beauty to any of those things, since for all we know a creature from another planet may find all of those things to be hideously ugly. Even if every single intelligent creature in the universe agreed on a subjective judgement about something being beautiful - it still wouldn't reflect any intrinsic feature of that object - it would only reflect the psychology of those intelligent creatures that found it so enjoyable to look at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 except when the sun was pushed across the sky by a giant dung beetle, Can it be coincidence that we both mentioned dung beetles? I suspect a dung beetle conspiracy - or maybe God is trying to tell us something about dung beetles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 If beauty is the proof that God exists, isn't the ugly the proof that God does not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Pity he left before reading my response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 If beauty is the proof that God exists, isn't the ugly the proof that God does not? Yep. So maybe God's existence is also subjective But if God is subjective then he is a product of the human mind - and hence non-existent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 So maybe God's existence is also subjective Of course. But if God is subjective then he is a product of the human mind - and hence non-existent Well... is the subjective an objective truth, would that mean that the subjective existence of God is an objective truth? ... AAAARGH HEADACHE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Pity he left before reading my response No, you should pity all of them who think like him/her. And pity you and me, and all of us, who have to live in a world with such ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 except when the sun was pushed across the sky by a giant dung beetle, Can it be coincidence that we both mentioned dung beetles? I suspect a dung beetle conspiracy - or maybe God is trying to tell us something about dung beetles dung beetles and rotting corpses... I think it's something to do with being 'English'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I'm really sorry I don't have the time to spend reading through this whole thread, but wanted to post some brief thoughts to answer the OP's question about seeing beauty in nature. It's complex for me to state my own thoughts to this, but I'm going to share something from someone else that is very close. Later on if time permits, I'd like to discuss this idea of seeing a "creator" with the topic starter. I apologize for the long quote, but it's worth the read: What I want to suggest is that the experience of beauty is a recognition of the deepest tendency or theme of the universe as a whole . This may seem a very strange thing to say; but there is a gathering movement across many of the sciences that indicates that the universe does have a deep theme or tendency, a leitmotif which we can begin very tentatively to describe, if not fully understand. Let us play with an idea of Kant's and see where we get if we treat the esthetic as something analogous to perception. Imagine dropping a rock on the floor. The rock reacts by bouncing and by making a noise, and perhaps undergoes some slight internal change; we would not imagine that it felt anything approaching a sensation. Now imagine that you drop a worm on the floor; the impact might cause it to squirm, as well as merely to bounce and to produce a sound of impact. The worm, we would say, feels a sensation; but from the worm's point of view it is not a sensation of anything in particular; the worm does not construct, with its primitive nerve ganglia, anything as complex as an external world filled with objects like floors and experimenters. Now imagine that you drop a guinea-pig. Clearly it would react, as the rock does, and also feel sensations, as the worm does. But we would say in addition that it perceives the floor, the large dangerous animal that has just released it, and the dark place under the table where it may be safe. Perception is as much beyond sensation as sensation is beyond mere physical reaction. Perception constructs a precise, individuated world of solid objects out there, endowed with color, shape, smell, and acoustic and tactile properties. It is generous to the outside world, giving it properties it did not necessarily possess until some advanced vertebrate was able, through its marvelously parsimonious cortical world-construction system, to provide them. Perception is both more global, more holistic, than sensation--because it takes into account an entire outside world--and more exact, more particular, because it recognizes individual objects and parts of objects. Now if you were a dancer and the creature that you dropped were a human being, a yet more astonishing capacity comes into play. One could write a novel about how the dance-partners experience this drop, this gesture. Whole detailed worlds of implication, of past and future, of interpretive frames, come into being; and the table and the dancing-floor do not lose any of the guinea-pig's reality, but instead take on richnesses, subtleties, significant details, held as they are within a context both vaster and more clearly understood. What is this awareness, that is to perception what perception is to sensation, and sensation to reaction? The answer is: esthetic experience. Esthetic experience is as much more constructive, as much more generous to the outside world, as much more holistic, and as much more exact and particularizing than ordinary perception, as ordinary perception is than mere sensation. Thus by ratios we may ascend from the known to the very essence of the knower. Esthetic perception is not a vague and touchy-feely thing relative to ordinary perception; quite the