Perception and the Matter of Beauty.

This year has been unusually dry so far. Rainy days have been relatively rare, but now we’re getting a spell of daily light rain. It’s reminded me of something that happened a few years ago in Ashbourne and which I reported on this blog. I make no apology for re-posting it because I have a couple of things to add.

I was walking past the library on my way back to Sainsbury’s in Ashbourne today. Light rain was falling from a leaden sky and the pedestrian areas were liberally scattered with puddles.

I saw a girl of around twelve or so sitting on one of the benches near the library steps, next to a long haired and bedraggled dog with floppy ears – a Cocker Spaniel I think, or at least a spaniel cross. As I approached, she took her raincoat and covered the dog’s back, and as I drew level she was busy pulling the hood over the dog’s head. I had to stop and watch, didn’t I? Of course I did.

I could have explained to her that the hair of a healthy dog is liberally oiled and so it doesn’t suffer from the rain quite as we do, but why spoil the moment? Here is a light spirit performing an act of self-sacrifice for an animal. It was a mild day and so the girl was in no danger, and she was probably waiting for a parent to collect her soon anyway. I wanted to speak to her but she seemed reluctant to engage, so I simply smiled broadly and thought ‘You’re OK, kid’ as loudly as I could. And then I walked on.

It struck me while I was remembering this that another person witnessing the little scene might have perceived it differently. Such a person might have scolded the girl for being stupid, telling her that dogs don’t need coats and instructing her to take the coat back and put it back on. And here we have another illustration of my favourite sound bite: perception is the whole of the life experience. But let’s take it a step further and consider the question of beauty.

I’ve long held the view – ever since I read Richard Bach’s Illusions – that beauty, like colour, is not a component of material reality. It doesn’t exist there, but only in the mind of the perceiver. Just as nothing is inherently coloured, so no-one is beautiful in an objective sense. You might say that I’m regurgitating the old maxim that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’, and in a way I am, but not as it’s generally perceived. It’s usually taken to be a way of expressing the fact that it’s simply a matter of variable taste.

I think the true meaning of the phrase goes deeper than that. To my mind the old adage should really say that ‘beauty is in the mind of the beholder’ because that’s the only place where beauty truly exists. Richard Bach’s reluctant messiah says to his disciple ‘the sunset is an illusion; the beauty is real.) So it is with the perfectly formed features of a popular actress. The pretty face is an illusion; the personality, the kindness, and the capacity to promote light and goodness are the qualities which make the beauty real. And because we humans are convinced of our individuality in our self-centred worlds, the beauty is only real when it’s observed. (I suspect a quantum theorist might agree with me.)