On the feminine beauty

It is a well accepted notion that the female body represents the pinnacle of the beauty of human race. It has been shown that when various pictures of people were presented to the newborns, those of the females were always more favored than that of men.

I dare to counter this generally accepted idea at the risk of being accused of narcissism or a fondness in men. First of all, the concept of beauty, an aesthetic appreciation, is by all means abstract and should not be instinctive as judged by infants, who favor females just because in their eyes a female body is equivalent to a milk reservoir. The aesthetic value of an object is evaluated and appraised by the conscious and sensible observer, most of whom are from the other half of population, hence the beauty if any, is created because of the presence of the male and their appreciation. However, instead of a conscious and voluntary evaluation, this appreciation is more like a subconscious deduction from the concupiscience, rooted in an intent of fecundation, a fact well illustrated in the observation that one generally loses this appreciation, or appetite, immediately after the coitus, the will to sleep then stronger than that of barely looking at one's partner. The conclusion can be drawn that female body is thought to be beautiful only because its aesthetic value is determined by the male who desire it biologically from time to time. Consequently an old woman is considered less beautiful due to her lack of fertility and we discovered that the common features that constitute a beautiful female body, all come down to their suggestion of a better quality in orgasms (on the male side) and a higher probability of fertilization and stronger offsprings.

As aforementioned, the process of aesthetic evaluation is abstract and intellectual but instinctive or biological. Therefore, the beauty of women derived from the sex drive of the common males, is not a real 'beauty' and shall not be regarded as serious and lofty as we regard that of music and fine arts. The propriety of the prevalent gallantry and admiration toward the feminine, therefore, shall be put to a serious questioning. Instead of being faultily misogynous, men should admit their animality, accept it happily and turn their attention away from telling white lies to themselves regarding the beauty of women.

Drivels

A question has been hanging over me for almost half a decade. Why are so many physics/math relations linear? Is linear more general than other relations, or is it merely simpler? Why is it more general? Is it simpler to our minds, or is it simpler generally? Why? Rather, how to define the concept of 'simple'?

This unavoidably falls back to Kant's concept of the unknownable noumenal world. I once wrote a brief paragraph arguing that mathematically speaking 'the hidden dimensions' would always prevent us from fully understanding the physical world. However, more carefully we ought to examine this further, as the idea of hidden dimension for example, was already a conceptualized representation within our minds. A restricted mind is not able to recognize the imposed restrictions yet he is also not able to imagine its existence or the manner in which it exists. For this reason helplessly we human being will have to, unwillingly, assume everything at hand true until they become no longer mendable. In all respect, individually or collectively, knowing that we don't know and/or we are not able to know does not help this fact at all.

Nietzsche speaks of 'a table of values' that hangs over every people and he believes that it is not the values that make people great but their will to realize these values. The master knows what is good then he defines what is bad. The slaves learn what is evil and then he believes in what is good. Morality or social norms so to speak are merely what defines us slaves and keeps us this way because they are mostly in forms of negations. Regardless of his obnoxious moral relativism, the notion of a firm and persistent execution of a positive value system nevertheless provides us some enlightenment away from the Angst associated with daily life.

Does it? Man set himself values and goals and strive to conceal his meaningless and boredom in the emptiness of his existence. The three aspects of his being, as a biological subject, a social member and a spiritual self, conflict and complicate his way of living. By reasoning the spiritual self found that the biological nature alone should define his value system yet it constantly tries to reject this fact because of its pride and realisitically speaking the implementation is also limited due to his social membership. Quivering between the definite animality and the impossible mentality, are we doomed?

There is still one solution to an easy life but perfection in mentality if we recede by one step. For the great they do not need approvals, they judge. Look at this judgement as a civilized biological instinct by accepting the fact that we have been altered, i.e. by incorporating the logic system and societal aspects of being into the biological nature. With a new broader definition of nature, as long as we are true to the instincts followed by the unequivocal logic (which is essential to keep the extended system self-consistent; I would always consider the biological value system self-consistent, but after the incorporation, work is needed to make the new set of rules not contradictory to each other), we can be at ease with ourselves.

Regression over communication skills - why?

I still remember the times when I had to keep a diary for myself, or more precisely, for myself and my parents. I had to think of an interesting, intriguing or biting occurrence of the day, make a substantial point out of it, and write it down to please all three of us. At the time without any knowledge about 'privacy', I was encouraged and managed to reveal every piece of my observations, thoughts and ideas, and try to organise them into one short and sound essay. Believe it or not, by doing so I became the most articulate dude among my peers. Nobody won a debate over me. I never had to prepare for a speech. I am close to the word professionalism, which I heard almost 10 years later.

We evolve, and it is worth thinking if the evlution was to the more desired direction or the opposite. One of the nascent internet gadgets, blogging, definitely redefines our ways of communication. We started to broadcast to the world (our small world) our experiences, thoughts, feelings, emotions and non-senses by no more than 20 words a day. One day we found out that we stopped to speak full sentences, full paragraphs, and we were unable to articulate any more. Our minds became fragmented, and we can hardly make them into one piece again. It surely is convenient to communicate with short phrases or a couple of unrelated statements as long as each of them does impression, but is that really desired?

Sit down my friend. Think of the situations where you still have to make a five-minute impromptu presentation, or the time when you had to argue with someone seriously, unprepared. What were you like? 'Eh... mm... as a matter of fact' Fillers, all kinds of fillers. You behaved like an idiot, in every sense that is well defined. Consequently you would be defeated, dejected and ashamed.

'Fool me once, shame on... shame on you, fool me... you can't get fooled again.'

PS: Inability to speak out or express one's ideas can be due to his customarily intentional covering up of his thoughts, because of his lack of security and his unwillingless to reveal himself. However, he was still often easily read out by other people, and indeed what he has been hiding were of no significance to those who wanted to understand and make use of him. He was 'sacrificing his food in fear of getting choked'. Make it three steps, it would be like: 1, be articulate about your real thoughts, 2, be articulate about everything you can make up, 3, be articulate on everything but you only speak the insignificant ones...