reverse. This is why, given an infinite number of theories that will logically explain the facts, scientists will sensibly always choose the most beautiful theory. For good reason: this is the way the world works. Beauty in this view is the highest integrative level of understanding and the most comprehensive capacity for effective action. It enables us to go with, rather than against, the deepest tendency or theme of the universe, to be able to model what will happen and adapt to or change it. But this line of investigation has clearly brought us to a question which it seems audacious to ask in this anti-metaphysical age. Let us ask it anyway: what is the deepest tendency or theme of the universe? Let us make another list, a list of descriptions or characteristics of that theme or tendency. We can always adjust or change the list if we want. 1. Unity in multiplicity--the universe does seem to be one, though it is full of an enormous variety and quantity of things. Our best knowledge about its beginning, if it had one, is that everything in the universe was contracted into a single hot dense atom. 2. Complexity within simplicity: the universe is very complicated, yet it was generated by very simple physical laws, like the laws of thermodynamics. 3. Generativeness and creativity: the universe generates a new moment every moment, and each moment has genuine novelties. Its tendency or theme is that it should not just stop. As it cooled, it produced all the laws of chemistry, all the new species of animals and plants, and finally ourselves and our history. 4. Rhythmicity: the universe can be described as a gigantic, self-nested scale of vibrations, from the highest-frequency particles, which oscillate with an energy of ten million trillion giga-electron volts, to the slowest conceivable frequency (or deepest of all notes), which vibrates over a period sufficient for a single wave to cross the entire universe and return. Out of these vibrations, often in the most delicate and elaborate mixtures or harmonies of tone, everything is made. 5. Symmetry: shapes and forms are repeated or mirrored in all physical structures, whether at the subatomic, the atomic, the crystalline, the chemical, the biological, or the anthropological levels of reality. And the more complex and delicate the symmetry, the more opportunities it presents for symmetry-breaking, the readjustment of the system toward a new equilibrium, and thus adaptation toward even more comprehensive symmetries. 6. Hierarchical organization: big pieces of the universe contain, control, and depend on smaller pieces, and smaller pieces smaller pieces still, and so on. 7. Self-similarity: related to the hierarchical property is a marvelous property now being investigated by chaos theorists and fractal mathematicians: the smaller parts of the universe often resemble in shape and structure the larger parts of which they are components, and those larger parts in turn resemble the still larger systems that contain them. Like Dante's Divine Comedy, in which the three-line stanza of its microcosm is echoed in the trinitarian theology of its middle-level organization and in the tripartite structure of the whole poem, so the universe tends to echo its themes at different scales, but with variations and interferences that give life to the whole. If you look at the branches of a tree you can see how the length of a twig stands in a similar--but not quite the same--relation to the length of the small branches as the small branches stand to the large branches, and the large branches to the trunk. You can find this pattern in all kinds of phenomena--electrical discharges, frost-flowers, the annual patterns of rise and decline in competing animal populations, stock market fluctuations, weather formations and clouds, the bronchi of the lungs, corals, turbulent waters, and so on. And this harmonious yet dynamic relation of small to large is beautiful . Now these descriptions would be immediately recognized by scientists in many fields as belonging to feedback processes and the structures that are generated by them. The fundamental tendency or theme of the universe, in short, is reflexivity or feedback. We are beginning to understand more and more clearly that the universe is a phenomenon of turbulence, the result of a nested set of feedback processes. Hence it is dynamic and open-ended: open-ended, moreover, precisely in and because of its continual attempt to come to closure, to fall to a stop. Moreover, as with any dynamic nonlinear open feedback process, the universe continually generates new frames and dimensions, new rules and constraints, and its future states are too complicated to be calculated by any conceivable computer made out of the universe as it is. It is retrodictable but not predictable, like a good--a beautiful--story. I wish I had time right now, but just offering this for now until I do. I hope it added something to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 "I hope it added something to the discussion." you always do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I didn't even see the second part of his title "For those who don't believe in any Creator" until after I'd written my story and after he had already left. So it seems I was "moved" to write my story WITHOUT the challenge he thought he was giving. So potent is the idea in Christianity that nature is an automatic conviction of God's existence that we just know that this has to be what a xian is driving at even without seeing it. Of course, those of you who have been around several years longer than I have seen this zillions of times. Like the telephone menu someone described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooligan Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 I didn't want to come back. I really didn't. But I couldn't