What is Beauty? [NSFW]

2 - Symmetry/Geometry



Symmetry indicates proper health. Actually, not just in humans. All over the natural world, symmetry is a positive indicator. This is in part because of the way DNA unravels itself into biological forms. As far as my limited understanding goes, repetition -- through a sort of feedback loop -- is what allows for a simple set code like DNA to propagate into an elaborate structure:



From a mathematical point of view, Symmetry is computationally less intensive. You just repeat the same instance in a loop, and that gets you your result. Becuse DNA works like a code, this is a very successful way in which it's managed to produce complex forms. In this way, one could say DNA produces 3D fractals, which we see everywhere in biology. We naturally respond positively to these shapes:



This is the origin behind our affinity for Mandalas.

Mandalas are used as tokens of beauty all across the world, especially by religions (which are themselves a nexus of archetypal representation). Mandalas are now used as adult coloring books to cause relaxation and peace. There is something hypnotically relaxing about them, because of their order/organization, and our psyches respond very positively (re: a 'beauty' libido) towards that perfect structure.

 

4 - Infants/Children



Another variant of beauty we are libido-drawn to is that if cuteness (kawaii), as it relates to the affinity felt for children. This is rooted in our need to prioritize the wellbeing of our young, and care for them. We find them adorable because in finding them adorable we care for them especially more. This is also the root of what's caused the chibi-fication. Disproportionally big heads, big eyes (etc) are indicators of a child, which evokes affection.



Stuffed animals have stubby feet, button noses, too -- to evoke the same sense of beauty felt. Why are big heads attractive? By evolutionary consequence, because humans have developed their intelligence and have such large brain cases that we need to be born with a much larger head than what is proportional for our bodies. We then in turn idealize that natural consequence, by finding it cute.

y'know what I think is sexy?.. the way you just deconstructed beauty to its fundamental, practical foundations

That said, while I agree with your main premise and your analysis of physical attraction, I think the definition of beauty can probably be refined (and expanded) even more. There is an aspect that you mention, but overlook, which I think reveals the true nature of the phenomenon; the variance in perception of beauty due to subjectivity. Although there are universal qualities which resonate with us all, there are also things, not necessarily associated with these qualities, which one can find beautiful. And the sensation may be no less with subjectively found beauty than with a universal resonance - although I think that numinous emphasis in particular tends to arise with the archetypal. This is why I've come to define 'beauty' as a sensing of profound meaning. What is meant by 'profound' though? From what I've come to understand, there are several things which underpin the generation of profundity; archetypal resonance (as you state), personal association, and a notion of Truth.

I like your explanation of the archetypal precepts of beauty, it's a thought-provoking start! While symmetry, anatomy, color and shine are all qualities that have significance, I see it that there are a myriad of other qualities and certain ways that they overlap which can cause the sensation of beauty to arise. A visual evocation of beauty can occur while viewing a sunset, for example, or a misty moonlit lake. The symmetrical and curvaceous form of a fruit or body is sensed as beautiful/alluring, but so are a whole range of shapes, movements and colors in nature. Trees, while fractal in form yet seldom symmetrical, seem to evoke a numinous, reverent sense of beauty. As Jung puts it:


From the research I've done, trees are universal symbols of life, nature, and most interestingly, the whole Psyche or Self. Vast bodies of water, too, such as the ocean or lakes, symbolize the unknown depths of the unconscious. And the stars - while 'shiny' - have a more particular meaning which is demonstrated in the creation of the constellations. The constellations are projections of archetypes, which are set in the unknown depth of the void; a parallel to the unconscious. In alchemy, as in analytical psychology, the 'inner firmament'/psyche has been likened to a dark sky full of stars, the stars being points of conscious illumination within the vast unknown of the unconscious.

I actually wanted to address the topic of shine/glimmer more in-depth as well. While the argument that gloss = water may indeed be relevant, it's my opinion (of course, influenced by analytical thought) that sparks of light have a deeper symbolic meaning to us humans. Light is a symbol of awareness - stemming from the fact that we are diurnal creatures, and light is what allows us to see the world around us. When the image is one of light shining through darkness, or being seemingly generated, like out of a jewel, the deep meaning is that of higher awareness/knowledge - yes, one variant of which is the meaning we find in the stars/constellations. It is alluding to mystery, truth that is before you but not yet comprehended. Think of religious iconism, for another more direct example. Images of God the Father, or of Goddess Mother for that matter, are often illuminated from behind. Angels come heralding word from above, and they're illuminated with a halo and rim-light. It's the same sentiment felt when seeing lighted stained glass windows or looking up at sunlight glimmering through trees. Now I think that gloss differs from glimmer/shine, it's a nuance. A glossy piece of fruit or candy, or something reflective that looks like water, evoke the more direct instinct of appetite/thirst - as demonstrated in the studies mentioned where little kids would lick glossy or reflective things. Although gloss and glimmer can both be present, and so the meanings and sensations associated to both would be relevant - like in the case of some jewels - I think it's important not to conflate the complex sensation of beauty/the numinous with a more straight-forward vector like appetite.

The concept of illumination, as described above, is part of how the notion of truth/knowledge can evoke a sensation of beauty. We have within us a prominent drive to comprehend reality. Now, this gets mixed in with other instincts, subjective fears, longings, etc. But there does seem to be a pure vector toward comprehension, which arises from the functioning of logos. Logos, the quantifying process, directs libido in a way which is satisfied by the notion that one understands the world around them. And so, someone lead by logos will tend to find profound meaning in their paradigm, whether it be mystical, religious or scientific in nature. Their belief may become moralistic, as they defend that which they find meaningful/beautiful. Something I've noticed about this particular situation, the sense of beauty tends to become associated not just with the conceptual, but with one's agency derived from the underlying system of belief. This is likely due to the fact that the judgement functions - which are the operators of logos - exist as an introverted/extroverted duality and so the same meaning is expressed in both forms.

