On the conception of plot based beauty

Perhaps but we must define the definition of this particular order because we cannot say collectively order is an all good and beautiful force.

I will try to think of a way in which your theory could work.

Perhaps in the sense of productiveness of the viewers understanding of the plot or whatever art work present within beauty, take for example watching a hero die for his family we can take a level of productivity from watching this just as we can take a level of productivity of watching a mans moral decline within a move such as There Will be Blood (Great movie) by understanding the mistake, perhaps this productivity can be seen as a natural order of sorts because of its natural productivity, just as a hierarchy is the nature order of things it is the natural productivity. but I have an intuitive feeling of disagreement. I do not think it is individually the productivity for example we can still appreciate Borromir dying for no reason but it can also be seen as a redemption. So perhaps it is this natural productivity Man receives from the appreciation of beauty (particularly plot based beauty). So we can say the beauty within plot arises out of productive reception and therefore appreciation from the individual for the content.

I cannot particularly find an inconsistency with this other than the vagueness of the conclusion. I will have to think over this until I come to conclusion think of what a reply.

I just thought of something.

It seems we have found at least two forms of beauty:

One of experience based productivity such as attraction to opposite gender.

And the one of individual appreciation such as attraction to beauty within art.

This is the definition of order:
"the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method."

How is the attraction to the opposite gender related to experience based productivity?

Beauty has nothing to do with its production and reproduction. These tend towards the opposite of beauty, hence the unbeautiful way your question is framed (as is the case for most modern philosophy and art).

To me a beautiful plot is a "complete" one, complete in what it sets to be and complete in what it can represent.

I don't understand how my question is unbeautifuly framed.

You said that experience based productivity is a form of beauty. I'm asking how it is so because I don't understand what you mean.

>This is the definition of order:
>"the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method."

Agreed but I would not say universally order as the basis for beauty because there is order by any definition.

>How is the attraction to the opposite gender related to experience based productivity?

Because it is productivity but it is tied into person experience, you desire that beauty/productivity within person experience. Anything beautiful is based on some level of productivity whether the experience founded one or the appreciative one.

>Beauty has nothing to do with its production and reproduction. These tend towards the opposite of beauty, hence the unbeautiful way your question is framed (as is the case for most modern philosophy and art).

Of course but we can never see the ultimate ideal and all existence form of beauty for it is an idea. We however can see its productions and understand what is and what is not its productions.

I do believe you misunderstand that their still is an objective incarnation of beauty within its selected form.

Because you are seeking the secondary form, the knowledge as it appears in the world, the reception of the revealing - which is fundamentally distinct from beauty.
As for the other, that was my first post.

So you would say a paedophile fan fiction is beautiful because it accomplished its goal?

user the guy you are replying to is not me (Op), hell, I'm pretty sure he was talking to me any way but oh well. It doesn't matter.

Also

>You said that experience based productivity is a form of beauty. I'm asking how it is so because I don't understand what you mean.

I never said experience in itself is a form of beauty but that there is experience based beauty and appreciative based beauty. The experience based beauty is that which is in the (from what I think) purpose of practicality such as a strong jaw being "beautiful" and attractive to females because it represents testosterone.

Appreciative beauty is that which say art, you are simply appreciating something or it may be but is not limited to encouraging self contemplation it simply is appreciative.

>Because you are seeking the secondary form, the knowledge as it appears in the world, the reception of the revealing - which is fundamentally distinct from beauty.
>As for the other, that was my first post.

Are you pretending to be me (Op)? If so pls stop I would be happy to debate you.

>So you would say a paedophile fan fiction is beautiful because it accomplished its goal?

Why not? Being a pedophile and fanfiction has nothing to do with plot. Retard

your categories are confusing. is 'appreciation' not an experience? or, how is beauty to be 'appreciated' if it is not experienced? how is anything to be anything 'for' a consciousness if it is not experienced 'by' that consciousness? and by experience i do not just mean the 'interface' between subject and external object or subject and world or whatever. abstract contemplation and any other form of thought are also experiences.

