[MD] Intellectual activity

[Ham Priday]

Platt and Arlo --

 [Arlo]:
> What do we do when we examine a Cezanne?  We are participating
> in this dialogue.  As such it is an "intellectual activity".

[Platt]:
> No. We are participating in an aesthetic activity which has more
> to do with Spirit than intellect.

 [Arlo]:
> You're right, of course. Appreciating the aesthetic is at a higher level
> than intellect. ...

There is general agreement here that for philosophical terms to be
understood and applied consistently, they should be defined.  I typically
avoid using the word "Spirit", and am not sure it qualifies as a
metaphysical term.  But since you both seem to concur that it is involved in
aesthetic appreciation, and may allude to a "higher level than intellect",
just what does Spirit mean to you?  Is it simply another euphemism, or does
it have some special meaning relative to the MoQ?

I think we react to aesthetic experience both emotionally (i.e.,
"sensually") and intellectually (i.e., "interpretively"), and I have used
the term "psycho-somatic" to express such experience as a kind of "gut
feeling".  Where does Spirit come into play here, and does it add anything
essential to the phenomenon of aesthetic sensibility?  Arlo mentions
Pirsig's "Code of Art".  Does the author specifically cite Spirit in this
code?

The word stems from the Latin 'spiritus', signifying breath, life, or soul.
But this is too broad for a philosophical defnition of Spirit.  When people
speak of something having "spiritual significance", it usually suggests the
capability of producing a psychologically or emotionally "uplifting"
experience -- again, IMO, "psycho-somatic".  Possibly I'm missing something
important here relative to value perception?

What are your thoughts on Spirit, gentlemen?

--Ham