stop thinking about all these well thought out posts, so you sucked me back in. *Sigh* Either I like you guys, or I'm a glutton for punishment. The truth is (and I think a lot of you might have suspected this) I had never had a conversation with anyone about the "intrinsic nature of beauty," nor had I read any arguments about it. It quickly became apparent that this is a frequently contested subject and had been thoroughly digested by a large number of you. I learned a lot about it from your posts, although the knowledge would have been a lot less painful if I just googled the topic instead. Even though I feel some of you still don't believe me, I really wasn't trying to prove anything. Because I can't. I realized that even if I got everyone to agree that nature is intrinsically beautiful, I wouldn't even know where to go from there to prove the existence of a god. In fact, if someone knows that argument, I would like to hear it. All that being said, I would like to hang around and be a part of the discussions because I want to learn from the impressive intellects around here. And really, I promise, I won't evangelize. You guys make that no fun. It is late now, but I want to comment on the posts in this thread that I was really impressed by. I probably will tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Indeed C, there are some impressive intellects, and one well read buffoon (that would be me)... Welcome back, God-boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 So maybe God's existence is also subjective Of course. But if God is subjective then he is a product of the human mind - and hence non-existent Well... is the subjective an objective truth, would that mean that the subjective existence of God is an objective truth? ... AAAARGH HEADACHE!!! Yes, that line of reasoning is likely THE underlying reason why I am agnostic. A wise science teacher once told me, there are no absolutes. I think he was referring to how the universe was always changing shape and form and coming up with new complex structures at every level of view (as Antlerman pointed out in that last wonderful post of his). Human experience is subjective at all levels thereby leaving the inference that the subjective is objective, which in turns means that the unknown cannot be fully known, which in turn leaves open the possibility for religion of any kind to flourish and virally reproduce in a world that has been well-advanced beyond any point yet discovered when compared with past human history. We may be able to find out certain things as we go along (like mathematical, scientific and philosophical constructs), but that doesn't mean we'll know everything. Maybe I need to crack open some more philosophical texts and read up. Here's a philosophical bent that just came to mind: if the universe is expanding and is always expanding, does that mean the "unknown" aspects about keep growing? If so, does that mean humankind will come to a collective understanding that we may never ultimately know about the nature of the entire universe? Maybe we will, maybe we won't, but it will be a fun excursion either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Ok, I'm up early enjoying listening to a Mozart concerto and sipping a fresh cappuccino, reading a few of the posts here and wanting to try to contribute some thoughts on the topic of beauty. Before I begin I wish to make special note to Ruby that this post here was positively wonderful and well written. I’ve bookmarked it for myself to be able to refer others to in future discussions. Is there intrinsic beauty in nature seems to be the question; something that when considered suggests a design, which then implies a Designer? To begin I'll take a slightly contrary position and state that I see there are certain things in nature that are "cues" that we respond to as beauty, yet the ability to respond to them is largely dependent on environmental factors. The night sky is breath-taking as one stands out in the open field looking upwards. There are several things that contribute to this as listed in the quote I posted prior to this one in this thread, such as natural patterns and themes that run throughout nature. That we should respond to these, should be of little surprise since we are part of that system, and by nature are hardwired to respond to beauty as part of the fabric of life which holds it together. How beauty operates isn’t in any one single way, but in many ways and for many reasons. It takes many forms. In many areas of our experience of living, we are being programmed by our cultures using this natural response to beauty, to respond to certain things it sees as useful to itself for its survival. This has led to the cultivation of particular responses to specific things in the environment directly into our biology – what is referred to as a bio-cultural feedback loop. But the underlying principle driving how life evolves is Beauty. Beauty is intrinsic to the function of life, but what is considered beautiful is driven by the forces of evolution, and its responses will be environmentally specific to each species, and varying within that group depending on regions. Survival depends on Beauty. Beauty, for all intents and purposes is “Godâ€. Now take this natural response that played part in our evolution as a social species, and inject it particularly into our culture of mass-media and market-driven capitalistic society. The natural programming social signals of what is beautiful has become more self-serving and confused, than beneficial to the whole as it has in nature from the begging of our awakening as species. To me it’s no wonder there are such disconnects from ourselves in this environment - and what I believe, is a certain growing angst, or a longing to find this experience of nature - the desire for peace and the subsequent