He's not pretending to be you. His sentence structuring is highly incoherent. What he meant to say "as for my first reply".

I'm not seeking any "secondary form". I am asking a very straightforward question:
"How is the attraction to the opposite gender related to experience based productivity?"

You made this statement:
"It seems we have found at least two forms of beauty: One of experience based productivity such as attraction to opposite gender..."

You're having immense difficulties answering this question.

Try learning grammar before you start talking about beauty. (unless you're some postmodernist that thinks grammar is a social construct?)
Also try learning about the theory of art and aesthetic philosophy and building coherent arguments instead of spouting garbage that is on the level of "everything is made of water".

>Why not? Being a pedophile and fanfiction has nothing to do with plot. Retard

Yea it does. Do you know what plot is? Also we have begun talking in terms of general beauty as well as plot based beauty so you have to specify.

If a character is a paedophile than that is a key aspect to the plot and therefore any possible beauty within it. Although obviously you have a twisted sense of beauty and a drunk moral compass.

>your categories are confusing. is 'appreciation' not an experience? or, how is beauty to be 'appreciated' if it is not experienced? how is anything to be anything 'for' a consciousness if it is not experienced 'by' that consciousness? and by experience i do not just mean the 'interface' between subject and external object or subject and world or whatever. abstract contemplation and any other form of thought are also experiences.

Of course appreciation is by technicality an experience that is why it is secondary to the primary form of beauty within the world which is called the experience based one.

I meant experience as in that is primary rather to an appreciation. I am using badly named terms because I could not think of any better.

Experience based beauty is that which is primary and comes from individual experience and is always based on furthering the individual in a physical way while the appreciative comes from the experience based or is a collage of it. And is impersonal, it may reflect around the world or cause self contemplation.

As I said just simply bad terminology, I thought my explanation would of allowed you to understand this.

Oh shit hehe, didn't even realise. Do you think he is a chink?

user I will say this once again the man you are talking to is not Op and did not say

>"It seems we have found at least two forms of beauty: One of experience based productivity such as attraction to opposite gender..."

I said that. and I am Op. Ask me the question but I have explained it quite a lot.

Grammar is a social construct. I am also not a postmodernist.

Why are you this autistic? Can you not understand some simple dialect? Is it too difficult? Too abstract for the brainlet here?

You can't say 'of course' and then say I am wrong.
What if beauty is not an idea? What if the idea of the beautiful is beautiful because it is an Idea of the Beautiful? Or, in other words, what if the gods love the beautiful simply because it is, and neither because it is loved by the gods because it is beautiful, nor beautiful because it is loved by the gods? It is we who create that division and distinction, the gods obey other laws and are never separate from being.
Perhaps we can never see the Form, the complete essence, yet we sense it. And this is because of those brief moments in which the gods cause form to enter into our world. This is the moment of perfection which we tend to capture in episodes of life, memory, or its representation in art. Human creation can also be beautiful, the forms are merely a vector through which essence emerges, bridges the chasm between worlds. It is never depleted, nor does it follow the laws of quantification and empiricism. It is only an antistrophe of humans against the gods which causes blindness. If there were no sense or understanding such discussions would be impossible.
And never jump to the conclusion that the other person does not understand. You only harden your own position in doing so.

by 'primary' do you just mean temporally the first, or do you mean principal/highest, that from which all other beauties are derived?
is a well-defined jawline really 'more beautiful' than michelangelo's pieta?

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPFFFFFPLPLPLPRRRRRPPRPRPRP-pop

>the forms are merely a vector through which essence emerges
i would say, rather, that the creation, artificial or no, is the 'vector' toward the essence, the actualization of the form as pure potentiality.

>You can't say 'of course' and then say I am wrong.

I don't see why not.

Well you see beauty is not exactly the categorical imperative, as nothing can define its own value. Take for example the most original form of beauty and attraction, sexual attraction. A strong jaw is considered attractive and beautiful because it represents testosterone just if a Woman had such features as a man it would be unattractive because it again signifies testosterone. One example within women is slightly plump lips which are fat deposits created by higher Oestrogen levels within women therefore she will be a better mate/friend. Muscles are attractive in Men because he will be a better mate/friend.

