Idk where you recently got on this kick that beauty isn't subjective, but it's nonsense. Recognizing the subjectivity of beauty doesn't require you to deny the existence of beauty. It just means what you find beautiful is a fact about you, not a fact about the object of beauty
I got it from CJ the X, who presented in person during InkHaven, but TBH it was mostly a thing I was waiting to hear.
You're gonna hate this, but... my response is that there are many types of beauty (and also things can be beautiful in more than one way, but that's seperate). A good goth song has a different type of beauty than a good country song. And different people have the ability to see/appreciate different types of beauty. Someone will be able to see a certain kind of beauty and be blind to a different kind, but that beauty still exists (or doesn't) within the object.
And I suspect you'll say "That's just subjectivity of beauty with extra steps!!" but the difference is doing work IMO.
There's a saying by a famous aicraft designer - "Ugly planes don't fly". I think designers who work for years on that get the sense of taste, they feel good when they see good functionality and aerodynamics. It's an imperfect pattern in our head, but it's not completely arbitrary pattern
I see beauty as two-place function, so your claims about the objectivity of beauty was so wired to me. beauty, like value, come from people. there is no value and no beauty in world that doesn't have conscious life. so for me, it was so weird see you write "But beauty is a real thing, external to us.". it was obvious mistake, that i expect people to know to avoid: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eDpPnT7wdBwWPGvo5/2-place-and-1-place-words
this is not the comment i expected to write, though. it was about the story itself.
***
I didn't like the story. i think the story arc is weak, and the documentary gimmick is just not enough to carry the story. maybe it would have work before i read SCP stories, but after, it's look like not good enough execution of lazy idea.
why lazy? because the story don't take the idea seriously. the thing the story say is that you can't equalize beauty, people just will come with other thing - so it was, yet again, weird to see you say the story let you see not-lookist Utopia, when i understand the story as saying the exact opposite of that!
and the problem is it fail on the first try, and then... stop trying, there is not only beauty, but charisma, and so... any attempt is futile. this is how i understand the end of this story. we fail on the first try, obviously flying is impossible, and it's just not the human destiny to see the top of the clouds!
it's even worst, because i saw so many places take the ideas of the story more seriously. face-blanding and talk-control are both background elements, just part of the worldbuilding of dath ilan, my favorite Utopia. the stories that happened there are not about that, that just the background.
so, the story both have unexciting execution, that is gimmicky without substance, unoriginal ideas, that was executed badly.
***
I still didn't address the main point of the post. i don't sure i can do that, when i disagree with so many underlying assumptions. and i can think about different Utopias with different relationships to beauty. maybe you will want to have those discussions.
could faceblanding work? would it be good? are good questions to ask. but to do that, we need to start with other questions. for example, about hedonic treadmill for beauty.
beauty is NOT in the world, but in out Utility Functions. but The Utility Function Is The Utility Function, and i do not want to change what i want, but to try to achieve it. and yet, i would like to see who face-blanded world would be like, or if digital world where everyone beautiful will make people to start appreciating what now considered ugly.
those are the interesting questions, and this story totally failed at even try to honestly engage with them, going for gimmick and cheap shots, instead.
Idk where you recently got on this kick that beauty isn't subjective, but it's nonsense. Recognizing the subjectivity of beauty doesn't require you to deny the existence of beauty. It just means what you find beautiful is a fact about you, not a fact about the object of beauty
I got it from CJ the X, who presented in person during InkHaven, but TBH it was mostly a thing I was waiting to hear.
You're gonna hate this, but... my response is that there are many types of beauty (and also things can be beautiful in more than one way, but that's seperate). A good goth song has a different type of beauty than a good country song. And different people have the ability to see/appreciate different types of beauty. Someone will be able to see a certain kind of beauty and be blind to a different kind, but that beauty still exists (or doesn't) within the object.
And I suspect you'll say "That's just subjectivity of beauty with extra steps!!" but the difference is doing work IMO.
All I'm hearing is "I know this is wrong but I like it so I'm going to keep believing it." Very postrat of you
You are my sanity check, but I think the model does benefit from this. Can we talk about it in person?
There's a saying by a famous aicraft designer - "Ugly planes don't fly". I think designers who work for years on that get the sense of taste, they feel good when they see good functionality and aerodynamics. It's an imperfect pattern in our head, but it's not completely arbitrary pattern
I see beauty as two-place function, so your claims about the objectivity of beauty was so wired to me. beauty, like value, come from people. there is no value and no beauty in world that doesn't have conscious life. so for me, it was so weird see you write "But beauty is a real thing, external to us.". it was obvious mistake, that i expect people to know to avoid: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eDpPnT7wdBwWPGvo5/2-place-and-1-place-words
this is not the comment i expected to write, though. it was about the story itself.
***
I didn't like the story. i think the story arc is weak, and the documentary gimmick is just not enough to carry the story. maybe it would have work before i read SCP stories, but after, it's look like not good enough execution of lazy idea.
why lazy? because the story don't take the idea seriously. the thing the story say is that you can't equalize beauty, people just will come with other thing - so it was, yet again, weird to see you say the story let you see not-lookist Utopia, when i understand the story as saying the exact opposite of that!
and the problem is it fail on the first try, and then... stop trying, there is not only beauty, but charisma, and so... any attempt is futile. this is how i understand the end of this story. we fail on the first try, obviously flying is impossible, and it's just not the human destiny to see the top of the clouds!
it's even worst, because i saw so many places take the ideas of the story more seriously. face-blanding and talk-control are both background elements, just part of the worldbuilding of dath ilan, my favorite Utopia. the stories that happened there are not about that, that just the background.
so, the story both have unexciting execution, that is gimmicky without substance, unoriginal ideas, that was executed badly.
***
I still didn't address the main point of the post. i don't sure i can do that, when i disagree with so many underlying assumptions. and i can think about different Utopias with different relationships to beauty. maybe you will want to have those discussions.
could faceblanding work? would it be good? are good questions to ask. but to do that, we need to start with other questions. for example, about hedonic treadmill for beauty.
beauty is NOT in the world, but in out Utility Functions. but The Utility Function Is The Utility Function, and i do not want to change what i want, but to try to achieve it. and yet, i would like to see who face-blanded world would be like, or if digital world where everyone beautiful will make people to start appreciating what now considered ugly.
those are the interesting questions, and this story totally failed at even try to honestly engage with them, going for gimmick and cheap shots, instead.
Reminded of Maximum Fun-Fun Ultra Super Happy People from Three Worlds Collide