helles wrote:
I do appreciate what you are saying but I do not fully agree.
Eyes are just eyes, their primary function is for seeing with and they have different shapes and sizes. Then people talk a lot about happy bright eyes, shining eyes etc. etc. I don´t see how this could be a function og the eye itself. Several other factors influence
1) The musculature around the eyes is very "finetuned" for small expressions
2) General body posture and mimick of the rest of the face.
3) Words said or not said
4) Other physical factors like eg. tears.
5) Cultural setting.
Our language is limiting in the sense that we are not able to fully express what we see (well, som of it is subconsious). I only know the Western cultural setting and language about this, and it tend to go toward the eyes as a mirror of the soul (which I find utterly nonsens). Somebody with more in depth knowledge of sociohistory could probably elaborate on this.
It is not because I disagree with you, I just think that there is more to it than eyes.
It's not the eyes themselves but the muscles around the eye that convey and/or invoke an emotional reaction. The brain is built to associate a particular expression in the eye-region of the face with the differing amounts of muscle tension used to imitate that particular expression. The feel of the muscle tension is what is directly linked to emotion.
As for the poetic descriptions, well most humans have an instinct to use the eyes as the central defining aspect of a person's appearance. It's simply biological programming. I'd say the "mirror of the soul" idea can sometimes create an unfair prejudice. People with cataracts, blindness, or conditions causing them to lose muscular control of their eye muscles and/or movements instinctively frighten people or cause subconscious judgements.
21 Sep 2012, 5:19 am