Although there may be some subjective ranges of beauty it is for the most part purely objective.

Beauty is an idea yes but not an un-grounded one. That beauty which enters our world is the identification and representation of productivity and value.

>by 'primary' do you just mean temporally the first, or do you mean principal/highest, that from which all other beauties are derived?
>is a well-defined jawline really 'more beautiful' than michelangelo's pieta?

As in all other beauty's are derived from because it is the first but not necessarily the greatest. For example it may be beauty to see an extremely attractive women in life but when she is painted multiple new mediums are added and the potential is increased. So the primary and first is not necessarily the greatest.

And of course Pieta is much more beautiful than a Jawline itself or a whole man of the highest stock but it is still none the less based upon that primary presentation of practical productivity and value. The non human animals alone have the primary. Take for example colour, that is apart of one of these primary but it becomes apart of the appreciative kind of beauty through its implementation as art.

This is a matter of perspective, and likely a Kantian, or at least Aristotelian, one.
I would say that this self-cosmology is a hubris, and acts as a column blocking the gateway. You assume that we activate the forms, and can modify them, like the gargoyle who transforms into a gutter.

Okay then.

An interconnected, fractal plot is often beautiful if an author can craft it right

Indeed but what defines its beauty?

Because you are saying that I am correct, and then that I am not. Or you are simply assuming your position is the correct one.
As for the rest, beauty cannot be understood in reductionist terms. You have simply crated a hierarchy in which productivity and value are superior to beauty, in which case beauty is lessened or even subsumed by the others. But in reality productivity and value are merely a product of this reductionism of beauty.
You bastardise the forms by assuming they are a product of their effects, or can be modified by instrumental creation. Perhaps you should define productivity and value.

There is no beauty within it, hence why it must be removed from its data constraints.

>Because you are saying that I am correct, and then that I am not. Or you are simply assuming your position is the correct one.

But user... it is the correct one.

I disagree that beauty cannot be understood within reductionist terms for if this were the case than we would not be able to define beauty. We would not be able to say one man is good looking and another ugly.

Productivity and value are by no means superior to beauty for beauty is their product. It is to say that the sight is superior to eye. But tell me how is value and productivity not the elements of beauty? How can you tell me that an attractive form is not attractive to me because of my instinctual value and therefore productivity? I do agree beauty branches out and beyond simply productivity and value but these are its core elements. It seems you cherish the typical idea of beauty and your emotional attachments to it above truth.

And tell me how is beauty not productive and valuable yet also not defined by value and productivity. If value and productivity were alone the product of beauty then beauty would be totally meaningless for it has no grounds. Do you expect a blind eye to be of value?

ehh..no, that is not what i meant.
there can be no experience of beauty other than as it is actualized, either through 'perception' or through thought. but the experience is not the beautiful itself. yet neither is it merely imitation or shadow. the beautiful as actual is just that most perfect expression of what it is.

If you are taking an existentialist path than for sake of ease let us speak of it pertaining beauty.

What about the bitter sweet beauty of what could of been?

OP I agree wholeheartedly, I think beauty is the definition of transcendence, beauty as the most exalted kind of equilibrium. Who would want a heaven that isn't beautiful?

If Heaven is Good than heaven is beautiful for beauty is the highest representation of value and productivity.

but i can't join with the painting of a beautiful woman in the way i can the actual woman. seems i could directly experience the primarily beautiful much more readily than some derivative, a mere representation. and if so, then why do we need the distinction? what is it in or about the painting that augments its beauty? you say new 'mediums' are added but it seems, rather, that the potential experience is much reduced. i cannot hold nor feel nor smell nor taste nor love a painting as i can a woman.

that is there in the experience, for what is, is necessarily a selection against what might otherwise have been.