As described with the meaning of glimmering light, I believe there is also a more abstract, archetypal sensation of beauty associated with awareness. In the first clip posted in this thread, Peterson mentions Eve's association to the apple, which is the catalyst of conscious awareness/judgement. The allure of the apple is two-fold; it is indeed a shiny, appetizing fruit, but it also embodies the allure of higher awareness - that sensation of mystery and the potential for greater understanding and agency. The symbol of the fruit, I believe, is used in order to emphasize this allure toward knowledge.

Something else I've noticed about the notion of the beautiful or sacred is that it seems there's many times an identification with the concept. A simple example is what Petersen describes about women's magazines, all of them feature a beautiful woman on the front. Why would that be? Well, it's likely because women identify with that beauty as a potential in themselves and feel that libido vector toward embodying it. It has a meaning which is directly relevant to the self. This is also seen in imprinting, the childhood home of one person may be beautiful in all kinds of ways to them, but seem ordinary to others. This is because there is a deeper, soul evoking meaning - memories, projected psychic content, associations - which is relevant to the person who carries the imprint. Similarly, whatever the ego has identified with tends to define a person's sense of beauty. Different people resonate with different colors, for example, and I've found that often times favorite color has a lot to do with the way a person defines their personality. Blue may be beautiful to one person because they identify their character with melancholy and/or calm, while it may be avoided by another because they identify them self as being dynamic and willful - perhaps more like the color red. Now, from this we could say that the specific meanings associated with the colors tend to be universal, but it still stands that the sensation of beauty/affinity is evoked because of a subjectively derived identification with those universal meanings.

(There may very well be other things which lead to a sense of profound, relevant meaning.. I think my explanation may be tinged by my analytical background - I've categorized things by Soul, Ego and Logos. Something about the hypothesis seems a bit too simple.. someone break it for me!! D:)

Alerith It's quite a big claim to suggest that the psyche (and the self/personality) operates via perfect dual symmetry and mandala-like structures. And you know me.. I look for evidence.

But in this case, I'm inclined to agree. Not because of a Jungian perspective of it, but because of clinical cases of savants like David Tammet and Jason Padgett.


Especially in the case of Jason Padgett, who is an acquired savant, he is able to see reality in a very mathematical way. Both of them describe almost synesthesic experiences, where images and concepts appear to them as numbers and geometries.

Tammet has a relational experience of numbers, where he can do calculations in his head by how the shapes fit together.





Jason Padgett is even more fascinating, with some of his attempts to depict what he sees being:



^ his visualization when contemplating the double slit test





In the context of what was said about DNA above, and the formulaic nature in which natural systems build structures, i'm inclined to believe that the creation of the brain is underpinned by an equal base geometry. The brain is formulaic, indeed. We know this because everything about the human body is formulaic (DNA-based) and so our human form "unpacks" itself into the mature shape we eventually take via lots of repetition and loops.

We've found evidence of this corner-cutting in how the human connectome project has mapped out the relationships between all our neurons into a perfect (albeit folded) 3D grid structure:



It takes no leap of logic to suggest, then, that our brain is a complex geometric/mathematical calculator -- born itself from the unfurling of a geometric equation. I imagine then, that in certain special instances like that of Tammet and Padgett, the veil is pulled back from the "code" that our brains are running. And they're not the only savant cases like this.

I can imagine that underneath it all... underneath our basic awareness of reality, our brains are digesting reality using something akin to calculus (or something more complex). But that veil isn't usually pulled back because as monkeys looking out for food and avoiding predators, we didn't need to think in numbers -- even if math underpins our brain's OS. In fact, we'd probably die if we thought in numbers. And so, perhaps it's the case that our brains use fractal-math to make calculations about the world, but what finalizes into our conscious awareness are the conclusions that this math comes to, in terms of relevant archetypal identifiers... and the highly sophisticated social/hierarchical narrative we evolved to play collectively.

This actually seems obvious from the perspective of A.I. learning, given how complex the math is turning out to be, for us to create sentient A.I. It's no mystery that the math underpinning our own OS is no less complex.

But why mandalas and not just traditional math?

If the above conjecture ended up being correct, then it makes sense that nature would select for us the most effective OS model to simulate the complex and ever-evolving nature of the world. The OS's we've made to this date are very rigid and inorganic. That is why we've failed to create intuitive A.I. When we finally do create A.I., I predict it will have to come from a new computational model that diverges away from the conventional model and uses more fractal based, probabilistic (perhaps also quantum) equations. [less about 1's and 0's.. and more about relationships between datasets]

And our brains are already ahead of us on that front, operating via that OS, and operate via wave-based equations for predicting motion and other aspects of our environment. And so, we feel something deeply "right" and satisfying when things resemble this mandalic (really: sacred geometry) pattern. We are an animal, running off of a mathematical system that understands the world via waves/symmetries... and so we recognize these spiral symmetries as correct representations of ourselves and the world. Because indeed, that is what we're made of -- as is the world.

One idea proposed by Geoffrey Miller is that sexual selection contributed to the development of some of our higher faculties like appreciation of beauty, creativity, witty banter, etc. These things pose no particular survival advantage, but they do make us more attractive mates. So perhaps beauty is also related to the attraction drive, the Sexual instinct, as the enneagram calls it.