Se, Si and beauty

[ConcreteButterfly]

Which function is responsible for the perception of beauty, Se or Si? Or something else?

[Suburbanite]

If there's beauty in tragedy, Se and Si cannot be solely responsible.

[ashlesha]

beauty is a judgment, so a rational function needs to come into play at some point.

[Joy]

In the most basic use of the term beauty, Se for objective beauty (I can look at a person and tell that they are good looking without feeling feeling attracted to that person, for example) and Si for attraction/how seeing something beautiful makes you feel.

[ConcreteButterfly]

Ok so how about = judgment of beauty, = the emotional reaction to it (crying, smiling, etc.) , = how it affects your internal physiology (racing heartbeat, nausea,etc), = pure perception of its external qualities ( shape, color, hardness etc.)

And I guess =subjective judgment of beauty, relating to feelings of love and attraction, = objective ? As in, a detached judgement of the proportions, patterns, natural congruities that make something beautiful. The two would probably go hand in hand, one leading to the other. So if you love something you'll likely see "patterns" ie. that enhance its beauty to you, and ignore those that don't. If you see a very congruent, natural pattern, that would eventually lead to subjective feelings of love , as in the "beauty of mathematics".

I'm not sure how Te can be related to beauty, seems like it would be indirect, like if some work was done very efficiently, there would be some link to Fi, which would result in the judgement that the work was beautiful.

[bolong]

Ok so how about = judgment of beauty, = the emotional reaction to it (crying, smiling, etc.) , = how it affects your internal physiology (racing heartbeat, nausea,etc), = pure perception of its external qualities ( shape, color, hardness etc.)

Agree. I also feel that Ti and Te are not involved directly. Neither are Ni and Ne, really.

[SlavaPHP]

every function can yield beauty... some times i look at mechanisms and software code, and it looks beautiful

[krieger]

sure as fuck not that caveman function.

[Aiss]

sure as fuck not that caveman function.

<3 i missed you guys so much!

[Anglas]

<3 i missed you guys so much!

where is your pride, ILI?

[Skepsis]

Beauty through different means perhaps? Se may be like, this girl is HOT, while Si may be like I love her complexion.

[Joy]

Beauty through different means perhaps? Se may be like, this girl is HOT, while Si may be like I love her complexion.

Not related to Se vs. Si, but your post reminded me of this: https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...6567b0e8c6bfeb

(I'm apparently Si and would feel really uncomfortable speaking in such a flowery way.)

[Skepsis]

Not related to Se vs. Si, but your post reminded me of this: https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...6567b0e8c6bfeb

(I'm apparently Si and would feel really uncomfortable speaking in such a flowery way.)

I would think that Si coupled with Fe would be more apt to speak in a flowery way as opposed to being coupled with Te. So you're right, what I said didn't get at the essential difference between the two. What I'm trying to convey is the notion that Se is more concerned with the beauty of the whole object, while Si is more concerned with subtle details or parts of the object that are appealing or beautiful.

As an Si user, what to you find beautiful or attractive?

[Joy]

I would think that Si coupled with Fe would be more apt to speak in a flowery way as opposed to being coupled with Te. So you're right, what I said didn't get at the essential difference between the two. What I'm trying to convey is the notion that Se is more concerned with the beauty of the whole object, while Si is more concerned with subtle details or parts of the object that are appealing or beautiful.

As an Si user, what to you find beautiful or attractive?

Wow, it's so hard to put into words. I'm not sure I can.

Aesthetically I find earth tones with accents of deep, rich colors most attractive for man made things. I find almost everything in nature beautiful, but moving water and things that make me feel small are my favorites.

In people I think natural beauty appeals to me much more than "done up" beauty. There has to be an almost palpable vibe to the person, too. Imperfections add character. Being true to yourself is essential. (By contrast, people like Lady Gaga and Nicki Manage kind of creep me out because it feels like I'm not looking at an actual person.) When the color or style of a person's clothes/hair/makeup really suit the person I find it beautiful even if it's not my own favorite style.

There are beautiful moments or situations, too. Those I won't even try to explain. I will say though that sometimes perfectly awful things can be beautiful, though probably not as often as wonderful or neutral things. Something about a moment just strikes me a certain way and gives me a sense of awe.

Basically, there's no one physical thing that I consider beautiful. It's a reaction, an event, an interaction between things. I can look at something/someone and consider it/them objectively attractive, but I wouldn't call that beauty.

[Joy]

Wow, it's so hard to put into words. I'm not sure I can.

Aesthetically I find earth tones with accents of deep, rich colors most attractive for man made things. I find almost everything in nature beautiful, but moving water and things that make me feel small are my favorites.

In people I think natural beauty appeals to me much more than "done up" beauty. There has to be an almost palpable vibe to the person, too. Imperfections add character. Being true to yourself is essential. (By contrast, people like Lady Gaga and Nicki Manage kind of creep me out because it feels like I'm not looking at an actual person.) When the color or style of a person's clothes/hair/makeup really suit the person I find it beautiful even if it's not my own favorite style.

There are beautiful moments or situations, too. Those I won't even try to explain. I will say though that sometimes perfectly awful things can be beautiful, though probably not as often as wonderful or neutral things. Something about a moment just strikes me a certain way and gives me a sense of awe.

Basically, there's no one physical thing that I consider beautiful. It's a reaction, an event, an interaction between things. I can look at something/someone and consider it/them objectively attractive, but I wouldn't call that beauty.

I suppose this is all very dynamics of fields!

[Amber]

Se judges not only physical beauty as such (features and how well they harmonize), but also a form of energy that a person projects (plus other factors such as dexterity in movement, confidence etc.). In my experience Si users are prone to find beautiful what they can associate with a memory or even relate back to themselves (and thus what is subjectively suggestive to them). I have this impression that Se base responds in an immediate way to very impactful stimuli - it's as if they don't really have much of a personal filter that would narrow things down to a personal pattern ("my type"), they will be drawn to what is the hottest thing around in a very direct way.