Re: What is beauty?

[Hong Lam Vu <vuh000@goofy.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de>]

Hi ba'c Vie^.t,

>   First, the process told by Anh Tuan says that ** the average of beauty
> is the beauty of average **. I am not sure that I would have chosen the
> average one. Up to now my taste used to be different. I am always able to 
> show which beauty is the one chosen by the average, but that is not 
> always the same as my type. Maybe, Freud could have taken me as a patient.

Average la` co^.ng ta^'t ca? la.i ru`i chia trung bi`nh. Vi' du. ne^'u
ba'c ddi ho.c dduo+.c ca'c ddie^?m 1,2,3,3 thi` die^/m trung bi`nh cu/a
ba'c la` 2,25 ma(.c du` cha? tha^`y na`o cho ba'c ca'i ddie^?m na`y. Ve`6
ly' thuye^'t, co' the^? trong 6 ty? nguo+`i, y' que^n chi? co' 3 ty? dda`n
ba` tre^n the^' gio+'i kho^ng co' la^'y mo^.t ai gio^'ng y chang nhu+
average.

Ngoa`i ra, ba'c Tua^'n chi/ no'i to+'i average tho6i chu+' co' no'i ca'i
ha`m pha^n bo^' na`y no' hi`nh chuo^ng hay hi`nh gi` dda^u, co' no'i
variant ba(`ng bao nhie^u dda^u. 

>   Second, I have not always been excited in young women (perhaps I did 
> not have a chance to meet a good one). My ideal woman was always a middle 
> age. To me the really good woman should have a mature beauty in her 
> middle age. So at this point, your theory failed. Don't tell me that is 
> because I am not capable for reproduction :-)))  
>   

Thi` pha?i mo^~i nguo`i mo^~i kha'c thi` la^'y average mo+i co' y' nghi~a
chu+'. Hi`nh nhu+ ca'c ba'c hie^?u sai ba`i ba'o ba'c Tua^'n no'i thi`
pha?i. Ne^'u tui hie^?u ddu'ng thi` va^'n dde^` la`: nguo+`i ta la^'y
hi`nh cu/a va`i tra(m co^ ba^'t ky`, du`ng computer ti`m ra
mo^.t bo^. ma(.t average. Va` ho. nga.c nhie^n la` ca'i bo^. ma(.t nha^n
ta.o , y' que^n, ma'y ta.o, na`y la^.p tu+'c dduo+.c mo.i nguo+`i khen
dde.p. Va^'n dde^` la` lie^.u ai cu~ng khen bo^. ma(.t average na`y la`
dde.p hay kho^ng. Hi`nh nhu+ ca^u ho?i na`y chu+a dduo+.c tra? lo+`i.

The fact that someone perceives a certain non-average face for beautiful
is not contradictory to these average hypothesis. Nonaverage MAY be
baeutiful. But the question is whether average is ALWAYS beautiful. This
average is a mathematical average. Gia' ma` ba'c dduo+.c coi ca'i hi`nh
co^ average do tha(`ng ma'y no' ve~ ra thi`... No'i nho? nhe': Truo+'c kia
em va^~n nghi~ ga'i Nha^.t kho^ng the^? go.i la` xinh dduo+.c, nhu+ng sau
khi nhi`n ca'i average do ma'y ta.o ra tu+` ma^'y chu.c co^ Nha^.t cha(?ng
co' gi` sa('c nuo+'c huo+ng tro+`i, em buo^.c pha?i thay ddo^?i quan
nie^.m.


>    Third, I don't think so. IMHO, any excitement for external beauty is 
> mixed with sexuality including the beauty of a math equation, or of a 
> painting by Da Vinci,...
>    So in some sense, everybody has a small homosexuality as built-in. If 
> you live in an anomalous environment, this capability ( the word use 
> maybe not polotically correct)can develope. For example in the arabic
> world.
>     This is not a handicap at all. Don't think that I have ever fallen in 
> love with a guy:-))) Just think well about that.
> 

Positivists are those who are keen to criticize each other. Critics
makes fun. OK, I'll try to criticize you.

Man is a microcosmos, so it's not surprising when it's pointed out that
everyone is a mixed of homo- and heterosexuality. Homosexuality is not a
handicap at all in a (wo)man's lifetime. There are reports about the
homosexual edge. It is said that guys succeed more, and that guys are
stronger represented in the elites, etc.

But in the long run, say time covering a lot of generations, homosexuality
is a handicap in terms of biological reproduction. Although the
homosexuals can not reproduce themselves, homosexuality still reproduces
itself, but not by the homosexuals. I do not know whether there is a law
of the plurality, the diversity of society or a law of "equilibrium". BTW,
this does not contradict Darwinism.


>    Fourth, I am also a positivist, but I know what is the Beauty, that
> satifies a given need. ( For instance my need).
>    As the beauty has its origine in the sexual instinct, if the 
> individual is not there, we cannot talk about the beauty.
>    Some ontologists can talk about the beauty of God. I don't think
> that God makes any diference between beautifulness and the ugliness.
> Otherwise, he would have never created Satan.
>   That is so perhaps because he does not have the need for reproduction.
> The unique ability of creature is already enough for him. For him, Adam
> and Eva were equally beautiful as the Snake.
>     

As a positivist, I do not able to answer the question: Is there THE
beauty, the only beauty, the beauty per se, independent from my taste or
your need, or waht ever. May be it exists, may be not. Of course, I
still know what is the beauty which satisfies my own need.

Oh, God! Hi`nh nhu+ anh em mi`nh la`m ro^'i tinh va^'n dde^` ru`i. (Em
ga^y su+. truo+'c). Chuye^.n co' ca'i cha^n ca'i thie^.n ca'i my~ hay
kho^ng thi` dde^? cho ca'c ba'c ontologists ba`n, anh em mi`nh ki'nh nhi
vie^~n chi tho^i. Chuy^e.n cu?a ta la` pha?i cha(ng ca'i perception ve^`
beautifulness cu?a loa`i nguo+`i kho^ng dde^'n no^~i dda da.ng nhu+ ta
tuo+?ng. Nghi~a la` ca? loa`i nguo+`i dde6`u chung nhau 1 ca'i ideal ve^`
ve? dde.p (mo^~i nguo+`i co' the^? co' nhie^`u ideal beauties), va` ca'i
common ideal na`y chi'nh la` ca'i average. Pha?i cha(ng????

La^m.