Beauty is in God’s Eye

Yesterday’s post was prompted by Vox’s post I linked to, and it appears his latest one at Sigma Game is possibly a partial response to it.

Vox’s contention that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder is true. There are objective standards of beauty, which I never denied. And his historical aside that the concept of beauty being in the eye of the beholder is essentially part of the anti-Catholic reformation and enlightenment is also interesting.

That said, his comparing the measurement of beauty to something like height in that post is simply flat out wrong and on a par with the guy who tried to compare Mike Tyson’s boxing record (an undeniable mathematical fact, like height) with classifying a woman’s beauty score of a 10.

There are objective beauty standards but they are not absolute. Beauty is not like math. And while you can try to use math to model beauty, beauty is a wider and deeper concept than mere math. And frankly, to suggest otherwise, to me at least, is borderline retarded.

Now I know Vox is not retarded, which is why I found his post interesting. On reflecting on it longer than the half-second or so that elicits my “that’s retarded” response, it became obvious that the problem is one that once again links to the mechanisation of humanity. That is, a false and erroneous perspective on not just humanity, but the underlying reality, and ultimately, God.

Now, bear with me, even if you think this will just be another Protestant bashing exercise, because the subtleties and nuances of beauty are important.

I am on record since many years ago, on saying that beauty may well be the virtue of God that is most evident of both His presence as well as His Grace.

And I said that in my early 20s. When I was essentially a Zen-Agnostic whose code of life probably most approximated that of a modern day Samurai.

I had left home finally, on my own terms, and gone as far from the family I was born in as I could get at age 19.

By 23 my simple observations of the world around me had convinced me reality, the whole of creation, had an intelligence behind it. And as a result of noticing the natural world around me, particularly sunsets against the ocean’s horizon in Cape Town, every evening, I concluded that intelligence must Love us.

Why else would every single sunset be different yet beautiful? Or a flower. An insect, a blade of grass, the clouds in the sky. Everything was beautiful. We humans make life here on Earth a kind of Hell, but it is not what God created. Look up at night on a cloudless sky and be awed. I always was since I was a small child. I knew what a light year was by age four.

And yet… while beauty is everywhere, our own living mind will have its own way of parsing the information, and precisely because beauty is part of the living aspect of life, whether in a painting or a face, no two human minds will ever really appreciate a sunset or a face, or a body, in the same way.

Math is objective and fixed.

Beauty might be reducible to math, in theory, but never in a way that accounts for the human element.

Vox’s appeal to the Golden Ratio is a reduction of the very concept of beauty. It applies, surely, but it is not an absolute.

Pythagora’s theorem is an absolute. A face with perfect golden ratios is not.

This is not some “attack” on Vox the person by the way, just on his error of trying to reduce beauty —and more specifically human beauty at that— to a finite set of numbers. Even then, the issue is not him or how he chooses to see things, but the concept.

A small error at a baseline concept eventually results in a larger error further downstream.

One of the most insidious aspects of the Protestant Rebellion against the Catholic Church was that it reduced (and reduces) everything to secular, worldly matters, and for the majority of it the physical and material realm at that.

Even the “argument” against the Church was based almost entirely on financial matters, the excuse of the theological aspects was in 99% of cases, if not 100%, just that: an excuse. As has been documented by more than one honest historian. Rodney Stark being one (and he’s not Catholic).

The degradation of humanity caused by Protestantism and its mindset is a subtle thing that poses as something positive but in reality reduces, mechanises, and indignifies human beings. The examples related to Protestantism are endless:

The industrial revolution - touted as technological progress and the basis for the “Protestant work ethic”, in reality it made human beings slaves to profit and the organised mechanisms of, first industry, then juristic persons.

Protestantism itself in its tens of thousands of facets - from the acceptance of divorce, contraception, personal interpretation, reduction of sacraments to mere social events, the absolute idiocy of the five solas and the limited, two dimensional, binary thinking that follows and on and on.

