It's All In The Eyes...

Isn't it interesting that human eyes can give expression to who the mind on the inside is?

Although this was probably recognized by 'initiates' before the age of neuroscience, neuroscience provides a neat anatomical explanation for how eyes give expression to the personality of the people who hold them.


Exhibit A: Clement Freud (Freud's grandson)




This horrifying face is that of a man who has been accused of pedophilia by at least three different woman, at age 11, 14, and 16. Also, he has been implicated in the case of a beautiful little British girl who was kidnapped in Portugal - and whose house Freud is said to have invited the mother inside, and then comment that the mother may be a nymphomaniac.

Clearly, and as this telegraph article makes clear, this man was probably a psychopath.

So what is this significance I claim exists in the eyes?



As you can see in this image, the eye is an extension of the brain, with the retina connecting to the optic nerve which moves to the optic chiasm, which then crosses to the other side of the brain.

The brain is best thought of as a system of dynamical relations between various groups of neurons. It seems "static", but its really dynamical, moving, changing, and transforming itself, again and again, but always in terms of the concept of "flowing": energy is always be dissipated and processed in symmetrical (i.e. structured) ways through our system, as seen so clearly in these high definition fiber tracking fMRI image:



The right brain takes in 'signs' from the environment relevant to its functionality, while the left brain, which is where our "I", or thinking, and manipulating mind lies, in order for it to function optimally, takes in the sign, and acknowledges it utility for functioning. When the system works well, the creature is happy. When it isn't, the change registers in various ways.

What I've described above is the subjective first person experience of what the body is constantly doing to recreate our structure: symmetry-making. We are bilaterally symmetrical creatures, and symmetry, in effect, is what we mean by beauty: nobody likes asymmetry, especially "alt-right" people, even if they can't tolerate the existence of these facts in their minds as well.

In effect, what is being argued is this: when a person lies to themselves on the inside, or rather, and more likely, has a philosophy that convinces them in the rightness of lying about what happens within and outside them, their eyes, which are expressive of brain-dynamics, begin to express the asymmetry occurring between right brain and left brain processes.

Of course, a person can change - can become more coherent - and so their eyes will express more "symmetry". Indeed, it has been noted by many therapists who work with people with dissociative identity disorder that changes in self-state are accompanied by physiological changes as well, one of which is the symmetry of the eyes.

I choose Clement Freud as my example because he seems to have been a very sordid and sick individual, so sick as to have invited the parents of a missing child to his house, despite a plausible case being made against him, given his history.

In any case, the eye that always seems off, or "out on its own", is, of course, the right eye, which feeds into the left hemisphere: the place of the ego. The right eyes symmetrical relation to the left eye - where feeling is felt, is neither aligned nor coordinated; it is just 'off'. A symbol of the humans thinking on the inside.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Great post. Ironically, as I began to read your post and then looked at the eyes of Freud my very first thought was he looks like a child molester. I know nothing of Clement Freud's history and past so imagine my surprise when my instincts were proven right as I scrolled down to read the remainder of your post.

Many times I have gauged the sanity level of someone based upon the look of and in their eyes. The eyes convey so much more than what people see. No pun intended.

a reply to: Astrocyte

You should post a picture of your eyes. Maybe we can start a thing.

For the record, I agree mostly. I judge a whole lot when I meet somebody by who I see in their eyes.

Also for the record, I've been wrong on occasion. Unless those folk are running a long con, lol.

I have two different colour ones one green and one blue/green.
My dear ole Nan used to say it was a sign of greatness.
I agree .
I just find eyes lovely and beautiful.

OP does the colour do anything? is the symmetry of the eyes colour important? I hope I'm not a nutter because my colour symmetry is off.

a reply to: Astrocyte


Isn't it said **The eyes are the windows of the soul**

How often have I spoken to a person who doesn't /cant look you in the eye.

You can look at a photograph of someone smiling broadly ..... but that smile

hasn't reached the eyes.

So yes in all I think the eyes say a lot.

a reply to: Astrocyte

For those who are interested. . .

The is a similar thing with inner world Beings, both human and non-human.

In the case of inner-directed humans there is a definate correlation in a symetry sense between what is expressed in the eyes and the honesty of communication. A falsehood will effect their eyes.

In non-human Beings, eyes are a part of the language of appearence. Eyes hidden means that there is something they don't want you to see in them, (if they have eyes that is).

