[MD] Intellectual activity

[Platt Holden]

Ham - 
 
>  [Arlo previously]:
> > What do we do when we examine a Cezanne?  We are participating
> > in this dialogue.  As such it is an "intellectual activity".
> 
> [Platt responded]:
> > No. We are participating in an aesthetic activity which has more
> > to do with Spirit than intellect.
> 
>  [Arlo agreed]:
> > You're right, of course. Appreciating the aesthetic is at a higher
> > level than intellect. ...

[Ham asks] 
> 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?

Don't know of  any special meaning of Spirit in the MOQ. In fact, 
Pirsig takes pains to avoid the term too because of its religious 
connotations. But Spirit to me means that which transcends the sphere 
of words. Since philosophy is based on verbal intelligence, you're 
probably right to disqualify Spirit as a metaphysical  term. Still, a 
philosophy can point to that which is beyond philosophy don't you 
think?     

[Ham]
> 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?

No doubt in my mind that the aesthetic experience includes intellectual 
and emotional reactions. But, I think it's something more. What the 
term Spirit adds to the phenomenon of aesthetic sensibility is to 
express in some way, however weakly, the ineffable something that comes 
through when confronted with great beauty. One's reaction is more of an 
out-of-body experience than intellectual interpretation or gut feeling. 
Ken Wilber expressed it well. 

"Great art dissolves ego in nondual consciousness, and is to that 
extent experienced as an epiphany, a revelation, a release or 
liberation -- great art as a release from the tyranny of the separate 
self sense." (Eye to Eye, p, 213.) 
   
Pirsig doesn't go into all this. But I don't think he would object 
too much to Wilber's description of a pure aesthetic experience. After 
all, he is a bit of mystic, too. In fact, Pirsig's brief descriptions 
in Lila of the DQ experience pretty much match Wilber's.

We can go further into Wilber's theory about acquiring knowledge 
through three eyes -- the eye of the Flesh (empiricism) , the eye of 
the Mind (intellectualism ), and the eye of the Spirit (contemplation) -
- if you wish. But, perhaps the above is enough to answer your 
question. I sure Arlo will respond in kind, though not necessarily with 
with the same outlook.

Best regards,
Platt