Capitalism and the acceptance of Usury - arguably one of the most destructive aspects of human “progress”. Catholic principles of commerce and economy are today not even known about. But they were far more prone to serving human beings instead of enslaving them. The most obvious aspect being that usury was banned in Catholicism.

The reduction of subtle, nuanced concepts (like beauty) to limited, reductive versions - Beauty, is one. The very concept of commerce changing; from being something required to live as the reason itself for living, being another.

Anglo Saxon Legal Systems - These are in essence Talmudic. The main aim of them is to find the loophole. The American version especially is Satanic in this respect, being fully Freemasonic in origin and intent. Roman Law on the other hand is based in logic and seeking justice, a concept almost excised completely from Anglo and Teutonic systems that became increasingly Freemasonic due to Roman Law being the basis of how Catholic dogma is interpreted, and hence “rejected” by Protestant countries much as today it is Protestant countries that mainly embrace globalism, homosexuality, the trannification of children, and “diversity is our strength”.

That short list above (a tiny subset of a much longer list) should suffice to make you realise that even if you are normal enough to know trannies are trannies, not a magical change of sex, and men cannot have periods, lacking wombs, nor women have sperm-producing testicles, you are nevertheless assuming a bunch of things at a subconscious level that are founded in error.

Your adherence to “the law” is mostly an admission of being subjugated to the powers of government regardless of any adherence they may have to justice or injustice.

Even if you are not among the retards that thinks “everyone has their own truth”, you should still take stock of how many things you accept as true without ever having examined them.

Returning to the concept of beauty, you can now get an AI to draw you the theoretical perfect human female face, all with 100% adherence to the Golden ratio. And it will still not be a 10 for many men.

Pretending it would be theoretically “perfect” and so it IS a 10 regardless, is a category error.

On the one hand it autistically tries to impose an artificial standard (decided on various principles of mathematics, which are not in any case necessarily the only or even the best principles, merely a convention that was decided on) on everyone somewhat arbitrarily, on the other, it ignores reality. No woman (or man) is a perfect 10 by those autistic AI “standards”. And even within the AI created “perfection” there is variety.

Below are 30 images created by AI.

Feel free to go through them and then comment on no more than the top 3 you find most attractive. I have done so below them and added some points you may have missed.

My choices would be:

Brazil

Iran - Venezuela (this is essentially the same face with only the hairstyle being different. Not the only example but one of the more obvious ones)

Morocco

Now ask me if those would be my pick for a life partner (aside the fact my non-AI wife would stab me in the neck with a butter knife).

Also, note that if the label describing which nation they supposedly are from was absent, your ranking would be different too.

In terms of most attractive, I would probably choose Morocco, but tell me she is actually Moroccan and I would almost certainly give her a hard pass.

I am aware of my own biases far more than average, and even then there will be unconscious biases. No human mind can ever agree that a 10 is always a 10 for all. Because it simply isn’t.

What we CAN agree is that all those AI generated faces are definitely a 9 or above. Which was my original contention anyway.

But for me, Denmark or Australia do absolutely nothing. I can recognise they are objectively beautiful faces, but I am not attracted to them at all, and if for whatever unfathomable reason I ended up with someone that looked like that I’d get bored of their physical appearance in days.

And the point is that no man would rank all those theoretically perfect faces as 10s.

And as I mentioned, even AI understands that there are differences in “perfect”. A perfect Asian face is still different from a perfect Caucasian or Negroid face. And you, human as you are, will find one a better “10” than another.

As will we all.

And there is a subtle and Divine thread in that. One that can’t be reduced to mere Golden ratios measured on faces. And anyone that thinks otherwise is missing an essential element of life. An almost numinous difference in the understanding of reality.

A difference that is still lived and breathed more deeply in ex-catholic countries than in Protestant ones.

I’ll be more interested in your comments on this post than most, as I find the study of beauty to be fascinating.

As well as beautiful, of course.

The AI image were taken from here.