The painting makes something of the immediacy of your time with her that time can never give you. It's a small effect but it makes goddesses, especially in film which captures that immediacy directly and is still clarified by its "derivative" representations forever

okay, but i can't fuck an image on a screen. and why is the memory and image of former fuckability greater than the actual fucking, if i too, the former (maybe only potential) fucker, will pass into nothingness, just like the object of my lust?
why is fuckability the primary standard of beauty? flesh that out for me.

You see it is appreciation of aesthetic beauty so the actual relationship may be different.

But in regards to the new added mediums are depth, colour, over all style ect. All mixed to create a unique beauty to feel.

>that is there in the experience, for what is, is necessarily a selection against what might otherwise have been.

But don't you see the error of beauty being defined by actualisation, it is not limited to value and productivity as it is in reality and so there is no defined beauty.

i am not 'defining' beauty by its actualization, only noting that an unactualized beauty cannot be experienced. potentiality is infinite, and so unencompassable by a finite experience.

and a beautiful woman has depth, color, and so on. not only this, but these relative qualities change over time and space. in every shift of posture a new experience. i can change the angle at which i view a reprentation, like a painting. but the possibilities of an actual person are so much greater.

So please clarify how the single part of beauty-likeness makes it a functional whole.

Also explain what is typical about my position.
I will wait on answering your questions since you refused to answer mine or to deal with what I said in a generous manner.

>And tell me how is beauty not productive and valuable yet also not defined by value and productivity.
This is circular.
>Do you expect a blind eye to be of value?
Yes. In the case of Odin it is the necessary sacrifice to truth.

The closest approximation we have is ascii images, which are never beautiful. As in the fractals the data would have to be completely written out of the equation.

i wonder if we are just too dull for this philosopher

I agree with this post.

But you see you cannot change in what style you see her (literally) you will never see her in twirls or twists, you will never see her with any un-normal background or un-normal colour, it doesn't have the same potential. Also ever changing stops one from appreciating it's stopped scene.

I already have productivity and value although the value is only of the productivity. If I don't continue to reply user I will be asleep.

>Also explain what is typical about my position.
>I will wait on answering your questions since you refused to answer mine or to deal with what I said in a generous manner.

What do you mean I made a complete post as a reply to your points. Explain how I have not been satisfactory and I shall try to fill those areas.

But in regards to the current question I do not understand what you want.

What about the beautiful woman? Does she not feel her own beauty? Is not elegance precisely humility, or graceful control, within this beautiful form?
>the beautiful as actual is just that most perfect expression of what it is.
You seem to be repeating what I said. So let us go back. Would not the same laws apply to creation? Our creation is not the form itself but merely its 'actualisation'? Is the form that is the object of any creative endeavour not completely of its own world, and in your theory not the creation itself?
This leaves us with a major problem, at least if we are adhering to a theory of forms. So I will ask for a clarification, do you think humans, gods, or invisible forces are the 'prime movers' in actualisation?

>This is circular.

And....?

>Yes. In the case of Odin it is the necessary sacrifice to truth.

Are you fucking kidding me? I love Norse Mythology as well but it isn't real, at least in the traditional sense. Okay even if we were to consider a metaphysical example a correct example that you could trade your eye's sight for something than the eye itself would still be of no value because it does not provide what it is supposed to. But it was not a correct response because religion and metaphysics are not the real world.

The universe depends upon our minds.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. I am one of the greatest ranking among Plato and Kant.

>I already have productivity and value although the value is only of the productivity. If I don't continue to reply user I will be asleep.
How is this Beauty?

You are a fool.

>The universe depends upon our minds.
here we go
in what way?

I asked you to define 'productivity' and 'value'.
And I am asking you how my position is typical. As far as I am aware there is no similar position apart from Plato and some lesser-known philosophers, who are by no means typical, and I disagree with them in certain areas.

>The universe depends upon our minds.
Holy fuck. Is this schizojak?

>How is this Beauty?

I have admitted there is much left but this is what we can summon as two key compartments to the foundation of beauty.

Beauty is productivity of the highest value, such as a man sacrificing himself for another, that is beauty because a mans life is of the highest value and so this action is of the highest productivity.