One lovely (non human) "girl" who is now a long term friend, had, and still has, the nicest emerald green eyes when we first met. That I didn't see the rest of her meant she wanted me to see the sbsolute honesty in what she said.

She was very honest and truthfull. She told me that she wanted my life force, after all, humans have so much with plenty to spare. She is a predator, and humans are like furnices radiating emotions and life forces. So why not

The point I am making is symetry of being applies beyond the physical. My friend was being perfectly honest, she knew it showed in her eyes.

So, the other world knows about symetry between inner being and outer appearance.



So, symetry is a principal in the language of appearence.

edit

I have had an hour to ponder and checked a few things.

While Astrocyte comes from the direction of physical science, and I am coming from the direction of an inner world, I am beginning to see the common ground. Especially the symetry of Being.

Now how to explain . . .

In these threads there is explanation of how trauma affects us and 'writes' the affects into our being which in turn shapes our outlook.

Now there is, shall we say, a "layer" of Nature Beings who have a disturbed symetry between their inner being and their "self". This was caused by trauma. An atom bomb going off and taking them by surprise, ancient magical practices, and unwarranted exorcisms to name a few.

There is a distinct similarity between traumas during life in humans and a traumatised fairy.

A whole layer of them.

Keep plodding along Astrocyte, this is interesting.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Crazy eyes is totally a real thing (my opinion). I have a tendency to judge people's character from the look in their eyes, and when I get to know them better over time, I often find that I was right in my initial judgement of their character. But everyone gets the benefit of the doubt to begin with (unless they are like really OBVIOUSLY crazy)... I'm not crazy

I've heard that seeing white under the iris (above the lower eyelid) when looking straight forward = crazy eyes.

After I heard that I started to notice this and it does seem to be an eye trait more common with psychopaths, sociopaths, or at least very unhinged types.

I have no study to share, just curious if you have heard of this? It's not really asymmetry ... because the eyes can still be quite symmetrical. Just the whites below the iris can be a "sign".

ETA: is this the same as Sanpaku eyes?

That is all.

www.google.com.au...

a reply to: Astrocyte


Notice the eye's.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Abysha



I agree and it should be fun.

Or is it possible the OP has the same look and hence his or her familiarity??

a reply to: Astrocyte



So your implying that there is a clinical reason to define a persons character based upon what their eye's seem to represent???


Have you considered the possibility that you are Projecting??

a reply to: Kashai

I have to agree that the OP is taking things too far in regard to character profiling based on the eyes alone.

However, I do personally believe the behaviour of the eyes is good for spotting two things:

1) Whether a person is lying
2) Whether the person is trustworthy.

The behaviour of the eyes functions as a lie detector and trust-o-meter if you really fixate on the eyes.

originally posted by: Astrocyte

I choose Clement Freud as my example because he seems to have been a very sordid and sick individual, so sick as to have invited the parents of a missing child to his house, despite a plausible case being made against him, given his history.

Is that so ? or do you dislike his grandfather Sigmund Freud so much?

Just to remind everybody, Clement Freud was accused by three women years after he had died. He was not able to give his side of the story. We are told that , in the UK, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty ? Clearly not applicable to anyone with the name Freud.

Furthermore , in the UK, there was an appeal by the police for people to come forward for cases of historical abuse. In the last few years, some 30 celebrities such as disc jokeys, politicians and famous singers were arrested. Most recent one was Cliff Richard (an icon from the 60/70s pop era). All these had to face years of torture to prove their innocence re somethin that is supposed to have happened so 30 years ago. I am please that Cliff is now cleared and had won a substantial out of court settlement. Many other stars have been cleared too.

Also, he has been implicated in the case of a beautiful little British girl who was kidnapped in Portugal - and whose house Freud is said to have invited the mother inside, and then comment that the mother may be a nymphomaniac.

You failed to mention that the parents of Madeline McCann were the prime suspects and the portuguese chief of police handling the case was convinced that the parents has something to do with the disappearance. He even tried to publish a book years later and the McCanns tried to stop him in court. The case was never resolved for lack of evidence.

I just wish you had explained your theory about the eyes without having to distort facts and pick on the grandson of Sigmund Freud. Clearly, you hate the work of Sigmund Freud. Or is there a more sinister reason ?