[MD] Intellectual activity

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham,

[Ham]
> So, I take it that Dynamic Quality (euphemistically called "Spirit") 
is
> that "ineffable something" which is responsible for any or all of the
> following: aesthetic sensibility, intellectual reactions, emotional
> reactions, abductive inference, hypothesis, and (for John Lennon, at
> least) poetic inspiration.

More or less correct. DQ is the ineffable creative force.

> What is remarkable to me is that a creative source so powerful and so
> multi-functionally significant cannot be defined -- even as a
> metaphysical or epistemological principle.  It hangs in limbo, above the
> level of intellect, having no comprehensible purpose except to provide
> man with an epiphanic "flash" when he is least expecting it.  Surely
> such a powerful force in man's experience deserves more metaphysical
> recognition than to be arbitrarily labeled Dynamic Quality.

It's purpose is creation at all levels, not exactly chopped liver. :-)  
If you read Pirsig's explication of his metaphysics with care, you'll 
see that his label "Dynamic Quality" is no more arbitrary that your 
label "Essence."

> I contend that this aesthetic phenomenon, this "supra-intellectual
> sensibility" that is unique to man, is the "realization of Value" in the
> relational world.

It's not unique to man. How do you explain creation at the physical and 
biological levels if not by some creative force? Dumb luck?

> Finite value is not an extracorporeal entity or level
> -- it does not transcend man's conscious awareness, but is the
> differential foundation of it.  I think Pirsig got close to defining it
> when he suggested that what we don't experience has no value to us, or
> to put it conversely: all experience has value, whether good, bad, or
> indifferent.  For the essentialist, the subjective realization of this
> "spectrum of conditional values" is the very purpose of life.  Such an
> epistemology will not work as a "collective" or universal principle.  It
> is specifically a function of the individual's value-sensibility.

See question above about physical and biological creation.
 
> Just as an experiment, I entered the key words "epiphany of value,
> philosophy" into my Google research bar and found a blogger site called
> "Philoso?hy Talk" in which Alexander Nehamas, a Princeton professor,
> discusses Platt's favorite subject from a photogenic perspective. 
> Here's a portion of the professor's article:
> 
> "The sense in which there is more to beauty than meets the eye is not
> that it is "inner," but that it is not likely to meet many eyes.  That
> is, beauty, generally considered, is a product of love and not, in
> general, its antecent cause.  That's what locates it in the eye of the
> beholder.   BUT BEAUTY THAT IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER IS NO LONGER
> ONLY SKIN-DEEP.
> 
> "It is this beauty that I find philosophically interesting and
> important. It applies equally to people and things, particularly works
> of art.  It certainly is valuable, although I am not sure its value is
> intrinsic, as Ken suggests (it may be -- I really am not sure).  But its
> value, along with the value of all the "aesthetic" features that are
> associated with it, is very different from the moral values that seem to
> have acquired a monopoly over human life in philosophy and public
> discourse.   Moral values, broadly speaking, depend on the similarities
> and connections that require us to treat each other impartially, fairly
> and equally.  The values associated with beauty, by contrast, depend on
> the differences between various human beings and give preference to
> individuality, autonomy and personal style."
> 
> (For Platt's information, the entire article can be found at
> http://theblog.philosophytalk.org/2005/03/beauty_skindeep.html .)

Thanks for the reference. After reading the professor's ideas as well as the
comments, I'm convinced more than ever that "beauty" escapes definition.

> I was struck by the similarity of this posted comment to Arlo's and
> Ant's quotes:
> 
> "Beauty is the moment of recognition. When you transcend from self to
> being the moment that is universal truth, the univeral truth of beauty.
> Everything else is individual, cultural or biological, in other words up
> to interpretation.  It is not the object, it is not the anticipation of
> the moment, it is not winning over others, it is the moment the vail is
> lifted. The realization of the look in the eyes of a love one, the look
> of love for you, is not the beauty of them, or your perception, rather
> the beauty is the moment of realization.  The realization of finding a
> public phone booth when lost in the wilderness, the realization of the
> elegance of a mathematical proof, a fundamental truth, a realization of
> what is true is not the raw material, but the beauty is the moment
> itself.  Epiphany is beauty; beauty is epiphany.
> 
> "God said to Albert, don't you see it?
> Why yes!  It seems so clear now, so elegant, so beauty, E=MC2."
 
As good a description of the experience as anyone's.  As you know, many
scientists test their theories not only by empirical measurements, but 
by their beauty. Some physicists, for example, object to the super 
string theory on the grounds that it lacks beauty.  

What place, what role, what purpose does beauty have in your 
philosophy, Ham? Is it essential :-) or is it just part of the 
interesting but unimportant side show? 

Best regards,
Platt