Attached: Hjalmar Parting from Orvar Odd after the Fight on Samsö - Marten Eskil Winge.jpg (800x680, 147K)

How do you know what an unactualized beauty is if you don't know what it is?

Care to explain otherwise your words are idle and you will be the fool.

>here we go
>in what way?

Ahahah well you new it would be a rabbit hole.

All is subjective so it is the only objective.

>I asked you to define 'productivity' and 'value'.

Do you wish for me to search up dictionary meanings?

Did I say your position was typical? I am sorry if I am being forgetful but could you provide greentext? I am tired.

THE FUCKING ELEPAHNTS

Okay, that's not bad, but I still do not get your meaning of productivity and value.
I will say this, consider the case of a man who sacrifices himself in an unjust war? Is this the highest productivity or value? Or did he not waste the vitality of his life?
And is it not then true that such a man degrades life and does not live up to its potential, for he does not see what is good, and is willing to sacrifice himself for an evil?

>Care to explain
Those who are not fools will be certain of my meaning.

>TRANSCENDENT SOLIPSOGENESIS!!!!

Attached: tiredofexistence.jpg (727x868, 237K)

>I will say this, consider the case of a man who sacrifices himself in an unjust war? Is this the highest productivity or value? Or did he not waste the vitality of his life?

Of course well from what I can see (I may be wrong) this becomes the appreciatory form of beauty take for example Barry Lyndons demise, although through prime it is wrong it is productive within the appreciatory beauty because of the productivity one receives from knowing it.

It seems the greatest problem for the identification of plot based beauty is the amount of variables within a situation in which we must tackle.

the term i used was 'experience' not 'knowledge'. i cannot experience an unactual object. this includes abstractions, like 'thoughts'. for the thought is an experience, and as am experience, it is actual.
but i cannot know an unactualized beauty, because i have not experienced it, just as i cannot know, immediately, the smell of my great great great great grandfather when he lived. i can think that he had a certain smell to him, and that thought is an experience, and also a kind of knowledge, though not very profound. but as to the smell itself, i will never know.

>just as i cannot know, immediately, the smell of my great great great great grandfather
for 'know' substitute 'experience'

>because of the productivity one receives from knowing it.
what is this productivity one receives from the appreciation of beauty?

So does this mean that even if it is not beautiful our reading (or misreading) of it can make it beautiful? If there is an appreciatory nature then this assumes that the form is a quantity, and so can be surpassed or filled up.
Another difficulty, the sacrifice tends towards the heroic rather than the beautiful. Instead, any sense of beauty tends to arrive within the surrounding landscape or the effects rather than the event itself. In many cases it is the laying to rest of beauty, its memory, or the refusal of capitulation to ugliness. But this is not beauty itself.

>EXISTENTIAL TRANSCENDENTALISM

I think it's quite self explanatory but all right. Take for example a man sacrificing himself for his family as plot. That is beauty, that is productive to know.

But, again, how can you know that which is unknowable? By its very nature it can crop up without you ever knowing.
What if this unknown smell appeared to you in a dream? I ask this while keeping in mind that forms do not abide by the rules of worldly materials.

>tends towards the heroic rather than the beautiful

Is the heroic not the beautiful?

>So does this mean that even if it is not beautiful our reading (or misreading) of it can make it beautiful?

We are not making an action beautiful for it had beauty prior but it is an appreciatory beauty.

>Instead, any sense of beauty tends to arrive within the surrounding landscape or the effects rather than the event itself. In many cases it is the laying to rest of beauty, its memory, or the refusal of capitulation to ugliness. But this is not beauty itself.

Nothing is beauty itself but it is beautiful, it represents beauty.

>how can you know that which is unknowable?
meditate on that for a minute.

>HYPERREDUCTIONIST XENOEXISTENTIALISM

productive of what?

No, I'm asking you to do that.

