Conversation

The logic of the tradeoff hinges on identifying beauty with a resource surplus used in way that produces a stable signal that serves as a persistent identity over time. Whatever signature identifies a thing as the _same_ thing at 2 points in time is a function of its “beauty.” …
Replying to
So under survival stress the surplus gets used for utility, destabilizing identity. If it is completely used up even fit an instant, identity continuity is broken, so you get death and non-eternity.
1
Useful to consider each pure case Beauty + longevity = purely symbolic monument Longevity + utility = pure creative destruction Beauty + utility = pure transient instantaneous consciousness
2
4
I find the pure longevity+utility case most interesting. There is no beauty, because there’s no persistence to be either beautiful or ugly. It’s “not even ugly.” Annihilated-self amnesiac pure process non-being-and-time. In a Bergsonian mood this morning.
1
2
Pure utility+longevity only has coherence only to the extent it has a perfect thermodynamic boundary. It’s a mindless sub-universe unto itself that leaks out and dissolves into the universe. Maybe like how a black hole can evaporate.
1
2
This kind of useless shitpost is what happens when I don’t get enough sleep and haven’t had a second cup of coffee.
1
10
Since all 3 asymptotic cases are impossible, and you have to be in the interior,… calibration practical near-pure cases: Beauty + utility = latte art Utility + longevity = interchangeable commodity component Longevity + beauty = family heirloom
4
3
Sorry if this thread ruined your Saturday morning buzz, but it’s not my fault you’re on Twitter instead of out and about, enjoying the wildfire-smoke-haze
1
5
Replying to
Hm, that's an odd definition of beauty. Something that lasts long and works well tends to be beautiful just out of itself.
1