Re: What is beauty?

[Tuan V Nguyen <t.nguyen@garvan.unsw.edu.au>]

Cha`o ba'c La^m,

At 02:33 PM 6/30/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi ba'c Tua^'n va` ca'c ba'c me^ sa('c dd.e.p,

        Na`y ba'c La^m, to^i ho^?ng co' "me^ sa('c dde.p" dda^u nhe'. To^i
chi? me^ ca'i de^~ thu+o+ng cu?a phu. nu+~ tho^i :)

>I've heard about a research on sexual behaviour, whose result claims that
>men choose their mate on the principle of the fitness for reproduction. I
>think that the underlying philosophy of this "evolutional imperative" is
>nothing short of Darwinism.

        This is correct. In fact, the whole thing is determined by genes.
Men's genes determine the type of mates who they want, the kind of beauty
that they want, etc. Will talk more about this next time. Fascinating stuffs! 


>May be average is THE result of the evolutional process. But because the
>evolution is an open process, average may be always under change. The
>question is whether the evolution is linial, or zig-zag, or etc.

        According to the neutral theory, this is the case, i.e average is
the result of evolutionary process.

>1 year ago I read an article (not in Nature) about "beauty is the
>average". I'd like to put the question in another way: "Is the average the
>only beauty?"
> I do believe that the average is beautiful, but.... 

        Well, this is a paradox: while beauty is THE average, but average is
not necessarily THE beauty, may be A beauty. An average flower is not the
best flower, according to the theory of measurement. However, all the best
flowers are resulted from the average. Complicated huh? Let us see any other
comments.

        Tuan