>Empiricist phenomenology

If it is merely appreciatory then it is either something accumulative or created by our minds. Which means we are indeed making it.
Is this the circular logic poster?
Also, doesn't representation have a form? If beauty can only have a degraded copy why is the same not true for representation?

There is some wisdom in this.

In which it may act as an ideal. I as I said before there amount of variables is our greatest enemy within finding the nature of beauty within plot.

We know there are archetypal patterns such as the Heros journey.

You realise that neither of your constructions describe me, right?

>If it is merely appreciatory then it is either something accumulative or created by our minds. Which means we are indeed making it.
>Is this the circular logic poster?
>Also, doesn't representation have a form? If beauty can only have a degraded copy why is the same not true for representation?

It is true for representation. Is there any ultimate form of a cup...No but there are key elements that make it a cup.

Also everything is dependant on our own minds. That doesn't mean it is false though.

The heroic is heroic.
The beautiful is beautiful.

don't besilly you know they do.

So eschatological materio-objectivism?

you are asking how the unknowable is knowable.
if it is unknowable, it is not knowable. if one knew the unknowable, it would not be unknowable.
it's a contradiction in terms.

Why must the heroic not be beautiful? Perhaps the heroic is a subset of the beautiful.

exactly my words

Can you post an example of any pure representation of plot, structure, or data which is beautiful?

You are confused.
If it is truly unknowable then you cannot know if you experienced it or not. Or similar to Parmenidean thought, that which is not, is not.
If beauty is unactualized then it is unactualized. It cannot at the same time be actualized. In your formulation it must be actualized separate from the forms.

No, use your imagination. I am going to have a sleep.

I AM OP. I AM GOING TO SLEEP NOW.

No thanks, I already posted the Ascii images argument, which is correct.
Pure plot is what gives us genre fiction and the funnies.

i am not confused at all. you are spinning plates with words, and misinterprering the source of the concepts they signify.
if there is an unknowable beauty--then what? what is that to anyone? it is unknowable, beyond both experience and comprehension. it might as well be nothing and, indeed, how could you know it was not?

Perhaps, but even then there would be cases of the heroic which are not beautiful, which just proves my point that the heroic is not the beautiful.

You are the one arguing for an unknowable beauty. To which I am saying that if it is unknowable then it cannot be known, and so cannot be reformed.
This would mean the form and the representation remain divided, and so beauty is not beauty for the form is unknowable.

>You are the one arguing for an unknowable beauty
i am not. where did i write anything suggesting this?

You should also clarify what it is I am misrepresenting. And it seems you are quite confused because you just undermined your own position.

Here You are saying the form is unknowable, unactualized.

i am saying the form is not experiencable if it is not actual, which seems trivially true to me. if it were not actual, it could not be experienced. the form 'participates' in or 'ingresses' in our experience. knowledge of form as distinct from our experience is an abstraction from experience. it is knowable *as an abstraction*.

Okay, so you are reversing your position.
What then causes the human to be the determinant in actualization?

The concept of beauty is human as it is based on human perception thus no one besides us is able to experience it in the same form and nothing we experience can be different from it.
Beauty is seen in perfection and imperfection and is often described as to be seeking to lay at each end or in the centre with everything in between having no clearly definable state paired to our past, present and future understanding of development.

Imperfection defines itself through the search to be imperfect to be rather as imperfect as one is able to be which is a kind of perfectionism; Perfection then defined through its obvious struggle to avoid anything that is not perfect; Balance's perfect (as it should be) defines itself through being neither and striving to be neither of these.

Beauty is the human conflict for or against perfection. Perfection is the conflict to achieve logical symmetry expressed in various forms so through traditional mathematical visualisation of formulas, poetry, art, music with them all following in perfect, contained patterns of logic to serve itself alone with no regard to the outside.

