Peaux, on May 1999 you wrote at Delphi, (#116.7, in reply to 116.4)

Dr. Ghitis: Seems to me that what you are talking about Beauty relates more to THE PERFECTION rather than to THE BEAUTY.

Peaux, I should clarify that there is THE Good, True, and Beauty, following Plato's usage. His point was that these concepts are essences, which he called Forms or Ideas. From them, all concrete manifestations are derived. The physical beauty in some entity is perceived sensually (by the senses), while the 'beauty' of an idea or act is metaphorical. A 'good' act or an evidently 'true' sentence are not sensually perceived.
As I have been careful to explain, I am not interested in Plato's writings from a philosophical poin of view, but from a D-SP conceptual angle. For that reason my search was centered on evolution. I found no evolutionary correlation between the components of Plato's 'Trio.'

While most people...

It is essential to realize that you are starting with a presumed given:

"... find perfection to be beautiful; beauty also exists outside of perfection..."

What is Perfection? This word derives from a Latin root that is used to mean "complete" and "completed," the latter used for "perfect." In Semitic languages, such as Hebrew, there is no word for "perfection," only for "completeness." Even "pay" derives from the same root, taken as "completing a transaction."

Thus, you are talking about a nuance of Beauty. How does one define "A perfect crime"? Saying, "ALL details have been taken in consideration to avoid detection." In Hebrew one would say, "A completed crime," which is well understood in meaning, once it is known that 'completed' means also 'perfect.'...

Therefore, Peaux, perfection is taken to mean that something is done in a way that is supposed --or known-- to be the best possible.

There is also a noticeable lack of mention of color attraction. Humans are a rare species in the ocular absorption of color in most of its gradations. (not alone, but unusual) Because of this, much of what we, as a species, appreciate as beautiful could not warrant a second glance by a dog or a color-blind person.

You are entering a compared biology terrain, and stating the obvious.

I believe that if one wanted to explore the origins of beauty-appreciation in H. Sapiens, it would be more interesting to explore the common associations placed upon beautiful scenes by various cultures...

These are subjects for art experts, estheticians, and sociologists.

Perhaps a field of bright poppies is lovely because we have ancestral knowlege that such a place is safer and bountiful. Perhaps it is the lack of danger we appreciate when we are confronted by what we deem beautiful.

The word "perhaps" is not used in D-SP, which talks only when the proposed new knowledge is presented in a way that is expected to be perceived as something different and of value by a reader. That reader must share with D-SP more than 50% of the ways of (logical) thinking, and the emotional capacity to overcome the anxiety raised by cognitive dissonance. This anxiety is the core of the dead weight preventing enlightenment.

Then again, the idea of beauty must include non-visual stimuli, such as music and odors and fine cloth and good food (aural, olfactory, tactile and oral).

The Idea of Beauty includes everything that the developed human being considers as beautiful in any concrete thing. A thought is considered as beatiful after it has been exposed vocally or in writing. Contrast with the appreciation of beauty, which is not standard. I can not visualize or hear a beauty attributed to other sensual perceptions.

The symmetry theory works well to explain any person's appreciation for visual stimulation that is capable of containing symmetry, but what of things that don't, like the Grand Canyon?

Symmetry can become boring. Artists experiment and find new ways of exciting sated senses. Yet there is an inner symmetry or related proportionality in what they paint or compose. Novels also change, although its principles remain. (Please see: THE NOVEL.)

Remember Pythagoras and his discovery that ALL IS NUMBER? D-SP states: ALL IS PHYSICS. As for the Grand Canyon, I've seen it, was overwhelmed by its beauty (visual). There is an added component to it: grandiosity, which touches on a chord that transcends the visual sense. One feels like contemplating an epiphany that reaches the depths of his soul. Our Soul is our Self, our memory of cognitive and sentient experiences: it is Us.

But we will get tired after a time, because the laws of physics that limited the possible evolutionary pathways impinge on our neurons: keeping peaking, unaware of the surroundings, an eagle might snatch us from the peak of the mountain at the peak of our transfixion...

This is all musing, you understand.

A little step that leads to leaps.