Brains or Beauty – which would you prefer to have? [Archive]

Pensive

01-21-2006, 04:26 AM

I will prefer brain. If you are not brainy, people can spoil your beauty easily.

Brain has a beauty in itself. For example, Sometimes Actual Pretty faces wear makeup and then they look *yucky* In this way, pretty people spoil themselves.(if they would have been brainy, they would have thought that make-up is making them ugly)

There is another thing and that is "Beauty" is in the eyes. On Many places, it is a general arguement that whether the girl is ugly or beautiful. Some says that she is beautiful while other considers her to be ugly.

Every person will say that Julia Robertswas brainy. If she would not have been brainy then how could she have been such a good actoress. Acting is an art which wants you to use your brain but everyone will not say that she is pretty.

But - I admit that there are some relationships in which man has to prefer beauty. Well, physical attraction is what you will prefer in your girl friend usuallyrather than brains. But in life-time relationships, matter is different. Personwhom you want to live with permanently, you will want things in him/her other than physical attraction. Ofcourse, you would not spend your whole day with her/him by just looking at his/her pretty face.

Now comes Inner Beauty Verses Brain. I gave my views about physical attraction. Now I have came on other type of beauty.

Inner beauty which is our good deeds. Now onewill say that what is a good deed. My definition to the good deed is the word done which is good for you and does not harm others.

So I believe that the definition of inner beauty is your "good deeds"
I think that a brainy person will do good deed. I don't admit that a person is brainy if he/she does not do good deeds. In my opinion Einstein was brainy not Hitler.

So in general I will prefer Brain. It is a very tough question but a very good one.

Note: Maybe this discussion will change my views but I have written what I have understood in these all years of my life uptill now.

Nightshade

01-21-2006, 04:41 AM

Jumping jelly beans, this is turning serious. I dont know which I prefer really depend s what kind of brains and what kind of beauty we are talking about and who for. See me for instance my sister is stunning, and incredibly smart and artistic and tidy and patient etc etc etc I (or is it me??) On the othere hand am the poplar opposite (at one point I was nicknamed at school By teachers as well as students "scruffy/wrinkle/messy knotted"(theres no real english equivelant to the word) Anyway point (well im not surereally oh yes I rember now:D:D)
Everyone is beautiful and everyone has brains, they just are differant types, somtimes the harder you have to look for somthing the better it looks when you find it. And Im saying everyone has some kind of outer beauty, somtimess its as small as an expresion but its always there ( I guess you can gather from this I tend to stare alot :eek2: )
:D But personally I prefer a combination in other words brains and the ability to laugh at myself-other wise what the point?
:lol:

The Unnamable

01-21-2006, 07:16 AM

We noted that guys generally only have one going for them but so many girls have both. Guys, whats up here eh?
Which one do guys have going for them? Are you suggesting that guys are generally ugly or brainless? :p

Waht would you say Unnamable?

I’d say ‘beauty’, just to confound people. :brow: It’s hard to say which I’d miss most. :D

Brains are forever, yet beauty fades... I don't think you can get very far in life by just being beautiful without having any intelligence.
I don’t think my brain is forever – sometimes I struggle for ten minutes to get a carton of milk opened. :(
It’s interesting that you see the question in terms of getting you somewhere in life. See how we are programmed immediately to see things in terms of utility? Also, what about the ‘success’ of Ronald Regan? Okay, he was no beauty, but he could barely write his name in the mud with a stick, yet he became President. Perhaps you don’t need either – just rely on the fact that most people appear to be lacking brains.

Every person will say that Julia Robertswas brainy.
‘Was’? Is she dead? :D Sorry to disagree Pensive but I wouldn’t consider her ‘brainy’.

Ofcourse, you would not spend your whole day with her/him by just looking at his/her pretty face.
No, you’d have to listen to his/her words of wisdom instead! I think I’m moving further towards beauty (as a choice not as a state).

Note: Maybe this discussion will change my views but I have written what I have understood in these all years of my life uptill now.
I’m not trying to change your views. I just think it’s interesting to think about why have the views we have, especially when they are views we tend to take for granted. That’s why I agree with you that although it’s very simple, it is a tough question. It’s my guess that if they asked a thousand random members of the public, 80%+ of them would say, “beauty”. Why?

Nightshade,
Firstly let me say that every time I see one of your posts, I have to upgrade my graphics card. :lol:

somtimes the harder you have to look for somthing the better it looks when you find it.
That’s an interesting idea but we have to be careful. Perhaps something only looks better because we want it to so badly? Here’s a sober reminder if you’ll forgive the pun:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/beer.html

Xamonas Chegwe

01-21-2006, 08:32 AM

Anything acheivable with brains can be acheived by beauty. The beautiful just smile sweetly and get somebody brainy to do it for them.

I've had a few brains most of my life, and they are as much trouble as they are a help - but I wouldn't want to do without them, no matter how often I get the impression that the stupid people are having a lot more fun - I just can't bring myself to want to enjoy reality TV.

I've never tried being beautiful though. I can neither afford nor face the thought of enough plastic surgery. I console myself by bastardising Tolstoy: "All beautiful people are the same, but every one of us ugly sods is ugly in our own unique way."

Koa

01-21-2006, 08:49 AM

Well maybe a combination of both...
I find this question not so interesting actually... I feel like one of those people who, not having beauty, had to grow some kind of brain, or at least of personality... And in a way I'm happy like this, I know how hard life is when you have to fight, in terms of relationships that is, and I don't have the illusions of those who just have to snap their finger to be popular.... Brains are just stronger, beauty is a weak quality. And totally relative... or almost...

RobinHood3000

01-21-2006, 08:57 AM

Brains, naturally. I would vastly prefer to have the ability to think and be ugly than to be dumb as an anvil and be voted "Most Likely to Impersonate Adonis" in high school. Helps filter out the shallow girls (You hear me, IrishCanadian??).

rachel

01-21-2006, 11:20 AM

Xamonas Chegwe

01-21-2006, 12:03 PM

Hazel-Ra

01-21-2006, 12:31 PM

I have it very lucky. I am pretty in a way, although I have some weight which needn't be there, and I am also intelligent. My boyfriend is both gorgeous and intelligent. :banana:

I think that upon first appearences one can find they are not attracted to a person, but once they have got to know them they find them attractive. This is down to many things. You must remember to take pheromones into account. The biggest factor, however, is down to personality. Intelligence does play a part, but it isn't the most important factor.

I think, in all honesty, I would rather state a proportion of both. I would rather have a higher proportion of intelligence, though.

Taliesin

01-21-2006, 12:34 PM

Brains, of course.
A human being can't live without brains.

Hazel-Ra

01-21-2006, 12:34 PM

Anything acheivable with brains can be acheived by beauty. The beautiful just smile sweetly and get somebody brainy to do it for them.

Although the above is true to a degree, I disagree. Although the end result may be the same, a hugely important part would be missing. The pride of the accomplishment, and the thrill of working things out for yourself. Wouldn't you miss this??

Riesa

01-21-2006, 12:43 PM

How about beautiful intelligence? Unafraid of enjoying yourself. (Reality TV, c'mon, Xamonas, only stupid people like Survivor?) Smart enough to be witty, poetic, passionate, tolerant, and wise. I'd like to have the ability to become smarter. I think the world is so much more fulfilling if you can grasp the profoundness of it all; I'm constantly wishing for this; it troubles me to not be smart enough to understand everything! There is a stereotype about intelligence; smart=bitter, like the quintessential school librarian; ugly, full of stifled passion, bitter towards more naturally happy, good-looking people. I've met some people like that. I do wish that there wasn't such a generalized version of what makes a woman beautiful; (being 36, myself ;)) If I really had to choose, I guess I'd choose brains. 'Saganesque' Brains to understand the cosmos, that would be truly beautiful.

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?
Carl Sagan

Is it true that the quintessentially beautiful often believe that the stars rise and set for them??

The Unnamable

01-21-2006, 12:54 PM

Oh I should much prefer to have beauty. It opens doors and then once open one can always come under a mentor with brains to share. and learn and learn and learn somemore. And then the brain will blossom like a beautiful flower in a parched land when the rains come.
Ooh, controversial choice – even though beautifully put with the flower image.

Xamonas – your Tolstoy comment reminded me of Leonard Cohen’s supposed words to Janis Joplin, from Chelsea Hotel #2:

“I remember you well in the Chelsea Hotel
you were famous, your heart was a legend.
You told me again you preferred handsome men
but for me you would make an exception.
And clenching your fist for the ones like us
who are oppressed by the figures of beauty,
you fixed yourself, you said, "Well never mind,
we are ugly but we have the music.”

Xamonas Chegwe

01-21-2006, 12:57 PM

Although the above is true to a degree, I disagree. Although the end result may be the same, a hugely important part would be missing. The pride of the accomplishment, and the thrill of working things out for yourself. Wouldn't you miss this??

Yes, but then again, I've got 1 or 2 brains. If I didn't have, I probably wouldn't even appreciate that there was anything to miss!

The Unnamable

01-21-2006, 01:02 PM

Unfortunately, there does need to be some fertile soil, however arid. I can't see Mr & Mrs David Beckham ever winning a Nobel prize.
Have you not heard? In the interests of doing away with all forms of nasty elitism, next year the Committee will, for the first time, award a Nobel Prize for Smiling. Perhaps the Becks have a chance. I know I’ll be submitting a few snaps. It's about time the contributions of the common man were recognised. Who was this Nobel guy anyway? Probably some arms dealer. ;)

Hazel-Ra

01-21-2006, 01:10 PM

Yes, but then again, I've got 1 or 2 brains. If I didn't have, I probably wouldn't even appreciate that there was anything to miss!

Good point. Ignorance is bliss.

The Unnamable

01-21-2006, 01:15 PM

Brains, of course.
A human being can't live without brains.
Thank you for that very literal response. I can see you were going for brevity, but you could also have pointed out that a human being cannot live without a heart, a liver, lungs, blood, skin, a body, etc. I used the word ‘brains’ as a metonym for intelligence, simply because of the alliteration in the phrase “Brains or Beauty”.

Virgil

01-21-2006, 03:01 PM

I'd prefer sweetness and charm. What exactly is that? It's a pinch of brains, a pinch of beauty and a whole lot of personality.

emily655321

01-21-2006, 03:58 PM

I agree with Pensive and Virgil. Specifying a choice between brains and beauty has always seemed silly to me, because they are two fairly minor factors in human interaction. Personality is a third, and much stronger, one. Other forms of talent are also factors which have nothing to do with intelligence or looks.

I'm smart enough that my friends tend to be of a more intelligent echelon of society, but I'm not so smart that they don't routinely cause me to feel foolish (playing Scrabble is an always-humiliating experience for me). Along the same vein, I'm good-looking enough to draw compliments now and then, but I'd certainly never win a beauty contest. However, I am kind and friendly, I can cook and I can draw, and if I had to give up both brains and beauty I'd still have a lot left over. I think the same is true for practically everybody.