Beauty is conflict (in sacrifice and progress), Beauty is isolated (in stagnation and preservation), Beauty is logic (in symmetry and causality)

It is logic then either in traditional form of perfect symmetry or rather its human interpretation of it with it being better or worse rated subjectively according to ones acceptance of the creators intent being fulfilled and being itself fulfilling in its desire to be isolated, logical and symmetrical, or logical in a non obvious state perfection what we would call imperfection as we see in nature specifically humans, though I'd like to add that we humans may be inclined to like what we think is or artistic actual non-symmetry for the reason that we ourselves are unable to attain such symmetrical perfection but that's more of a Freudian scheme here because I have no evidence to back that up.

In other words, you cannot bullshit art if it's actually art and that's what makes it beautiful and so beauty is defined by its expression and the factors of expression which are conflict, isolation/stagnation (more in a desire to keep what is good currently and not to advance as we see in religion, populism and popular culture) and logic-- all the things which have shaped humans to be what they are today.

Now define art. I know this is a rabbit hole of bullshittery so I'll end it here.

Attached: 220px-Gehrts_Armin_verabschiedet_sich_von_Thusnelda_1884.jpg (220x313, 24K)

i am doing no such thing. you are imputing 'positions' to me through carelessness in your interpretation or deliberate attempts to confound what i have written.
i don't think i understand your question, could you rephrase or clarify your meaning?

mostly cceptable to me.

What is careless about pointing out that you said it was unknowable when you said it was unknowable?

read both of these together, eh:
that should clear up your confusion.

and maybe spend less time trying to 'btfo' my 'position' and a little more time thinking things through.
assume is my 'position'
i asked you to clarify your question here let's start again from there

I won't try to btfo your position so long as you don't assume you are correct and so completely bypass my position.
My understanding is that you effectively see the human side, or some worldly creative force, as the catalyst for actualization. The form itself, as an abstraction, can never be known, experienced, or exhausted. Essentially, this means that the human relates to the form in a manner of building: he builds what he thinks can be a representation of the form, but this can never be like or selfsame to the form itself. It can never be complete.
The problems I see with this are: how are we to know that there is any conjunction between the form and its representation? What are the limits of experience? And is there not some unknown quality of experience to which we are given the insight or a seed of the unknown-unknown?

I will withhold my comments on this to avoid further misunderstanding.

form as abstraction *is* experienced, *is* knowable--*as* abstraction, just as with e.g. mathematical or logical objects. these are conceptual experiences.
immediate experience is non-representational; there is no gap between a subjectivity and the object it is aimed at, and so no question of conjunction. the actualization either attains its perfection, or it does not.

So, yes. You do think the human actualizes the form.
Why waste my time with this formal obscurantism while trying to portray me as rude?

what is obscure to you?
and i do not limit subjectivity to human beings, though the question of and interest in beauty seems particular to them.

Okay, so what other subjects can actualize forms and beauty?

all subjectivities actively participate in their realization by gathering the data of their immediate past into themselves and either conform their subjective aim to that suggested in the data, or refuse in part the offering.
experiences of beauty are complex, so demand complex subjectivity.

We are talking of beauty.

Give me an example of the heroic not being a subset of beauty.

I would argue all life experiences beauty but our experience of it being the most advanced and therefore most definable form of it. Our rational helps as well.

>Beauty is the human conflict for or against perfection. Perfection is the conflict to achieve logical symmetry expressed in various forms so through traditional mathematical visualisation of formulas, poetry, art, music with them all following in perfect, contained patterns of logic to serve itself alone with no regard to the outside.

Interesting and I do believe you are onto something but it is too broadly defined. For one could then call the raping of an 8 year old as a beautiful act simply because it is the paedophiles conflict against perfection.

Although your view on logical symmetry is an interesting idea, somewhat as the unity between the Dionysian and Apollonian and Nietzsche proposed in the Birth of Tragedy.

>Beauty is conflict (in sacrifice and progress), Beauty is isolated (in stagnation and preservation), Beauty is logic (in symmetry and causality)

It may be so but it is too broad to say in a complete variation of circumstance.

>In other words, you cannot bullshit art if it's actually art and that's what makes it beautiful and so beauty is defined by its expression and the factors of expression which are conflict, isolation/stagnation (more in a desire to keep what is good currently and not to advance as we see in religion, populism and popular culture) and logic-- all the things which have shaped humans to be what they are today.