model of God to hang those desires on as a symbol of that to relate those feels to. In our modern world, the symbol of God has different meaning, and I feel it hugely centers on this underlying disconnect and anxiety. I’d love to add a lot more to this, but I have to go attend a day of endless meetings (speaking of disconnect from Beauty!! ). But I want to leave it with this thought for the topic starter, “The watchmaker’s fallacyâ€. I understand what you mean about seeing “God†as you look at nature. Unlike someone who grew up in a natural environment, such as Ruby so eloquently described in her post, we attach the language of our society to something like nature, and then we take the understanding of our environment that we create and mistakenly apply it to natural processes, as a projection of ourselves and our creation of tools onto nature. We’re not talking about things forged by human hands, but the shapes and patterns of things created by natural processes, like the forms of waves in the sand from the blowing winds. It is beautiful, because we are part of it, but really to me the “Creator†if anything is the process. It is wonderful, and awe inspiring, and to see this says something wonderful about the person who can in this world, and the power of Beauty to impress itself into any environment, no matter how much we exploit it for selfish gains rather than common need. I’ll leave it at that. Thanks for the topic. It’s an important one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Now take this natural response that played part in our evolution as a social species, and inject it particularly into our culture of mass-media and market-driven capitalistic society. The natural programming social signals of what is beautiful has become more self-serving and confused, than beneficial to the whole as it has in nature from the begging of our awakening as species. To me it’s no wonder there are such disconnects from ourselves in this environment - and what I believe, is a certain growing angst, or a longing to find this experience of nature - the desire for peace and the subsequent model of God to hang those desires on as a symbol of that to relate those feels to. In our modern world, the symbol of God has different meaning, and I feel it hugely centers on this underlying disconnect and anxiety. This paragraph explains a lot about this phenomena... http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/tech/main205.shtml Click on the video link on the main page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Even though I feel some of you still don't believe me, I really wasn't trying to prove anything. Because I can't. I realized that even if I got everyone to agree that nature is intrinsically beautiful, I wouldn't even know where to go from there to prove the existence of a god. In fact, if someone knows that argument, I would like to hear it. I just got done reading this thread, quite long! I think the OP question *IS* a valid one worthy of discussion. It is one of xtians best arguments to use on someone on the brink of loosing their faith. It is hard to argue. Art, beauty, awe, inspiration all these things are complex in your mind. Our minds will make sense (or try to) of everthing. It keeps us in harmony. Ever see images in woodgrain? Order out of chaos. We are also INHERENTLY LAZY in our thought process, or some are weak in it. Which is easier? To behold a landscaped vista, a mountain in the background, a slight fog near the top, and the clouds parted ever so slightly so that a beautiful ray shines majestically through it and think: 1. What awe and splendor! How complex, yet beautiful! How could this *ever* just come about by chance? Impossible! Awww the wonder! or 2. What awe and splendor! How complex, yet beautiful! It is so amazing that life, all life, started out so simple, yet evolved to such splendor! Imagine what it must look like on other life bearing worlds, or better yet, imagine if you could survive on the surface of jupiter and behold the wonder of the great earth-sized storms! How awesome it must be! Yet there is no person there to marvel at it... So god didn't create those fantastic places, the fires of the sun, those majestic plums of explosions, or the ice-lands of uranus, god did not make these wonders for us, we cannot behold them. And what wonders greater exist beyond our telescopes? Surely a god cannot exist, there is too much out there, for it to be directed by any intellegence. Cascading, or snow-balling explains a lot. Like our own technology, we start with a wheel, someone makes a cart, then a chariot, then a car, then a... well, you get it. Nature is like this, build blocks forever evolving. It all starts with SIMPLE like the "big bang", then events happen, snow-ball, and things take shape. I know this is a radically simplified version of "life the universe and everything" but it fits far far better then a "god did it" theory would. I know you are not xtian (or I think you are not), but you sound like you have some doubts. Here's a picture I would like you to see, click it to make it larger: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Talking about eyes, I find that some shapes and colors of eyes are more beautiful than others. Some eye shapes I don't care for at all, but others trigger some deep emotion which can be understood as desire or attraction. Now, I'm certain that the eye shapes I love are not necessarily the same eye shapes Cooligan loves. So does this mean that Cooligan is wrong, or I'm wrong, in loving one or the other? And does it mean that God only created the eye shapes we can agree are attractive? It's just crazy to think so. It's obviously individual feelings, not universal. The feeling is universal, but the object that triggers the feeling is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts