Our brains actually become physically conditioned to seeing this “beauty” and “ugliness” as if it existed externally ... This physical conditioning (distinct from other types of conditioning) ...
Lessans NEVER observed this physical conditioning.
... could not occur if light were being reflected and traveling through space/time to our eyes.
Lessans NEVER observed and NEVER demonstrated that what you refer to as "physical conditioning" is altogether different from other conditioning.
With the type of conditioning Lessans describes, we have become conditioned to see certain facial features as ugly, and there is no way to uncondition ourselves to like what we have been permanently conditioned to dislike, even if the words are removed.
What Lessans provides is not an observation. At most, he provides an hypothesis, but it is an hypothesis which he did not subject to anything close to sufficient logical analysis. He could be said to have observed that some aesthetic values get transmitted through a population as a conditioning effected by the pseudo-objectification which occurs when a subjective preference is reified. Such a process could legitimately be presumed as relevant to the matter of "ugly" and "beautiful". However, one thing which Lessans did not demonstrate was that this conditioning is irremediably physical rather than at all cultural so as to be altogether different from other conditioning for being permanent and not modifiable.
Of course culture determines which features are regarded as pleasurable and which ones are not, but it does not change the method by which this conditioning occurs. It just changes the screen. The point he was making is that an entire population is falsely identified because of words only, not reality. Without the words, there would be no standard, thereby removing the stigma of being judged inferior or superior to others.
Also, as a logical matter, he did not account for differences in aesthetic standards that can be found both between cultures and over time. In addition, it is worth considering that beautiful and ugly are not necessarily judgments about physical appearance. There are human persons who do not settle permanently on an initial physical assessment. There are human persons whose initial physical assessment of an other person as unattractive or ugly - even repulsive - is superseded and replaced by the assessment they eventually have about the person of the other to the point that unattractiveness is utterly, absolutely, even vehemently denied.
Of course that is true; we know it isn't all about looks, but that does not mean we should continue using words that not only hurt, but are not symbolic of reality. In the chapter that follows, you can see the damage that these words have caused in the dating world.
There are human persons whose initial physical assessment of an other person as attractive or beautiful is superseded and replaced by the assessment they eventually have about the person of the other to the point that the other is regarded as repulsive.
I agree.
Such is sufficient to establish that Lessans did not consider adequately the scope of the relevant factors, and it is also sufficient basis for denying the permanence of the condition that Lessans asserts.
It is difficult to hear these words over and over and not to become
physically conditioned to seeing what does not exist externally. It's just how the brain/eye connection works. Read this part again.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Once it is understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic nerve, even though the pupils dilate and contract according to the intensity of light, it becomes possible to separate what exists in the external world from that which is only a negative or word in our heads. In the course of our children’s development, they learn other kinds of words that form inaccurate relations, not only because a judgment of personal value is given external reality by the symbol itself, but also because the logic of unconscious syllogistic reasoning confirms the apparent validity of inaccurate observations. Let me show you how this was accomplished.
From the time we were small children, our relatives, parents, friends, and acquaintances have expressed their personal likes and dislikes regarding people’s physiognomies. The words “beautiful,” “pretty,” “cute,” “adorable,” “handsome,” etc., heard over and over again with an enhancing inflection as to someone’s physical appearance, took a picture of the similarities between this type of physiognomy and developed negatives, which also contained the degree of feeling experienced. Similarly, an entire range of words heard repeatedly with a detracting inflection as to someone’s physical characteristics took a picture of the similarities between this type of physiognomy and developed negatives containing the degree of feeling experienced below this line of demarcation. As time went on, a standard of beauty was established. Not knowing what the brain was able to do, we were convinced that one group of similarities contained a lesser value than the opposite similarities. We were unaware that the brain had reversed the process by which these negatives were developed and then projected onto the screen of undeniable differences, a value that existed only in our heads. It would not be long before we would be conditioned to desire associating with one type while avoiding the other, and as we would get older, no one would be able to convince us that an ugly or beautiful person did not exist because we had witnessed these differences with our very eyes. In other words, when a word contains a judgment of value, a standard of perfection, then we are able to project this value directly onto substance, and then, because we see this with our very eyes, it was a simple thing to convince ourselves that beauty was a definite part of the real world. The confusion between what is real and what is not comes from the fact that these words not only describe real differences that exist in the world, but they also create external values when there are no such things. I will give you an example of this by using a movie projector.
Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it. I am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the wall. But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl is not there. We have been doing the same thing with our brain regarding values. The differences in substance were not only divided up by the use of words like “man,” “woman,” “child,” etc., but became a screen upon which we were able to project this value. Drop a negative plate or word slide in your brain projector and flip the switch. Well, just take a look — there is now a beautiful girl, a homely man, an ugly duckling! Turn off the switch (remove the negative plate or word slide), and all you see are the differences in substance because the projected values have been removed. Since we were taught that the eyes receive and transmit sense experience on the waves of light, it was impossible to deny that this beautiful girl actually existed, and when we changed the standard hidden in the word, all we did was change the screen. By saying that this person may not be beautiful physically but has a beautiful soul, we were allowed to see ugly souls as if they, too, existed externally. Scientists, believing that the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed what man saw with them because they were unaware that it was possible to project a fallacious relation realistically. Consequently, everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if the relation that is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an inaccurate negative that is then projected realistically upon undeniable substance. The word “beautiful” has absolutely no external reality, and yet, because it is learned in association with a particular physiognomy, a beautiful girl is created when no such person exists.
Obviously, there is a difference between the shape and features of individuals, but to label one beautiful and another ugly only reveals that you are conscious of a fallacious difference that is projected through your eyes upon substance that cannot be denied, which makes the projection appear real. By having the words “beautiful,” “ugly,” “gorgeous,” etc., as slides in a movie projector through which the brain will look at the external world, a fallacious value is placed upon certain specific differences only because of the words, which are then confirmed as a part of the real world since man will swear that he sees beautiful women with his eyes. But in actual reality, all he sees are different shapes and different features. This beautiful girl is not striking his optic nerve, which then allows him to see her beauty, but instead he projects the word onto these differences and then photographs a fallacious relation. The brain records all relations, whether true or false, and since it was considered an indisputable fact that man had five senses which were connected in some way with the external world, and since four of these were accurately described as sense organs, that is, they receive and transmit external stimuli, it was very easy for Aristotle to get confused and put a closure on further investigation by including the eyes in the definition, which he did only because he never understood their true function.
The belief that the eyes are a sense organ has allowed innumerable words to come into existence, which has caused people to be judged as an inferior production of the human race. Can you imagine what would happen if we lived in a world where all such words were removed, where nobody, including ourselves, would be judged in terms of ugliness, homeliness, prettiness, and so forth? Remember, however, that when these negatives of external value are removed, this doesn’t stop us from seeing differences that appeal to us more, but instead of saying, “She is the most beautiful girl I have ever seen,” which places other girls in a stratified layer of lesser value, we are compelled to say, “She appeals to me more than any girl I have ever seen,” which makes it obvious that the value we see exists only for us. The first expression requires that ugly girls exist because certain types of features are considered superior, while the second expression only observes that other girls appeal to us less, which makes everybody equal in value except to particular individuals. By removing all the synonyms that describe people as good-looking, nobody is hurt, but by removing all the antonyms that have been judging half the human race as bad-looking, this entire group is brought up to a level of complete equality and respect. However, it is mathematically impossible to expect you to give up that which is also a source of satisfaction, although the change does not depend on those who are happy in their pride and self-importance, which includes everyone to a degree, but on those who are seriously hurt and who are shown how they, too, can become happy. And are we given a choice when to continue using these words after we have learned the truth only reveals our ignorance, for which we will never be blamed? How is it possible to criticize people for believing the earth is flat, man’s will is free, and his eyes are a sense organ when we know for an absolute fact that they have never learned the truth?
You have said that Lessans was a behaviorist. That narrow perspective can explain why he appears to discount the persons of persons.
He was a scientist of human behavior. He did not have a narrow perspective.