Sami

01-21-2006, 05:06 PM

I do wish that there wasn't such a generalized version of what makes a woman beautiful

I agree with you Riesa - I think the answers to this question may be gendered in some ways. As we all know very well, an ugly yet intelligent man likely has very different experiences in life than a brainy but plain woman.

I wonder if it works both ways – a “bimbo” still qualifies as an object of admiration since she’s often seen as an example of utra-feminity whereas a gorgeous guy who is a bit of a dimwit might face more challenges. (Not that I necessarily agree with this - A slightly dense Adonis might be quite an amusing type of person ;))

rachel

01-21-2006, 05:11 PM

Unfortunately, there does need to be some fertile soil, however arid. I can't see Mr & Mrs David Beckham ever winning a Nobel prize.

lol :lol:
you know Xamonas,
you are starting to grow on me. I am finding you quite funny and inventive in your thoughts.
Very good point and to be honest I said what I said because I think it is a depressing question. And I figured everyone would say brains so....
although I do sort of feel that way. If Marilyn Monroe would have been taken seriously who knows, perhaps she would have written award winning books,
she was intelligent and thoughtful. Don't you think?
what are your thoughts.

RobinHood3000

01-21-2006, 05:38 PM

Have you not heard? In the interests of doing away with all forms of nasty elitism, next year the Committee will, for the first time, award a Nobel Prize for Smiling. Perhaps the Becks have a chance. I know I’ll be submitting a few snaps. It's about time the contributions of the common man were recognised. Who was this Nobel guy anyway? Probably some arms dealer. ;)
Smiling? Hmm...suspicious. I can see the Nobel Committee wanting to award those who make the world a better place, but this is just getting silly. What next? Nobel Prize for Coolest Necktie?

Besides, we all know that Bill Nye would win that one.

Virgil

01-21-2006, 05:41 PM

I can cook
Well, that's the most important thing of all. That will win you most men.

kilted exile

01-21-2006, 05:48 PM

I think I would prefer intelligence to beauty.

However given the option I would definitely take technical ability over either.

emily655321

01-21-2006, 07:17 PM

Well, that's the most important thing of all. That will win you most men.:lol: Well, naturally, that's the ultimate goal, isn't it?

The Unnamable

01-21-2006, 08:21 PM

Specifying a choice between brains and beauty has always seemed silly to me, because they are two fairly minor factors in human interaction. Personality is a third, and much stronger, one.
I’m sorry if you consider my question silly but I think you are taking it rather too literally. It’s nothing more than a question about whether we attach more value to physical appearance or intelligence. How you can say that they are minor factors in human interaction is a mystery to me. Most relationships are based on one or both of them. In what sense is personality ‘stronger’?

Virgil

01-21-2006, 08:26 PM

What next? Nobel Prize for Coolest Necktie?

Besides, we all know that Bill Nye would win that one.
Hey, I got some cool neck ties myself. Don't break my heart and tell me there's no award for that.

RobinHood3000

01-21-2006, 08:28 PM

I agree with Unnamable in that both intelligence and appearance play significant roles in most human interactions, but I also agree with emily in that neither constitutes a majority. Unnamable might include character under "brains," in which case I think he'd be right that brains and beauty are pretty much it, but he didn't say specifically.

The Unnamable

01-21-2006, 08:53 PM

I assumed the majority would come down on the side of brains. The trouble is, I believe that this is simply what we are programmed to think. The evidence all around us everywhere suggests the opposite. We are obsessed with physical appearance. Intelligence is respected and considered worthy of respect but the vast majority of people spend more time and effort on improving their bodies (including grooming, the use of cosmetics and careful choice of outfit) than they do their minds. People seldom put beauty first partly because we inherit a set of assumptions that associate it with dumbness or shallowness. I never used either word in association with beauty but I knew they would appear. We have a strange value system. We like to think we are not ‘shallow’ and so support the idea of the superiority of brains but most of our judgments are made on the evidence of appearance. Oscar Wilde said that it’s only shallow people who don’t judge by appearance.

Beauty might only be skin deep but that’s deep enough. It’s not as if we care if someone has a gorgeous liver, a cute kidney or a fetching pancreas. If two equally qualified people go for the same job, the chances are that the better looking (as defined by the standards of the day) will get it. I don’t say that’s right but it’s what happens. Look at the people on your television screens.

Obviously the type of intelligence is important. My idea of intelligence doesn’t automatically include people like hugely successful entrepreneurs. I’m not saying that they are thick but that their talents are seen as worth having because they make one rich and successful (another subjective concept). Few people would like to be a genius if there’s no money in it. The world is full of terrible, shallow hypocrites. :lol: We claim to value intelligence and education but stick a nice arrangement of features in front of us and we’ll pay them more attention than the wisest of words. Perhaps men are more susceptible to this than women – although I think that men are also more straightforwardly honest in this regard.

I know men who would be intimate with a woman but not want their friends to see them with her if she was considered fat or ugly. Yes, it’s appalling; I’m not condoning it. But I have taught long enough to see that the most intelligent, sensitive and usually interesting boy in the class will not get the attention of the girls if he is ugly. Even if he is of what would be called ‘average appearance’, he will still be less interesting to most of the females than the good looking beefheads.

Morrissey – “I’d rather be famous than righteous or holy any day…”

Xamonas Chegwe

01-21-2006, 09:05 PM

Very well put Unnamable.

I will revise my opinion immediately.

It is still more important to me that I be brainy than beautiful, but I much prefer any woman I am associated with to be beautiful. hypocrisy? No, just honesty.

RobinHood3000

01-21-2006, 09:44 PM

Personally, I still stand where I was before. I've always been considered average-looking or below average-looking, at least as far as experience (or thickheadedness) on my part can determine based on other people's reactions. It used to bother me waaay back when, but I've kind of settled into it. And I've always identified myself in terms of what I knew or what I had yet to know. I'll take brainy any day--it's who I am. And like I said, being less than good-looking helps me find a girl who seeks someone of character. I'm not saying that person is me, just that if any girl comes up to me and asks for a date (big IF), I'll know she's not basing her decision on her first glance.

And I think the reason that the assumptions that associate Beauty with a lack of Brains seemed to appear was because you asked for one or the other.

rachel

01-21-2006, 10:56 PM

Well M'LOrd
in my heart of hearts you are beautiful and I fill that for the rest of you. Each of you is a diamond, multi faceted of both beauty of mind and character and deep thought and revelation that I can drink in and use hopefully for good.
I still think Marilyn Monroe would have been a great something or other and wowed them if only she would have been born in a different time and place.

IrishCanadian

01-22-2006, 01:01 AM

Now comes Inner Beauty Verses Brain. I gave my views about physical attraction. Now I have came on other type of beauty.

Inner beauty which is our good deeds. .
In this case ... i would take inner beauty over brains or beauty. I would also prefer that in any young lady that i might be attracted to too.

Virgil

01-22-2006, 01:01 AM

I assumed the majority would come down on the side of brains. The trouble is, I believe ... famous than righteous or holy any day…”
Mostly what you say here is quite true and I for the most part agree. But let me add a couple of qualifications. Lit Net users are a cross section of "brainy" people. But if you asked a bunch of car mechanics and construction builders, I don't know if you could say that they are programmed to pick brainy. Perhaps the opposite.

Beauty might only be skin deep but that’s deep enough.
But brains versus beauty is a false choice, as some have pointed out. It's too complex. I tried to say that personality is the critical factor.

If two equally qualified people go for the same job, the chances are that the better looking (as defined by the standards of the day) will get it.

I don't know if this is conventional wisdom or what, but at my job I haven't noticed this. I've hired a number of people the last few years, I know this hasn't entered my thought process. As to looks, what I want is professional looking. People promoted at my job aren't the best looking, nor are they necessarily the brainiest. Personality again plays a big role.

But I have taught long enough to see that the most intelligent, sensitive and usually interesting boy in the class will not get the attention of the girls if he is ugly. Even if he is of what would be called ‘average appearance’, he will still be less interesting to most of the females than the good looking beefheads.
True, but you're describing adolescence. As someone who's in his forties, I can tell you it's different for each decade of life: teens, twenties, thirties, forties. At forty, one may still not be looking for brainy, but one is not exactly looking for beefheads either.

The Unnamable

01-22-2006, 01:55 AM

It is still more important to me that I be brainy than beautiful,
Same here – but that’s because we both know that wit and intelligence count more with beautiful women. ;) They know they can attract men with their looks but can they attract a ‘clever’ man, one who is not so shallow as to judge merely by appearance? They want someone who can see the inner beauty as well. :brow: Perhaps this accounts for the Miller/Monroe oddity.

but I much prefer any woman I am associated with to be beautiful. hypocrisy? No, just honesty.
My point – but at least you admit it. I can’t say I’m that bothered, though. I have been in relationships with relatively few women but they would all have rated differently on the secret and sophisticated ‘men’s scale for judging women’ (1-10).

Outlander

01-22-2006, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by The Unnamable:
If two equally qualified people go for the same job, the chances are that the better looking (as defined by the standards of the day) will get it. I don’t say that’s right but it’s what happens.
That's why I'm unemployed!

RobinHood3000

01-22-2006, 08:09 AM

Who DOESN'T prefer that the person they're with be beautiful? Jimmy Soul? It's not a question of IF beauty matters, it's a question of how much.

The Unnamable

01-22-2006, 09:17 AM

And I think the reason that the assumptions that associate Beauty with a lack of Brains seemed to appear was because you asked for one or the other.
Then why did a similar correlation between brains and lack of beauty not appear in the same proportion? Do you not think that there are other factors influencing people’s association of beauty with dumbness, besides the way I expressed my question? I didn’t realise my rhetoric was so powerful!

The Unnamable

01-22-2006, 09:29 AM

But if you asked a bunch of car mechanics and construction builders, I don't know if you could say that they are programmed to pick brainy.
I didn’t say we were programmed to pick brainy, merely that we are ‘programmed’ (I used the word for convenience rather than accuracy) to think well of both but to consider brains superior. I made no comment about yet more conspiracy theories infiltrating our minds and making us pick what we don’t believe. This shows the kinds of assumptions you make when reading what I write and accounts for why you can’t see my arguments.

But brains versus beauty is a false choice, as some have pointed out. It's too complex. I tried to say that personality is the critical factor.

The critical factor in what? What is too complex? As I tried to say before, the question was not meant to generate a piece of strict philosophical reasoning, merely some reflection on which we admire more and why. You might just as well say the same thing if I’d ask if you prefer blue or red. Also, of course you’d get different answers if you focus only on particular groups of people. What if I asked the same question only to blind people? I wasn’t conducting an academic survey!

I don't know if this is conventional wisdom or what, but at my job I haven't noticed this. I've hired a number of people the last few years, I know this hasn't entered my thought process. As to looks, what I want is professional looking. People promoted at my job aren't the best looking, nor are they necessarily the brainiest. Personality again plays a big role.

I don’t know that it’s wisdom at all. Interestingly, you say ‘professional looking’ people rather than just ‘professional’. Exactly – you base your assumptions on what you see, on the ‘appearance’ of professionalism. I assume that you don’t hire as many people as the Media industry. Look at your TV – just news programmes will do. Do you notice anything about the ages and appearance of the average announcer/link journalist? Look at advertising. Does it show a broad representation of the whole of the society?

True, but you're describing adolescence. As someone who's in his forties, I can tell you it's different for each decade of life: teens, twenties, thirties, forties. At forty, one may still not be looking for brainy, but one is not exactly looking for beefheads either.
I wasn't suggesting that we look for beefheads but we will overlook the fact that they are if they look nice.
I’m almost your age and still see it with colleagues and other adults. The arrival of a pretty new female teacher is greeted with far more interest than the arrival of a genius. You know where I live. I know one particular chap who boasts that he never ‘dates’ (let’s use that for now) any woman with a waist over 24 inches. He makes my flesh crawl but some men (and women, unfortunately) here admire him for some reason I don’t understand.

When I denounced us as shallow hypocrites, I wasn’t entirely serious. I don’t think it’s simply a question of hypocrisy. Our society is riddled with mixed messages. There is a young Welsh singer who is currently well known in the UK – Charlotte Church. She’s only in her late teens or early twenties. On her sixteenth birthday, she was awarded the ‘Rear of the Year’ Award and was splashed all over the front pages of some British tabloids, the same British tabloids that constantly fight against paedophiles and sex offenders. One headline announced, “Isn’t she chest swell!”, drawing attention to her (sexual) physical maturity. At the time that the photographs were taken, she would have been 15.

We are desperate to show that we are not prejudiced against anyone, so maintain public acceptance of those we consider fat and ugly. We still think of them as fat and ugly, though and would prefer our own partners to be svelte and gorgeous. If anyone wants to consider Riesa’s point about how we define beauty, please feel free to do so. What is our idea of beauty and why?

Virgil

01-22-2006, 10:39 AM

I said in general I agreed with you. I just tried to introduce some qualifications.

This shows the kinds of assumptions you make when reading what I write and accounts for why you can’t see my arguments.
I understand your arguments. At times I'm just trying to push the debate along; at times, mostly perhaps, I truely disagree; at times I have a little fun and tweak you a bit; you can do that to me too. I consider you very smart and knowledgable. If we weren't separated by cyberspace, I'd welcome you as a friend. I certainly don't consider philosophic disagreements barriers to getting along.

Interestingly, you say ‘professional looking’ people rather than just ‘professional’. Exactly – you base your assumptions on what you see, on the ‘appearance’ of professionalism.
Well, that's not the sole criteria for hiring or the most important. I'd have a problem with someone with tatoos all over their face or with a nose ring or other rings. And I only have a half hour interview, appearence will have to do; I can't get into their skull.

Look at your TV – just news programmes will do. Do you notice anything about the ages and appearance of the average announcer/link journalist? /QUOTE]
Yes, but you're focusing on a particular job requirment in a very specialized occupation. The reporters I notice are attractive, but I wouldn't say there are models. And how much does make up play into it? Weight does seem to be a key discriminator, perhaps unfairly.

[QUOTE]Look at advertising. Does it show a broad representation of the whole of the society?

You mean the models? No, it's not, but people (the consumer) want to identify themselves with what they could look like. It seems like it's a job requirment.

I’m almost your age and still see it with colleagues and other adults. The arrival of a pretty new female teacher is greeted with far more interest than the arrival of a genius. You know where I live. I know one particular chap who boasts that he never ‘dates’ (let’s use that for now) any woman with a waist over 24 inches. He makes my flesh crawl but some men (and women, unfortunately) here admire him for some reason I don’t understand.
Oh, I am agreeing with you in general. I see it at work too. But my experience is that even others who talk this way don't hire this way. Noiw that could be that engineering is a very technical field, and you can't just wing it. A ditz (male or female) hired will just not get the job done.

On her sixteenth birthday, she was awarded the ‘Rear of the Year’ Award and was splashed all over the front pages of some British tabloids, the same British tabloids that constantly fight against paedophiles and sex offenders. One headline announced, “Isn’t she chest swell!”, drawing attention to her (sexual) physical maturity. At the time that the photographs were taken, she would have been 15.
I know who Charlette Church is. That is really crass. I wonder if you know who Howard Stern is? He's a radio comic talk host here in the US who way crasser than that. I'm mean he's filthy. I know on another thread I was accused of policing speech, but what's wrong with trying to push the vulgar away from the public discourse? The overwhelming majority of people can be vulgar. Perhaps even I have a vulgar side. Hey, I grew up in Brooklyn, New York, the center of the vulgar world. Perhaps we all do. Our great American President, Abe Lincoln, has a quote soemthing to the effect, that we must appeal to the better angels of our nature. I didn't put it in quotes because I couldn't find the exact quote. Where possible, without banning speech, we should do so.

emily655321

01-22-2006, 02:31 PM

Beauty might only be skin deep but that’s deep enough. It’s not as if we care if someone has a gorgeous liver, a cute kidney or a fetching pancreas.My, you're clever. Jean Kerr said it better, though.

Once again, you already have your own opinion, so why bother even bringing the point up for discussion? You don't seem to think that any varying opinion is valid, or even interesting; rather, you seem to take disagreement as an affront to your dignity, and feel it necessary to catagorically refute every point anyone else makes. You come down on people personally for not correctly identifying the places where you're being facetious, yet attempt to pick apart and over-analyze the most simple and friendly sentences of others. If you're going to keep starting threads, you might first consider that the topic is what people are discussing, not you or your opinion of it. You have one opinion, others differ. It doesn't mean one or the other is wrong.

Sorry to get personal, but it won't happen again, because, as you sour every thread you touch, I'm avoiding them from now on.

Chava

01-22-2006, 03:37 PM

Hmm, I often find that beauty comes from natural charms, and regardless how perfectly constructed you are, it does you nothing without charm. And mostly this charm is acheived through intelligence, humor and wit. (and what not)
That being said, i admit that there are some people i've passed in the street, and i've turned in my tracks and gaped because their beauty was astounding. mind you, these people, upon closer scrutiny aren't extraordinary... i've noticed that what attracts and appeals me is their appearance of happiness. It's rather difficult to express, but i saw a young girl in france, all in white, she had pale skin , and boyish short brown hair. no make up nothing. not thin, but slim in a healthy way, and she was standing and waiting by the tram station, and she was smiling to herself. i sat and watched her for the whole 20 minute train ride, and she just kept smiling to herself. That is what i find beautiful. (wow, this has gone off topic)
In any case, i think that physical beauty is so temporary and common, what really seperates the really beautiful is how they glow, with self-confidence, charm, or what ever apeals to you.
There are many very beautiful women, superstars, models. But i think few of them are astounding.
So, beauty walks with brains. It's hard to choose, but i would take brains.

Scheherazade

01-22-2006, 04:12 PM

I am surprised that no one so far has proposed that we should first define 'brains' and 'beauty' and proceed to quote five names per post! :D

My answer to the question is... Neither one nor the other but my kind of beauty and brains (yes, I am spoilt; yes, I want it all). Even though the idea of being in the company of brainy and beautiful people is charming, for me, they have to be of the right sort. If I wrecked my brain, I could possibly find couple of questions to ask Mr Hawking and maybe follow his chatter for some time without yawning but then what? There are many beautiful people but are you attracted to all of them? Personally I don't sigh at the sight of each and every Hollywood 'heart throb' but find some people who are admittedly not as 'beautiful' as those Hollywood legends more attractive.

And I don't think that relationships are based on either one or the other. The relationships based on more intellectual grounds would still require some kind of physical attraction and vice versa.

Virgil

01-22-2006, 04:13 PM

RobinHood3000

01-22-2006, 04:15 PM

Then why did a similar correlation between brains and lack of beauty not appear in the same proportion? Do you not think that there are other factors influencing people’s association of beauty with dumbness, besides the way I expressed my question? I didn’t realise my rhetoric was so powerful!
I'm not saying that there aren't other factors, simply that were the question phrased differently, there would be a greater percentage of cop-outs saying, "Can't we have both?" And there are still significant social associations (wow, that's a mouthful) that link intelligence with ugliness. Just look at commercials for the "Geek Squad" services.

Hmm, a fetching pancreas...

"Get the stick, boy! Get the stick! Awww, such a good wittle pancreas! Yes, you are!!"

Xamonas Chegwe

01-22-2006, 05:52 PM

My, you're clever. Jean Kerr said it better, though.

Once again, you already have your own opinion, so why bother even bringing the point up for discussion? You don't seem to think that any varying opinion is valid, or even interesting; rather, you seem to take disagreement as an affront to your dignity, and feel it necessary to catagorically refute every point anyone else makes. You come down on people personally for not correctly identifying the places where you're being facetious, yet attempt to pick apart and over-analyze the most simple and friendly sentences of others. If you're going to keep starting threads, you might first consider that the topic is what people are discussing, not you or your opinion of it. You have one opinion, others differ. It doesn't mean one or the other is wrong.

Sorry to get personal, but it won't happen again, because, as you sour every thread you touch, I'm avoiding them from now on.

I think that was an unfair attack. Unnamable is very clever - can't deny it - we should all have such brains - but I don't agree that he 'come's down on people personally'. His responses are clever and intricate, often facetious but never personally insulting to my mind.

That he has his own opinions again is in no doubt. But we all do. And I disagree that he is saying anyhting as black and white as "I'm right. You're wrong." He likes a fight (with words his weapon of choice) and it's a matter of choice whether you accept the challenge or not. He will defend his corner. But there are others in all of the threads that he has "soured" that do so just as vociferously.

Personally, I like a debate. Not just a lot of people saying 'oh yes I agree', but a chance for differences of opinion to be aired. Unnnamable may be overbearing, but he's entertaining with it.

If you don't like what Unnamable says, don't read it. It will be sad to see you absent from any threads where he is a participant though. You add a lot to most discussions. Besides, that will only leave a couple of threads that you can visit! He is a bit ubiquitous. ;)

And I must say, I'm not sure I'd like being one of Unnamable's students. That must be hard work!

emily655321

01-22-2006, 06:10 PM

Besides, that will only leave a couple of threads that you can visit! He is a bit ubiquitous. ;)I might start being somewhat scarce around here, it's true.

Xamonas Chegwe

01-22-2006, 06:17 PM

I might start being somewhat scarce around here, it's true.
That would be a shame. Just skip his posts if they're not to your taste.

rachel

01-22-2006, 06:17 PM

No Em, no!!!

Remember what you said to me. I am only on this forum because of your and a few others' counsel.

please don't go.

rachel

01-22-2006, 06:24 PM

personally I think we were created to love beauty and accept it as part of our lives.
and hey if one would prefer the beauty think about it for a moment. I think that it takes brains to want that because then you can meet a wonderful geek that is gentle and kind and smart and hopefully a little humorous. And who just happens to like beauty along with brains. how can you go wrong!!!1

RobinHood3000

01-22-2006, 06:27 PM

you can meet a wonderful geek that is gentle and kind and smart and hopefully a little humorous. And who just happens to like beauty along with brains. how can you go wrong!!!
Hi, rachel! :wave: Nice to meet you, too!

Hehe, just kidding :goof:. Sorry, but for some reason, I felt in the mood for a shameless self-plug.

rachel

01-22-2006, 07:38 PM

Well
unfortunately you are taken but there is as Aragon put it "there is always hope."
whenever those beefcakey guys come around I RUN the other way. I don't see them as remotely attractive and I am sorry but this is the truth. I only see conceit in those eyes and feel like barfing. beautiful they are NOT to me anyway.so in their case I hope they opt for brains!

The Unnamable

01-22-2006, 10:25 PM

My, you're clever. Jean Kerr said it better, though.

I’ve no idea who Jean Kerr is, so if this was some kind of negative comment, it’s lost on me. If the accusation is that I’ve stolen the sentence, sorry to disappoint you but I haven’t.

Once again, you already have your own opinion, so why bother even bringing the point up for discussion?

This might be where you are not getting it. I don’t actually believe the bit you quote – it was similar to something I can remember saying in a debate at school when I was a student of about 15. Its purpose is to entertain as well as stimulate thought. Yes, I have my own opinions, as do you and everyone else but that doesn’t mean to say that I don’t change and adjust them according to what I read. My opinions are not simply the result of me claiming a right to them – they are the result of years of study, application and thought. If I always appear to have answers, it’s usually because I have already thought about it. Nevertheless, in the case of this topic, I’m not really sure which side I’d come down on in the end.

You don't seem to think that any varying opinion is valid, or even interesting;
On the contrary, I think some are – it’s just sad that it’s not many. But I do distinguish between opinions that are different, valid or interesting and ones that are merely nonsensical.

rather, you seem to take disagreement as an affront to your dignity,
:lol: The idea that my ‘dignity’ can be affected by what is posted on an Internet Forum is quite amusing. This place isn’t real and neither am I. Perhaps you are thinking about someone else who doesn’t like to have opinions challenged?

and feel it necessary to catagorically refute every point anyone else makes. You come down on people personally for not correctly identifying the places where you're being facetious, yet attempt to pick apart and over-analyze the most simple and friendly sentences of others. If you're going to keep starting threads, you might first consider that the topic is what people are discussing, not you or your opinion of it. You have one opinion, others differ. It doesn't mean one or the other is wrong.

I don’t attack people personally – I do challenge what is said, though. It might be nice and cuddly if we all simply praise and compliment one another’s pretty points and lovely avatars but for me that’s not really a good way to explore Literature or ideas. There’s plenty of room available for that on the Forum if that’s what you like. There are vastly more ‘feelgood’ threads than genuinely thought-provoking ones here and I simply avoid them. I don’t challenge the views of those who struggle to think at all. There’s no point. And if I do contribute, I expect to be challenged if what I contribute is open to challenge.
I have a problem with the idea of over-analysing. It is usually the complaint of those who don’t analyse enough. Your distinction between the topic and the contributors’ opinions of the topic is puzzling. When discussing this topic, isn’t everyone giving his or her opinion?

Sorry to get personal, but it won't happen again, because, as you sour every thread you touch, I'm avoiding them from now on.
That’s your choice, of course, petulant though your motivation might be. I promise I won’t get in the way of your desire for nice threads. I’ll try not to sour threads where the sole purpose of the discussion is to share one another’s sense of how lovely we all are and how much fun there is in being alive. For me, Literature isn’t about that and thinking involves confronting the difficult and unpalatable.

In spite of what you and Xamonas (‘ubiquitous’ indeed!) say, I stay out of far more threads than I join. There are many comments with which I could take issue but don’t – I have made a particular effort to avoid religious text threads for example.
You say that I ‘sour’ every thread I touch. By this you mean that I make points that are not easily dismissed and leave some people feeling that they might have to think more carefully before responding.
Have you considered that I justifiably believe that some threads are spoiled by ill-informed and witless comments as much as you believe that they are spoiled by me being a smartarse?

As I said above, I’m not real. I’m a piece of theatre. Xamonas can see this – “Unnnamable may be overbearing, but he's entertaining with it.” If you don’t like the show, change channels. I’m not on the vast majority of them and you can suck sweet sugar candy for as long as you like, free from the fear that I’ll pounce. Don’t stay away on my account – other people genuinely don’t want you to. I promise not to challenge a single view of yours in future.

Scheherazade

01-22-2006, 10:51 PM

Please do not bring your personal grievance to the threads. If you have any issues with other members, try to deal with them through PMs unless you would like to report offensive posts.

Otherwise, as always, please feel free to ignore the threads and/or members that you find disagreeable.

The Unnamable

01-23-2006, 06:42 AM

This really ****s me off. There is no intervention from you concerning what was written earlier but as soon as I respond to an attack, surprise, surprise, we get a warning that sounds like it comes from Hal 9000. I don’t require protection but how about a little consistency?

Nightshade

01-23-2006, 06:43 AM

Humm I was thinking is beauty very subjective , eye of the beholder and all that?
I mean in Egypt a gap between the 2 front teeth is considered a great sign of beauty. Now as far as can tell the western world will go as far as surgry to remove such gaps.
Rather a dramatic differance dont you think?
And like scher sad Brains? what kind of brains now personally I like people who are brainy in the way Rachel (sorry got to think of someone who wont object too much to being used as an example) or emily , or somewhat sarky as Scher occasionally is or basil or just plain nuts like dozens oof people around here, or whop use thier brains to understand people and gather lovley trvia and information like Pen. In otherwords people who are witty more than acedamiclly brilliant (not that Im saying that they are not just....OH dear I am tying myself up in knots arent i?) :lol:
I nmean acdemically briliant genous are all very well and good in their place, but they tend to get annoyed when people like me try and poke holes in theories or like things explained in simple termms and my messy mind. SO brains are useless withouty a sennse of humor.:D

The Unnamable

01-23-2006, 06:47 AM

He is a bit ubiquitous. ;)
That’s a gross distortion! I post a lot on the threads where I have posted but I don’t post to many threads. I’m not stupid – I know a lot people don’t like to have their freshly made minds burdened with other possibilities. Besides, if I join in, everyone runs away and then I have no one to laugh at.

And I must say, I'm not sure I'd like being one of Unnamable's students. That must be hard work!
“The labour we delight in physics pain”
Whether or not it’s hard work depends on the student. Those with a genuine interest in Literature, who are also prepared to think and have enough personality to withstand questions designed to provoke thought rather than promote self-esteem, simply adore me. I’m also far funnier when unfettered. Must rush- I have a child to thrash. Fancy splitting an infinitive! I just hope he doesn't commit suicide like the others.

The Unnamable

01-23-2006, 07:00 AM

“As he fastened the belt of his overalls he strolled across to the window. The sun must have gone down behind the houses; it was not shining into the yard any longer. The flagstones were wet as though they had just been washed, and he had the feeling that the sky had been washed too, so fresh and pale was the blue between the chimney-pots. Tirelessly the woman marched to and fro, corking and uncorking herself, singing and falling silent, and pegging out more diapers, and more and yet more. He wondered whether she took in washing for a living or was merely the slave of twenty or thirty grandchildren. Julia had come across to his side; together they gazed down with a sort of fascination at the sturdy figure below. As he looked at the woman in her characteristic attitude, her thick arms reaching up for the line, her powerful mare-like buttocks protruded, it struck him for the first time that she was beautiful. It had never before occurred to him that the body of a woman of fifty, blown up to monstrous dimensions by childbearing, then hardened, roughened by work till it was coarse in the grain like an over-ripe turnip, could be beautiful. But it was so, and after all, he thought, why not? The solid, contourless body, like a block of granite, and the rasping red skin, bore the same relation to the body of a girl as the rose-hip to the rose. Why should the fruit be held inferior to the flower?

'She's beautiful,' he murmured.

'She's a metre across the hips, easily,' said Julia.

'That is her style of beauty,' said Winston.”

RobinHood3000

01-23-2006, 07:05 AM

I must agree with Unnamable in that he has only posted in a handful of threads, albeit enthusiastically in those. However, you might want to notice Scher isn't online 24/7, and so may not be able to respond to all of the posts that you feel are attacking you. Not only that, she mentioned no names in her warning.

Outlander

01-23-2006, 07:11 AM

I'm not sure if it's been said, but....

There is Beauty in brains, however, not always brains in beauty.

If I could take my pick - Brains it would be.
With some fava beans and a nice Cianti, fa fa fa fa fa fa ...........

Xamonas Chegwe

01-23-2006, 07:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
He is a bit ubiquitous.

That’s a gross distortion! I post a lot on the threads where I have posted but I don’t post to many threads. I’m not stupid – I know a lot people don’t like to have their freshly made minds burdened with other possibilities. Besides, if I join in, everyone runs away and then I have no one to laugh at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
And I must say, I'm not sure I'd like being one of Unnamable's students. That must be hard work!

“The labour we delight in physics pain”
Whether or not it’s hard work depends on the student. Those with a genuine interest in Literature, who are also prepared to think and have enough personality to withstand questions designed to provoke thought rather than promote self-esteem, simply adore me. I’m also far funnier when unfettered. Must rush- I have a child to thrash. Fancy splitting an infinitive! I just hope he doesn't commit suicide like the others.

I take back 'ubiquitous'. 'Prolific' fits better. I tend to mostly avoid the nicey-nicey threads too, so perhaps I accidently gained a false impression of your ubiquitousness? ubiquisity? Ubiquitosity? - whatever the word is!

As to being one of your students. I said, "not sure I'd like" and not "wouldn't like". And when I said it would be "hard work", I was not necessarily saying that that was a bad thing. I'm sure it would be an interesting experience, that the work would be hard but rewarding, and that there would be no quarter given to slackers. Somehow, I don't think any of your students would dare submit a bought, internet essay - I reckon you'd spot it a mile off and hold them up to ridicule for it - and rightly too - make them earn a pass mark! I'm just not sure I could cope with being made to constantly think even on the occasions when I was really not in the mood. Besides, I'm a little too old and I doubt my job would see a literature course as 'improving my key skills' (their mistake). So I'll pass.

You said you work abroad. It appears that it's somewhere that they still allow annoying children to be soundly thrashed. I teach guitar to 16-18 year olds at night school and I dream of administering a corrective clout on occasion. But my hands are sadly tied.....

btw. I hope you very much enjoyed all of the split infinitives in this post. Consider them a gift. ;)

The Unnamable

01-23-2006, 08:28 AM

the posts that you feel are attacking you. Not only that, she mentioned no names in her warning.
Firstly, I am not claiming persecution. Secondly, "she mentioned no names"! :lol: :D :lol: I think that attempt at non-specificity and objectivity led to my comment about Hal 9000. Obviously nobody would have thought it applied to me coming immediately after my post, would they now? Please don't take me for an idiot, Robin. She has posted since the original comment on this thread, yet still left it until after my response before a ‘reminder’ was issued. Bing!

Taliesin

01-23-2006, 12:34 PM

Well, it seemed to us that the main conflict broke out between Scher's two posts and that her words were directed e.g to emily as well, but it is your own choice how you your outlook to other people's views on you is. Don't expect everyone to hate you.

But well, we have to agree that neither the intellect nor the looks are the most important qualities in social situations. (and humans are quite social beings)
A certain inner charisma is more important than either of them.

For example, look at Stalin or Hitler. Neither of them weren't much of heart-throbs and neither were they very intelligent - but they were popular among the masses.

But, if we exclude charisma from the list, we would still prefer intellect - because when we didn't have our intellect it would mean that we would be less we than when we would be if we didn't have our looks (oh, sweet ego) - although that has also an influence to whom we are, but it is lesser.
We mean, when we would lose our wits, then would the person be still us? We could change with every moment, but we have seen once a great mind and a great person (our grandfather) degrade mentally due to Alzheimer's disease. It was terribly more heinous than any psychical hideousity could be.
Just the thought makes us shudder.

Scheherazade

01-23-2006, 01:13 PM

Firstly, I am not claiming persecution. Secondly, "she mentioned no names"! :lol: :D :lol: I think that attempt at non-specificity and objectivity led to my comment about Hal 9000. Obviously nobody would have thought it applied to me coming immediately after my post, would they now? Please don't take me for an idiot, Robin. She has posted since the original comment on this thread, yet still left it until after my response before a ‘reminder’ was issued. Bing!The Unnamable, please rest assured that as Moderators we try to be as fair and consistent as possible.

I don't like singling out individuals when I post as a Moderator and mostly prefer talking through PMs (yes, I did PM Emily yesterday). Also, after Emily's post, I thought you might like to respond publicly as well, which is, in my opinion, only fair. Once you both had your say, I didn't think there was further need for other members to carry on reading these (If you would like to discuss the matter further, feel free to do it through PMs).

My post was not only address to Emily and The Unnamable but to all those who were getting involved in this off-topic issue; it was not only over what had been posted but also for future posts. Once again:

Please do not bring your personal grievance to the threads. If you have any issues with other members, try to deal with them through PMs unless you would like to report offensive posts.

Otherwise, as always, please feel free to ignore the threads and/or members that you find disagreeable.

Wirhe

01-23-2006, 07:03 PM

It would be silly to say "I'd prefer brains" because that would be a lie. I'd want both of them, no matter the situation. Only natural to strife for perfection.

RobinHood3000

01-23-2006, 07:15 PM

Since when does preference imply sole desire?

Anon22

01-23-2006, 08:23 PM

I haven't been here in a while and haven't read this thread entirely, so forgive me if I sound like a broken record or something.

In my opinion, neither is really all that important. Ok, they are, but kindness is the most important, if you are beautiful yet unkind to others always putting them down, you are ugly. If you are intelligent yet bragging about your intelligence and calling others stupid, you are stupid. Kindness is a beauty and intelligence incomparable to actual beauty and intelligence. If I were to choose, I would choose heart over either.

Virgil

01-23-2006, 08:40 PM

Anna Seis

01-23-2006, 09:57 PM

The solid, contourless body, like a block of granite, and the rasping red skin, bore the same relation to the body of a girl as the rose-hip to the rose. Why should the fruit be held inferior to the flower?
'She's beautiful,' he murmured.

'She's a metre across the hips, easily,' said Julia.

'That is her style of beauty,' said Winston.”[/QUOTE]

Orwell was right. I think brains teachs us how to look and it helps us to find beauty. Beauty can be found only for those who are capable to see it; perhaps there are "standard ways" of looking that enables us to find undoubtful beauties, but besides there must be the ability to find the less evident ones. Beauty is a construction.
Brains also help to accept the fruit when the flower is gone.Therefore I choose brains and I will try again with the mirror in the morning.

rachel

01-23-2006, 11:07 PM

The Unnamable

01-24-2006, 08:40 AM

I understand your arguments. At times I'm just trying to push the debate along;
Along or aside, Virgil? ;)

at times, mostly perhaps, I truely disagree; at times I have a little fun and tweak you a bit; you can do that to me too. I consider you very smart and knowledgable. If we weren't separated by cyberspace, I'd welcome you as a friend. I certainly don't consider philosophic disagreements barriers to getting along.
Neither do I. Now you make me feel properly humbled. I’ll admit this – you are far more than a gentleman than I could ever be. (Please don’t all rush to post ‘hear, hear’.) You see, I am prepared to admit that I can be wrong and an arse. I know you haven’t said that I can’t admit this but some view me in the way they would the Grim Reaper.

Well, that's not the sole criteria for hiring or the most important. I'd have a problem with someone with tatoos all over their face or with a nose ring or other rings. And I only have a half hour interview, appearence will have to do; I can't get into their skull.
I wasn’t saying that you were wrong to judge by appearance – we all do for precisely the reason you highlight – limited time. I’d be interested to hear what you have against tattoos and piercings, though. Does that mean you wouldn’t offer a job to a Maori person?

It seems like it's a job requirment.
Indeed.

I know who Charlette Church is. That is really crass. I wonder if you know who Howard Stern is? He's a radio comic talk host here in the US who way crasser than that. I'm mean he's filthy. I know on another thread I was accused of policing speech, but what's wrong with trying to push the vulgar away from the public discourse? The overwhelming majority of people can be vulgar. Perhaps even I have a vulgar side. Hey, I grew up in Brooklyn, New York, the center of the vulgar world. Perhaps we all do. Our great American President, Abe Lincoln, has a quote soemthing to the effect, that we must appeal to the better angels of our nature. I didn't put it in quotes because I couldn't find the exact quote. Where possible, without banning speech, we should do so.
I’ve heard of Howard Stern and probably also seen clips but can only remember brashness. I also have an objection to casual obscenity for the sake of it. However, it’s not that I’m offended by it or consider it corrupting of youth: I just think it’s lazy and nearly always banal and unimaginative. I agree with you – don’t allow our discourses to be contaminated by the merely vulgar. I’m not that averse to policing anything (I still prefer a police force to a police service), I just want it known that that’s what we are doing, making a political decision.

The Unnamable

01-24-2006, 09:09 AM

Orwell was right.

I’m glad someone picked up on the Orwell. I love that extract –it is, in itself, a beautiful moment and I agree with Winston (and you).

rachel

01-24-2006, 05:03 PM

[QUOTE=The Unnamable]Along or aside, Virgil? ;)

Neither do I. Now you make me feel properly humbled. I’ll admit this – you are far more than a gentleman than I could ever be. (Please don’t all rush to post ‘hear, hear’.) You see, I am prepared to admit that I can be wrong and an arse. I know you haven’t said that I can’t admit this but some view me in the way they would the Grim Reaper.

Wow, a meeting of two fine minds... and just in time for Valentine's day!!! :lol:

Virgil

01-24-2006, 10:03 PM

I wasn’t saying that you were wrong to judge by appearance – we all do for precisely the reason you highlight – limited time. I’d be interested to hear what you have against tattoos and piercings, though. Does that mean you wouldn’t offer a job to a Maori person?

Oh, don't feel humbled. I'm always willing to admit if I'm wrong. That's nothing new. And you're not the grim reaper. Sometimes I think it's your avatar that puts people off right away.

Somehow I knew you would bring Maori up when I wrote that! I certainly would make exception for anyone who tatoos or rings are truely cultural. I would probably overlook it for the average westerner if he could prove to me that he's truely competent. But it is an extra hurdle. The tatoos associate him with a paticular crowd that doesn't go with office work. I have seen machinists with tatoos (not on their face, that's pretty extreme) and long hair and such. I don't hire for that kind of job, but if I did I wouyldn't hold that against them.

I’ve heard of Howard Stern and probably also seen clips but can only remember brashness. I also have an objection to casual obscenity for the sake of it. However, it’s not that I’m offended by it or consider it corrupting of youth: I just think it’s lazy and nearly always banal and unimaginative. I agree with you – don’t allow our discourses to be contaminated by the merely vulgar.
I tell dirty jokes in private and I've been know to swear and talk vulgar. I'm not offended when I hear it privately. I'm not against it in art or novels or magazines, as long as we're given a heads up. It just doesn't seem right to me when it's done publically, over air waves and TV and internet. People who don't want to be subjected to it, shouldn't have to be. It does coarsen society.

RobinHood3000

01-24-2006, 10:44 PM

I agree with Unnamable and Virgil on profanity. Doesn't really bother me when used in appropriate or semi-appropriate contexts (you happy now, Quentin Tarantino??), but when people feel the need to say "What the f***??" when "What the h***??" or even "What on earth??" will do...that just irritates me. In the history of the English language, no single word has assumed the roles of as many parts of speech (noun, verb, adjective, preposition) as the F-word, which is really rather sad. One would think that the human brain has come to function at a higher level than that.

rachel

01-25-2006, 01:43 AM

Oh, don't feel humbled. I'm always willing to admit if I'm wrong. That's nothing new. And you're not the grim reaper. Sometimes I think it's your avatar that puts people off right away.

Somehow I knew you would bring Maori up when I wrote that! I certainly would make exception for anyone who tatoos or rings are truely cultural. I would probably overlook it for the average westerner if he could prove to me that he's truely competent. But it is an extra hurdle. The tatoos associate him with a paticular crowd that doesn't go with office work. I have seen machinists with tatoos (not on their face, that's pretty extreme) and long hair and such. I don't hire for that kind of job, but if I did I wouyldn't hold that against them.

I tell dirty jokes WHAT ...YOU DO? :confused: in private and I've been know to swear and talk vulgar. I'm not offended when I hear it privately. I'm not against it in art or novels or magazines, as long as we're given a heads up. It just doesn't seem right to me when it's done publically, over air waves and TV and internet. People who don't want to be subjected to it, shouldn't have to be. It does coarsen society.

you wouldn't be able to have all that criteria here in Vernon. Even elderly ladies are tatooed and pierced all over the place. And when I worked at a Senior's residence there was a dear man who had been in the navy in his youth. He used to try pinching me all the time and once when he rang the medic alert for helP(he was having trouble remembering and it frightened him until he came to himeself) there he was sitting at a chair with only his shorts on. He had a tatoo of the Bluenose Schooner all across his chest. the problem was he was thin and wrinkly n ow and the ship had rather caved in and the opposite sides were leaning inward. But here you cannot discriminate-period or you get the bottom end of the smart gene pool to choose from.

rachel

01-25-2006, 01:45 AM

personally to hear the F word and one other I won't even put a letter to is like an emotional rape and it just takes all the dignity and color out of the world for me. It is just my opinion, i so hate it.

Scone of Ark

01-26-2006, 01:10 AM

Ill Chime in on this one.

I really dont like either the language or the candor in which its used. As the world gets more crouded, we all have a respoinsability to keep up appearances. Our personal space is our own, but one must clean the yard from time to time.

I can be deliberately mean, vindictive, aggressive, spiteful, hurtful and downright evil without cussing or describing the current dimentions of fornication. I can even sound nice and professional doing it.

Another thing that really itches is the spellling and grammer police, every forum has them.

EAP

01-26-2006, 12:34 PM

"F***" is succinct. The opposite is verbose. Take your pick.

Edited by Logos to remove a deliberate attempt to get around word filter.

Countess

01-26-2006, 01:54 PM

Another thing that really itches is the spellling and grammer police, every forum has them.
***

LMAO! Look up the word 'grammar'. <EG>

But as to the question, I choose brains; beauty can be bought at the right price. (--:

(Also known as my "beauty fades but stupid lasts forever" theory).

Countess

RobinHood3000

01-26-2006, 01:59 PM

Apparently, EAP hasn't read the forums' terms of use. At any rate, when did the F-word become a suitable replacement for "damn"? It's neither more imaginative nor more succinct.

Back on the issue of Brains vs. Beauty, I agree with Countess. The brain may deteriorate, but it is cause for sympathy. Looks can deteriorate, and it often provokes revulsion.

EAP

01-27-2006, 04:08 AM

At any rate, when did the F-word become a suitable replacement for "damn"?

The day it passed into widespread public usage. Just because certain people get their knickers in a twist over one of its several connotations doesn't mean it cannot be employed legitimately.

It's neither more imaginative nor more succinct.

You are wrong on both counts.

I am going to write a treatise about Internet mannerisms. I am going to name it: The ingredients of becoming a perfect (WWW) lapdog in two months.

RobinHood3000

01-27-2006, 07:21 AM

How on earth does using the F-word constitute imagination?

Understandably enough, there are people who can use it in more or less acceptable contexts:

I was in traffic, my son was in the back seat. I cut someone off, he cut me off, I said "**** it!" Then, I heard a little voice from the back say, "**** it!"

All day long, he followed me around going, "**** it!" "**** it!" A little old lady walked up and said, "Oh, what a sweet little boy!" "**** you!" "Oh, it's the WILLIAMS boy..."

...but that doesn't mean it qualifies as sophisticated diction. Trying to tie this in to the idea of "Brains vs. Beauty," a friend of mine wrote a piece of flash fiction inspired by a painting she saw, in which the speaker, an artist, is rendered speechless by the beauty of a nude model descending a flight of stairs. To him, she appeared as a goddess, until she spoke in a tone ("I think I got a splinter, mister") that completely undermined his perception of her perfection. So with that in mind, does how one speaks reflect one's intelligence? And if so, to what degree does it contest with beauty with regards to perception?

The Unnamable

01-27-2006, 08:18 AM

Just because certain people get their knickers in a twist over one of its several connotations doesn't mean it cannot be employed legitimately.
Even though this has little to do with brains versus beauty (but I started the topic and am not bothered in the slightest), this is an interesting point. How many of you know that the ‘c’ word can be read on this site? Shock! Horror!

“No, not like that. A barren land, bare waste. Vulcanic lake, the dead sea: no fish, weedless, sunk deep in the earth. No wind would lift those waves, grey metal, poisonous foggy waters. Brimstone they called it raining down: the cities of the plain: Sodom, Gomorrah, Edom. All dead names. A dead sea in a dead land, grey and old. Old now. It bore the oldest, the first race. A bent hag crossed from Cassidy's clutching a noggin bottle by the neck. The oldest people. Wandered far away over all the earth, captivity to captivity, multiplying, dying, being born everywhere. It lay there now. Now it could bear no more. Dead: an old woman's: the grey sunken **** of the world.”

Ulysses – Episode 4 – Calypso

Now, I’m sure that the offending word has been asterisked out. Why? It’s in context and not being used as a term of abuse, not aimed at anyone, yet we are not allowed to see it. At least, we are not allowed to see it in this part of the site and it would seem odd if a link to it was deleted or removed considering that such a link would simply be to another part of this site. Is it because far fewer people will read Ulysses than will read prattle about it? Why is it okay if Joyce uses the word but not if anyone else does? Is it not okay for Joyce to use the word? In which case, why isn’t he censored?

There are at least two sets of values operating here and to me they seem wholly inconsistent. There appears to be offence simply with the word itself in this part of the site. The word isn’t censored because of the way it is used but simply because it is. There is no context in which it would be considered acceptable. However, a few mouse clicks and there no longer appears to be a problem with the word itself; its context and use determine its acceptability. Even more odd is the fact that there appears to be an attempt on this part of the site to encourage us to read what’s on the other part, i.e. that which is deemed Literature. This is becoming like a Marx Brothers sketch, under the influence of psychotropic substances.

That's the thing about Literature - it can encourage people to ask questions that others would much rather you didn't.

The Unnamable

01-27-2006, 08:49 AM

...but that doesn't mean it qualifies as sophisticated diction. Trying to tie this in to the idea of "Brains vs. Beauty," a friend of mine wrote a piece of flash fiction inspired by a painting she saw, in which the speaker, an artist, is rendered speechless by the beauty of a nude model descending a flight of stairs. To him, she appeared as a goddess, until she spoke in a tone ("I think I got a splinter, mister") that completely undermined his perception of her perfection. So with that in mind, does how one speaks reflect one's intelligence? And if so, to what degree does it contest with beauty with regards to perception?
So was Joyce being ‘unsophisticated’? Have you ever seen or read David Mamet’s Glengarry Glenn Ross?

The painting story is interesting. You could see the man as a fool – her ‘perfection’ was simply in his own mind, and thus more a reflection of him than of her. Goddesses aren’t real. Why should she have to live up to his criteria for what counts as beautiful? The humour of "I think I got a splinter, mister" appears as much aimed at deflating him as exposing her. Besides, in the reality I inhabit, descending a flight of stairs (assuming they are wooden) is more than likely to result in a splinter than a night of passion.

Look at the Orwell quotation above, which ends:

'She's beautiful,' he murmured.

'She's a metre across the hips, easily,' said Julia.

'That is her style of beauty,' said Winston.”

Julia doesn’t see any beauty in the woman. I suppose she’s too young to think of it in terms other than something appealing to the eye according to the conventional standards. Winston’s appreciation of the ‘fat’, fifty-year-old woman’s beauty is, to my mind, deeper than Julia’s thoughtless glance.

I don’t believe that someone can’t be beautiful and/or intelligent if they use expletives. I will, of course, draw certain conclusions but how one speaks probably reflects one’s education and upbringing but not one’s intelligence.

RobinHood3000

01-27-2006, 09:51 AM

Hmm. I probably should have mentioned the context of the image in my mind when I said that the "F-word" was not considered sophisticated usage.

If anyone remembers my friend "Chuck" from the "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" thread, he is an avid user of the F-word in a variety of situations--he is an example of the unsophisticated context to which I referred. For example, when relaying an anecdote to friends, he will embellish with the F-word at will in quotations, especially when it never occurred. Now, I suppose I can understand the need for artistic license--storytelling in itself is an art--but it doesn't add anything at all to the story, and when he says it (loudly) in front of the bus driver's young daughter, I start to wonder if it's really necessary.

Truly, there are indeed situations where nothing less than an expletive will do, but to my perception, those situations do not occur quite as often as such expletives are used. I did not say that all who use it are unsophisticated or stupid--I hoped to have given examples to the contrary--but if you count the number of people who use expletives appropriately and those who do not, I imagine that the latter statistic will be significantly greater.

I don't quite think of the speaker in the painting story so much a fool as a daydreamer. He probably realizes in his subconscious that no one is perfect, but has an optimistic bent that prefers to fill in perfection where there is none. In that respect, I think he's rather normal.

Scheherazade

01-27-2006, 10:43 AM

Just because certain people get their knickers in a twist over one of its several connotations doesn't mean it cannot be employed legitimately.

There are at least two sets of values operating here and to me they seem wholly inconsistent. There appears to be offence simply with the word itself in this part of the site. The word isn’t censored because of the way it is used but simply because it is. There is no context in which it would be considered acceptable. However, a few mouse clicks and there no longer appears to be a problem with the word itself; its context and use determine its acceptability. Even more odd is the fact that there appears to be an attempt on this part of the site to encourage us to read what’s on the other part, i.e. that which is deemed Literature. This is becoming like a Marx Brothers sketch, under the influence of psychotropic substances.

http://www.msprotege.com/forum/images/smilies/beat-dead-horse.gif

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=146220&postcount=14

Anna Seis

01-27-2006, 03:33 PM

I don’t believe that someone can’t be beautiful and/or intelligent if they use expletives. I will, of course, draw certain conclusions but how one speaks probably reflects one’s education and upbringing but not one’s intelligence.[/QUOTE]

I relate this with Liza in Pigmalion. Liza is beautiful but uses the language in a certain way that doesn't fit the expectations of some people in certain contexts. The aim of Henry Higgins is train her to talk in a different way (and as an experiment, for a bet) . When she is introduced to the Henry's mother and her visitors, she talks without use expletives nor incorrect syntax, but the content of her chat is a little scandalous. Freddy sees her beauty in despite of that. And I believe Liza proves to be clever in many situations, because Higgins only teachs her to express herself, but she thinks independently of him.

The Unnamable

01-28-2006, 01:40 AM

http://www.msprotege.com/forum/images/smilies/beat-dead-horse.gif

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=146220&postcount=14
Great argument, Scheherazade. In effect, you are simply saying “Forget about debating any issues; the rules are all that matter.” Anyone, like me, who thinks about issues that you consider a threat to those rules in some way, can simply be dismissed without argument. You ignore the points I made – those rules only seem to apply on this part of the site. Why do they not apply to Joyce?

As I said above, “That's the thing about Literature - it can encourage people to ask questions that others would much rather you didn't.”

There are issues raised in this topic, which I find interesting. They have relevance beyond the confines of the Forum. My point wasn’t limited to the context of the forum. I didn’t break or ask for any change in the rules (unless quoting a text from this very site is now considered a breach).

The more interesting question for me, however, is why inconsistency exists in relation to what we perceive as Literature. Why do we accept ‘obscenity’ in Joyce but not in others? Considering that certain works of Literature have been the subject of obscenity trials (one of which is available in an uncensored version on this site - http://www.online-literature.com/dh_lawrence/lady_chatterley_lover/ ), I can’t understand why it is not acceptable to ask such questions. Perhaps Lawrence’s counsel should have simply had a book of rules handed to them and asked to withdraw their defence. That would have saved time, money (as well as prevented the availability of his novel, of course).

The Unnamable

01-28-2006, 06:54 AM

Truly, there are indeed situations where nothing less than an expletive will do, but to my perception, those situations do not occur quite as often as such expletives are used. I did not say that all who use it are unsophisticated or stupid--I hoped to have given examples to the contrary--but if you count the number of people who use expletives appropriately and those who do not, I imagine that the latter statistic will be significantly greater.
And who will be the judge of when it is or isn’t ‘appropriate’? You, I assume. That puts you in quite a powerful position, doesn’t it? I suppose it is at least consistent with your self-confessed view of yourself as guardian of the oppressed. You decide who is offensive, you decide who is oppressed, you decide who needs you to speak on their behalf.

I don't quite think of the speaker in the painting story so much a fool as a daydreamer. He probably realizes in his subconscious that no one is perfect, but has an optimistic bent that prefers to fill in perfection where there is none. In that respect, I think he's rather normal.
Hence the idea of having differing interpretations. I don’t see the man’s idea of perfection as valid for most of us, let alone suggestive of ‘optimism’. The difference in our approaches can be accounted for in the differing ways we respond to the word ‘perfection’. You refer to your own mental idea of what it means and proceed accordingly: I question what it means and think about how such concepts are used to define people. At no point do you question what is meant by ‘perfection’ or consider the possibility that it’s a construct. You consider it a sign of ‘optimism’ that we ‘fill in perfection’. I think there is room for a far more complex reading.

RobinHood3000

01-28-2006, 08:58 AM

The Unnamable

01-28-2006, 09:52 AM

In response to your first post: Um, Unnamable, the reason Scher said that we were "beating a dead horse" was because we were discussing something entirely off-topic that had been returned to repeatedly IN this topic. She didn't say we couldn't talk about it, only that if it's to be discussed, it should have its own thread.
Once again, Robin, your facts are wrong. She didn’t ‘say’ anything, merely posted three quotations (all, rather strangely according to your argument, linked by the theme of policing expression), an emoticon and the link for rules which say nothing about being ‘off-topic’, but focus instead on why certain standards relating to “sex/nudity/language etc.” are adhered to. Perhaps you should consider actually reading something before you reach for your trusty bow. You are welcome to your own interpretation but if you don’t mind, I’ll use the actual evidence of the post (rather than my ‘intuition’ about ‘the reason Scher said’ etc.) for mine. I’ve asked you before not to take me for a fool. I am more than capable of constructing my own meanings and really don’t need your explanations, however well intentioned you might consider them to be.

In response to your second: Please don't make assumptions and then try to thrash me on them.
Which assumptions? The one where I say “And who will be the judge of when it is or isn’t ‘appropriate’? You, I assume.”? Was I incorrect? You said, “but if you count the number of people who use expletives appropriately”, which surely implies that you have a working definition of (dare I say ‘assumption about’) what is appropriate?

I do not command people to accept my help, I offer it—
No, you don’t offer it – you give it. There is a difference.

if they tell me to back off, I will, but until then, I will speak my mind as to what my perception of justice is.
It’s your perception of ‘justice’ (a very grand term in this context, don’t you think?) that I have problems with. What might appear to be an intervention on behalf of justice to one person might look more like the arrogant and patronising interference of a self-important gasbag to another. Justice is often represented by the idea of scales, implying balance. All your heroism in defending the oppressed seems, oddly, to be employed only in certain situations.

And I never said that one person's perception of perfection was necessarily true for all
And I never said that you did. I said “At no point do you question what is meant by ‘perfection’ or consider the possibility that it’s a construct.” This is true.

--the man sees something beautiful and perceives a majesty in it that contrasts with the homeliness of the woman's speech.
This is not the same as what you said originally: “To him, she appeared as a goddess, until she spoke in a tone ("I think I got a splinter, mister") that completely undermined his perception of her perfection.” The emphasis appears to have shifted.

That doesn't mean that her speech is ugly at all, only that it is different from what the speaker had hoped to hear.
I didn’t say that you said that her speech is ugly – my point was that the story could be viewed as much as a comment on the man’s perception of beauty as a comment on the woman’s use of language.

Logos

01-28-2006, 10:20 AM

Admin is not going to censor texts of literature that are in the public domain like Joyce's or Lawrence's.

But it is his choice to instill word filters to the content of his discussion boards. Two totally different issues.

Yes the application of the forum rules here is sometimes subjective, there is no getting around it. You can debate the issues of censorship all you want, you're all entitled to your opinions and it's a relevant discussion. I would just like to ask that people quit harping on the forum word filter non-issue.

The Unnamable

01-28-2006, 12:50 PM

Admin is not going to censor texts of literature that are in the public domain like Joyce's or Lawrence's.
As long as they don’t appear on his discussion boards, you mean because they are censored here.

Two totally different issues.
I disagree. They are related even if only by virtue of subject matter. Stating something emphatically does not make it true.

I would just like to ask that people quit harping on the forum word filter non-issue.
And I would just like to ask that people actually read what I post and stop assuming that I’m saying what I’m not. I can’t speak for anyone else here but I am not ‘harping on’ the non-issue of the forum word filter. It exists and I find it both amusing and revealing. Am I not allowed to do so? However, my point is not about the application of filters but about the issue of why it’s okay for Joyce and Lawrence to use ‘****’ and ‘****’ but not for anyone else to do so (and I don’t mean in the context of the forum – but in the world at large).

You might not wish to discuss or consider why “the application of the forum rules here is sometimes subjective” but I think it’s relevant as an example of the kind of inconsistency to which I was referring. At least your italicisation of ‘his’ makes clear that the issue, as far as the forum goes, is more about ownership than it is about principles.

Scheherazade

01-28-2006, 11:54 PM

http://www.msprotege.com/forum/images/smilies/beat-dead-horse.gif

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=146220&postcount=14Because:
The Unnamable> I am sorry to hear that you consider yourself misunderstood. The simple, very simple, point I was trying to make when I responded to your first post was that the kind of swearing which will not be tolerated is mainly in the form of personal attacks and abuse.

We understand that it sometimes appears in literary works and if you take the time to look around the Forum, you will see that there are poems and other works which contain such words (both published and personal). We are not rigid, power-crazed people, who edit the posts at will (though the idea sounds rather tempting at times ). As Logos pointed out, we try to be as fair as possible and evaluate individual merits of each post before reacting to them. However, as a general guideline and to ensure fairness to all, we have a rule:

Swearing is not allowed on this Forum.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2246&page=8&pp=20And swearing will not be allowed on this Forum till a software which can tell the difference between a 'literary' use of swearing and an abusive, personal attack on members is developed.
And I would just like to ask that people actually read what I post and stop assuming that I’m saying what I’m not.Since on more than one occassion people have interpreted what you said in a different way than you intended, could it be possible that you are not as clear as you think you are? You should maybe consider the possibility that it is not only 'them' but also the way you express yourself?

And The Unnamable, it seems like the easiest way to go round the language filters on the Forum and in the world at large is writing a million copy selling book! ;)

*edit*

Please let's carry on with the topic discussion: Brains or Beauty – which would you prefer to have?

The Unnamable

01-29-2006, 08:11 AM

And swearing will not be allowed on this Forum till a software which can tell the difference between a 'literary' use of swearing and an abusive, personal attack on members is developed.

What, exactly, is a ‘literary’ use of swearing?

Since on more than one occassion people have interpreted what you said in a different way than you intended, could it be possible that you are not as clear as you think you are?

I think the answer is in your post. Many of my complaints are not even about misunderstanding what I have written but what the authors I quote have written – see the Ritzer responses. I don’t know how much more clearly any human being could say, “I am not asking for a change to the rules,” yet you continue to respond to me as if I am. You even begin this post with yet another reminder that “Swearing is not allowed on this Forum.” I know it isn’t. I repeat, I am not asking for any changes to the rules, not asking to be allowed to ‘swear’. I’m not even asking you to justify your policy. What I am interested in is discussing what constitutes ‘swearing’ and why such rules exist. I don’t want to consider this simply with regard to the Forum but in the larger world beyond it. Is that sufficiently clear? The fact that I have said it a number of times leads me to suspect that you are misinterpreting me for the purposes of directing the issue away from what I am saying.

You should maybe consider the possibility that it is not only 'them' but also the way you express yourself?
I’ve considered it. If ‘them’ referred to an audience capable of using language with precision and reading with understanding, I might agree with you but in the main, it doesn’t. I’ve seen more coherent expression in a plate of alphabetti spaghetti than I have in many contributions.

And The Unnamable, it seems like the easiest way to go round the language filters on the Forum and in the world at large is writing a million copy selling book!

First of all, how do you know that I haven’t? Okay, not a million selling blockbuster but I have been published – as a teacher you might even have read some. Secondly, your response once again shows that you are persisting in your assumption that I want to ‘get around the filters’. Please show me a single comment of mine where I advocate doing so. This is an example of where I am being (deliberately?) misunderstood. You employ Squealer’s tactics, secure in the knowledge that the sheep outnumber the Benjamins. You assign to me a desire I have not expressed and then sneer at what you perceive as a lack of credentials.

Thank you for your suggestions but if you don’t mind, I will continue to draw my own conclusions.

The Unnamable

01-29-2006, 08:12 AM

Kindness is beauty.

Kindness

Kindness glides about my house.
Dame Kindness, she is so nice!
The blue and red jewels of her rings smoke
In the windows, the mirrors
Are filling with smiles.

What is so real as the cry of a child?
A rabbit's cry may be wilder
But it has no soul.
Sugar can cure everything, so Kindness says.
Sugar is a necessary fluid,

Its crystals a little poultice.
O kindness, kindness
Sweetly picking up pieces!
My Japanese silks, desperate butterflies,
May be pinned any minute, anesthetized.

And here you come, with a cup of tea
Wreathed in steam.
The blood jet is poetry,
There is no stopping it.
You hand me two children, two roses.

Sylvia Plath

Virgil

01-29-2006, 10:33 AM

Kindness

Kindness glides about my house.
Dame Kindness, she is so nice!
The blue and red jewels of her rings smoke
In the windows, the mirrors
Are filling with smiles.

What is so real as the cry of a child?
A rabbit's cry may be wilder
But it has no soul.
Sugar can cure everything, so Kindness says.
Sugar is a necessary fluid,

Its crystals a little poultice.
O kindness, kindness
Sweetly picking up pieces!
My Japanese silks, desperate butterflies,
May be pinned any minute, anesthetized.

And here you come, with a cup of tea
Wreathed in steam.
The blood jet is poetry,
There is no stopping it.
You hand me two children, two roses.

Sylvia Plath

Thanks. Never saw that before. I enjoyed it.

rachel

01-29-2006, 11:22 AM

The Unnamable

01-29-2006, 12:58 PM

That is absolutely real and beautiful Unnameable. So very different, the sort of poem that will echo in the mind long after the author's name has been forgotten.somehow the very simple things in our existance can be the most powerful, profound, earth shaking.But I don't honestly know why unless it is because unlike the rabbit we have a soul that has the ability to comprehend and turn toward kindness no matter how it appears. thank you

It was Virgil’s “Kindness is beauty” comment that reminded me of it - in particular, the simplicity of the statement in the context of such huge ideas. I like the fact that you said it is “real and beautiful”. I don’t know if you know Sylvia Plath’s poetry and life. She committed suicide on February 11, 1963 at the age of 31. The poem above was written on the 1st February, just ten days earlier. She was married to British poet Ted Hughes, with whom she had two children. For me, ‘Kindness’ is an ambivalent presence in the poem. She is an apparently benevolent but deceptively interfering figure who tries to encourage a sweet but artificial ‘cover’ on life. The final verse indicates that this attempt to suppress the more intense and violent side of life will fail. Nevertheless, I still see the poem as a celebration of ‘kindness’, all the more remarkable given what she must have been feeling in those last months. The wound to be ‘staunched’ is poetry, and even though the ordinary blessings of life are not enough to staunch the flow (and the poetry pours out, mortally), they are blessings nonetheless.

I am always similarly humbled by Ann Frank’s words:

“It's difficult in times like these: ideals, dreams and cherished hopes rise within us, only to be crushed by grim reality. It's a wonder I haven't abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart. I simply can't build my hopes on a foundation of confusion, misery, and death...and yet...I think...this cruelty will end, and that peace and tranquillity will return again.”

Here’s another Plath poem, written on the 5th February 1963. I think you'll like it.

Balloons
Since Christmas they have lived with us,
Guileless and clear,
Oval soul-animals,
Taking up half the space,
Moving and rubbing on the silk

Invisible air drifts,
Giving a shriek and pop
When attacked, then scooting to rest, barely trembling.
Yellow cathead, blue fish--------
Such queer moons we live with

Instead of dead furniture!
Straw mats, white walls
And these traveling
Globes of thin air, red, green,
Delighting

The heart like wishes or free
Peacocks blessing
Old ground with a feather
Beaten in starry metals.
Your small

Brother is making
His balloon squeak like a cat.
Seeming to see
A funny pink world he might eat on the other side of it,
He bites,

Then sits
Back, fat jug
Contemplating a world clear as water.
A red
Shred in his little fist.

PS I don't think this is off-topic - it's exposing me to a beauty I'd temporarily forgotten. Cheers, Virgil and thank you, rachel.

rachel

01-29-2006, 01:12 PM

It was Virgil’s “Kindness is beauty” comment that reminded me of it - in particular, the simplicity of the statement in the context of such huge ideas. I like the fact that you said it is “real and beautiful”. I don’t know if you know Sylvia Plath’s poetry and life. She committed suicide on February 11, 1963 at the age of 31. The poem above was written on the 1st February, just ten days earlier. She was married to British poet Ted Hughes, with whom she had two children. For me, ‘Kindness’ is an ambivalent presence in the poem. She is an apparently benevolent but deceptively interfering figure who tries to encourage a sweet but artificial ‘cover’ on life. The final verse indicates that this attempt to suppress the more intense and violent side of life will fail. Nevertheless, I still see the poem as a celebration of ‘kindness’, all the more remarkable given what she must have been feeling in those last months. The wound to be ‘staunched’ is poetry, and even though the ordinary blessings of life are not enough to staunch the flow (and the poetry pours out, mortally), they are blessings nonetheless.

I am always similarly humbled by Ann Frank’s words:

“It's difficult in times like these: ideals, dreams and cherished hopes rise within us, only to be crushed by grim reality. It's a wonder I haven't abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart. I simply can't build my hopes on a foundation of confusion, misery, and death...and yet...I think...this cruelty will end, and that peace and tranquillity will return again.”

Here’s another Plath poem, written on the 5th February 1963. I think you'll like it.

Balloons
Since Christmas they have lived with us,
Guileless and clear,
Oval soul-animals,
Taking up half the space,
Moving and rubbing on the silk

Invisible air drifts,
Giving a shriek and pop
When attacked, then scooting to rest, barely trembling.
Yellow cathead, blue fish--------
Such queer moons we live with

Instead of dead furniture!
Straw mats, white walls
And these traveling
Globes of thin air, red, green,
Delighting

The heart like wishes or free
Peacocks blessing
Old ground with a feather
Beaten in starry metals.
Your small

Brother is making
His balloon squeak like a cat.
Seeming to see
A funny pink world he might eat on the other side of it,
He bites,

Then sits
Back, fat jug
Contemplating a world clear as water.
A red
Shred in his little fist.

PS I don't think this is off-topic - it's exposing me to a beauty I'd temporarily forgotten. Cheers, Virgil and thank you, rachel.

oh I didn't know about her or her life. I felt such a jolt when you said she committed suicide. But I believe that when someone is in deep torment because of situations they cannot do much about, like Ann Frank who I really relate to-in such times a clarity and sight such as may never have happened before or will again comes forth. I believe those words she wrote were probably the bravest thing she ever did amidst the dark night beginning to shroud about her. And I will treasure that poem, am going to print it out, and I will remember her with tears....and gratitude.

Xamonas Chegwe

01-29-2006, 01:42 PM

Unnamable,

Just as we get used to you as a curmudgeonly old grouch, you throw out something like those Plath poems. You'll change your avatar to a kitten next.

Thanks for posting them. They are really touching. I didn't know that Kindness was written so close to her suicide until you said, but I suspected so. The last verse, especially the "two roses" line, went straight through me - chilling.

Now get back to haranguing someone before people think you've gone soft! ;)

The Unnamable

01-30-2006, 10:58 AM

Unnamable,
Just as we get used to you as a curmudgeonly old grouch, you throw out something like those Plath poems. You'll change your avatar to a kitten next.
How very dare you! ‘Throw out!’ My tool is a scalpel, not a catapult.
Only those who cannot make up what passes for their minds would change their avatars. It’s like showing off your new shoes. Is that more like it?

Now get back to haranguing someone before people think you've gone soft! ;)
Don’t worry, you only get to see the soft white underbelly of my vulnerability on special occasions – and it is Chinese New Year, after all.

I’d be interested to hear what people think about the Balloons poem. Does the poem record moments of beauty? The “funny pink world” becomes “a world clear as water” and finally “A red/Shred in his little fist.” and nothing more. The child has learned something – that as he grows older imaginary worlds are closed down for him. As another poet, Hal Summers, says in ‘The Beginners’:
“The world will end before it is gone.”

However, you might see the poem as more about the child’s sense of wonder at the sudden transformation. Ted Hughes wrote something that provides an interesting comparison:

Full Moon and Little Frieda
A cool small evening shrunk to a dog bark and the clank of a bucket -
And you listening.
A spider's web, tense for the dew's touch.
A pail lifted, still and brimming - mirror
To tempt a first star to a tremor.
Cows are going home in the lane there, looping the hedges with their warm
wreaths of breath -
A dark river of blood, many boulders,
Balancing unspilled milk.
'Moon!' you cry suddenly, 'Moon! Moon!'

The moon has stepped back like an artist gazing amazed at a work
That points at him amazed.

rachel

01-30-2006, 02:39 PM

[QUOTE=The Unnamable]How very dare you! ‘Throw out!’ My tool is a scalpel, not a catapult.
Only those who cannot make up what passes for their minds would change their avatars. It’s like showing off your new shoes. Is that more like it?

Don’t worry, you only get to see the soft white underbelly of my vulnerability on special occasions – and it is Chinese New Year, after all.

I’d be interested to hear what people think about the Balloons poem. Does the poem record moments of beauty? The “funny pink world” becomes “a world clear as water” and finally “A red/Shred in his little fist.” and nothing more. The child has learned something – that as he grows older imaginary worlds are closed down for him. As another poet, Hal Summers, says in ‘The Beginners’:
“The world will end before it is gone.”

I found the balloon poem to be very sad to me. And before I say why please note that a friend once told me after playing a word association game that I ought not to tell a psychiatrist or I would be put away because what I came up with was not what thousands of others came up with.
On the other hand my father sent me to a psychiatrist after the suicide of his wife(neither were my real parents) for not appearing to grieve and after two visits of one hundred and eighty bucks a pop the shrink said I was the most well adjusted and forgiving person he had met to date, refused to see me again but wanted an appointment with my dad! all in how you see it.

about the poem,
the balloons were an object of beauty and promise for they floated silently along and rubbed against the silk, a luxurious material and their silent world gave off no cruel words or hurts. They were relaxing and pretty to watch.
When baby brother full of fun and happiness took one of the balloons that had become part of his accepted world of innocence and it busted, well obviously it was a shock, it might have stung and it was red signifiying blood and pain and dying-the balloon could not be put back together ever again. It was too late and all was shattered, the loved balloon and baby's world.
I think the author saw the world that way at some point. To my mind she was very vulnerable and she could not handle the world as it really is. It shattered her and destroyed her innocence and without that in her spirit she became undone.

The Unnamable

02-12-2006, 06:12 AM

No doubt inspired by someone’s comparison of me to Professor Higgins, I have just watched My Fair Lady again. When Audrey mimes to “I could have danced all night”, I knew I’d made the right choice in beauty. Kisses are a better fate than wisdom.

since feeling is first
who pays any attention
to the syntax of things
will never wholly kiss you;

wholly to be a fool
while Spring is in the world

my blood approves,
and kisses are a better fate
than wisdom
lady i swear by all flowers. Don't cry
—the best gesture of my brain is less than
your eyelids' flutter which says

we are for each other: then
laugh, leaning back in my arms
for life's not a paragraph

And death i think is no parenthesis

ee cummings

For Jen.

Pensive

02-12-2006, 07:10 AM

When I watched My Fair Lady, I really loved it. Especially I loved the songs.

RobinHood3000

02-12-2006, 09:27 AM

I love Higgins' dry wit. "Just wrap her in brown paper until they arrive..."

Virgil

02-12-2006, 12:13 PM

Here’s another Plath poem, written on the 5th February 1963. I think you'll like it.

Balloons
Since Christmas they have lived with us,
Guileless and clear,
Oval soul-animals,
Taking up half the space,
Moving and rubbing on the silk

Invisible air drifts,
Giving a shriek and pop
When attacked, then scooting to rest, barely trembling.
Yellow cathead, blue fish--------
Such queer moons we live with

Instead of dead furniture!
Straw mats, white walls
And these traveling
Globes of thin air, red, green,
Delighting

The heart like wishes or free
Peacocks blessing
Old ground with a feather
Beaten in starry metals.
Your small

Brother is making
His balloon squeak like a cat.
Seeming to see
A funny pink world he might eat on the other side of it,
He bites,

Then sits
Back, fat jug
Contemplating a world clear as water.
A red
Shred in his little fist.

PS I don't think this is off-topic - it's exposing me to a beauty I'd temporarily forgotten. Cheers, Virgil and thank you, rachel.

Is it too late to comment? Sometimes threads just get lost. Your Plath poems are sides of Plath one doesn't normally see in the anthologies, at least the one I have. They only put out the Plath poems full of angst and suicidal. This last one has such a nice touch.

jon1jt

03-06-2006, 06:15 PM

I read the first dozen or so posts but didn't see anyone raise the issue of culture and the impact it is having on notions of beauty. Globalization is pushing cultures to unify around idealized faces and bodies and fashion to the extent that we find ourselves, consciously (?) or unconsciously, sizing ourselves up against it, despite our insatiable thirst for knowledge. Unless you live in a bubble, you're likely to be a victim of these messages flying around you (unless, again, you live a monastic existence, which I do not). While we would all generally prefer contemplating the meaning of Being any day over staring endlessly in a mirror, it's a bit disingenuous not to acknowledge the allure of physical beauty in that overall calculation. I'm sure it's there and I've just missed it. The original post assumes there's a collective agreement on the definition of physical beauty, which supports my point that we're deeply affected by it. To what extent, however, you only know.

"To thine own self, be true."