Any driving force may be beautiful then in every way. Again it is much to broad of a definition to say beauty is simple a factor of expression to conflict ect, for we know that this would not fit all circumstance and so we must find another defining category.

The beauty is always present but it depends upon the subjectivity for its appreciatory version.

is 'the beauty' present for that eight-year-old being raped in your example here?

No of course not.

then in what way is 'the beauty' always present?

I mean to say that if something is beautiful than it is always within that representation of it even if one does not acknowledge or is aware of it consciously.

This doesn't answer the question.

A heroic act may occur with neither knowledge or aesthetics, like a tree falling in the forest with no witnesses. It may also be a very brutal and ugly act.
I literally already explained this.

>A heroic act may occur with neither knowledge or aesthetics, like a tree falling in the forest with no witnesses. It may also be a very brutal and ugly act.
>I literally already explained this.

Nothing you said has been shown to necessarily be non beautiful. There are aesthetics different to purely sight based. Also if it is an ugly act than that does not mean it may not be beautiful in an appreciatory factor.

i answered the question as i could, not as you wanted.

how does beauty sustain itself through time?
are there degrees of beauty? different intensities? is a person damaged or inadequate if they can't appreciate an object that is held by general consensus to be beautiful? are there purely private experiences of beauty? what about transient experiences of beauty, notnjust the natural, but also the artificial as in, say, a dance or theatre production? can these art forms ever attain to the beautiful if they are, by necessity, fleeting and unsustainable?

>Also if it is an ugly act than that does not mean it may not be beautiful in an appreciatory factor.
like in the rape of a child, if it is witnessed by a connoisseur of such depravity and horror.

you are conflating beauty with art

op, why do you disappear the very moment the truly difficult questions start coming up?
i thought you wanted an intellectual conversation. part of intellectualism is confronting just those opinions and counter-factuals that contradict our fast-held beliefs.

Attached: 1503720688188.jpg (922x830, 354K)

Who receives the gold scrapings of this appreciatory beauty?

Attached: americathebeautiful.png (1080x498, 501K)

hot dogs give me a unique kind of headache that needles up through my nasal cavity straight up to the apex of my skull.
and they just aren't very good. i cannot believe other people when they tell me they like them. they must be lying to me and yet i don't know why they would.

i demand answers desu

que asqueroso ese fundo, como bolsa de leche vieja

Beauty does not sustain itself through time it does so through Man or Life ion general.

Yes of course there are many different types of beauty but that does nit subtract from their objectiveness. No why would a person be damaged they are simply inferior. But it is not the general consensus that defines beauty it is inherent within us the the defining differences of beauty. Yes I do believe there are purely private experiences of beauty but I also don't quite understand what you mean. Well you see this dance or theatre production that you call artificial is not artificial at all for those dancers are simply embodying the beauty within. Of course they can sustain beauty particularely if they are not infinite for even the "natural" beauty as you see it is not infinite, it does not transcend time.

I said not necessarily I never once said all ugly acts are beautiful. It may be beautiful to him but I would not say it can be said to of been objectively beautiful.

By what do you mean?

>pleb who hasn't warmed to the hotdog cheerio cheese stew

WE STILL HAVEN'T FOUND A DEFINITION OF PLOT BASED BEAUTY BEYOND SOME LEVEL OFF PRODUCTIVITY AROUSING FROM IT WHICH I DEEM BY INTUITION TO BE INCONCLUSIVE IN RESULT.

well, after over 100 posts it's still unclear what you even mean, or why it's interesting, so no surprise.
'plot-based beauty'. is this beauty by virtue of the structural elements of a narrative (i.e. 'plot'), in which case--qhat about it? or do you mean, as you've said before, that it is the kind of motivating fantasy inspired by a representation of art?

>gabidull zo bad id gud
No, sweatie. It only appreciates in your mind, and is only good in your mind.

Attached: GABIDULL IZ ZENDIEND.jpg (171x266, 17K)