There is. Relativity. WC
--- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
