[MD] Book: Art Instinct

[MarshaV]

At 12:49 PM 3/6/2009, you wrote:
> > At 11:33 AM 3/6/2009, you wrote:
> > >
> > > > Book:  The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution
> > > >
> > > > "A lot of what counts as philosophy," he said, "is explaining and
> > > > justifying fundamental human intuitions," including "intuitions
> > about
> > > > the beautiful and the ugly." The problem has been that philosophy
> > > > "doesn't ask where the intuitions come from. ... Human nature is a
> > > > traditional philosophic topic, but let's face it, a lot of it is
> > > > uninformed armchair speculation by people who just happen to be
> > > > geniuses: Hobbes, Mill, Kant.:\"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >   http://www.mercurynews.com/books/ci_11690473
> > >
> > >Hey Marsha,
> > >
> > >Got it, read it. Interesting if somewhat pedantic. To a Darwinian
> > >everything is explained by evolution, just as to an MOQian everything
> > is
> > >explained by Quality. But, I think anyone interested in the arts will
> > find
> > >the book worthwhile. The following passage near the end especially
> > appealed
> > >to me:
> > >
> > >"The oft-described spirituality of artistic masterpieces, their
> > >otherworldly quality . . . involves a feeling -- experienced by atheist
> > and
> > >believer alike -- that standing before a masterpiece you are in the
> > >presence of a power that exceeds anything you can imagine for yourself,
> > >something greater than you ever can or will be. The rapture
> > masterpieces
> > >offer is literally ecstatic -- taking you out of yourself. Theists may
> > wish
> > >to attribute all this to the power of God, Darwinian humanists to the
> > near
> > >miraculous power of human genius. Both will approach such works as
> > >suppliants: we yield to them, allowing them to take us where they will.
> > "
> > >
> > >This juxtaposition of the humanist with the theist reminded me of
> > Pirsig's
> > >conclusion in his SODV paper:
> > >
> > >"As Bohr might have loved to observe, science and art are just two
> > >different complementary ways of looking at the same thing. In the
> > largest
> > >sense it is really unnecessary to create a meeting of the arts and
> > sciences
> > >because in actual practice, at the most immediate level they have never
> > >really been separated. They have always been different aspects of the
> > same
> > >human purpose."
> > >
> > >The same applies to the artists, scientists, theists, humanists and
> > >philosophers on this site.
> > >
> > >Platt
> >
> >
> > Hi Platt,
> >
> > Are all five "ists" mentioned in the last sentence of equal value to
> > you?  What if I added communist?
> >
> >
> > Marsha
>
>Hi Marsha,
>
>Political "ists" are definitely not of equal value to me, especially those
>like communists who enslave productive individuals to support an all
>powerful state.
>
>Platt

Hi Platt,

And I'd just as soon drop theists from the list because of the 
stupefying dogma.


Marsha


.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.