Re: ' If it is agreed there can be the "beautiful of the unbeautiful"'
Yes and why not the fast of the not fast, the lazy of the not lazy, the old of the not old and so on ad infinitum. DA On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Frances Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frances to William and Chris and others... > If it is agreed there can be the "beautiful of the unbeautiful" > then even the "repulsive" object felt or sensed for its own sake > solely alone would have an aesthetic quality in its form to some > degree that could be say ideally sublime. > > William wrote... > Repulsive is not the same as ugly. Both feelings of > the ugly and repulsive are brain-stem natural > responses to natural threats: predators, disease, > death, etc. Ugly is not necessarily repulsive but > may simply be a variation of what a social norm for > the lovely. Both can be beautiful. As for the > repulsive, I suppose that's just a problem we humans > need to live with, the brain telling us what's healthy > or not. > > Chris wrote... > > "---- is there also ugly? (in nature)" > > Yes -- the dead and the dying. > > And for whatever reason -- some of the creatures > > that feed on carrion seem to > > be rather ugly too --- vultures, hyenas etc. > > Some parasites too -- like ticks, intestinal worms, > > leeches. > > Yuck -- they're ugly --- bad ugly. > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
