Hi John B,
You write:
> While I have no problem with your definition above, I suspect it may be
that
> our differences are actually located in our definitions of beauty and
> aesthetics.
I think you are right on this; my understanding of aesthetics is actually
quite primitive, and probably my use of the terms is too loose. I agreed
with most of what you said, although I'll comment on Wilber at the end. Some
detailed comments below.
....So while there is a
> dynamic lure in the new theory, as yet untested, it is not enough that the
> idea be attractive - it must also be testable. Often the reason for the
> attraction lies in the irresolvable difficulties with the old views, and
> older practitioners who have learned to live with these can be reluctant
to
> look at any radical alternative. I disagree that the attraction of the new
> is actually more to do with beauty or art, though. Perhaps elegance and
> simplicity apply across art, morals and science, with rather different
forms
> in each? (See my postscript, below.)
This is really part of what I was groping towards - that elegance and
simplicity are "aesthetic" values and not rational values. (Would you object
to the use of the term aesthetic for Occam's razor, for example? That for me
an aesthetic point, not a rational one. So I agree with you - depending on
how we define our words!
> 4 "the good trumps the beautiful" I did not see the relevance of your
> story about lions and wildebeest for this assertion. I continue to
disagree.
This I will have to come back to, to respond on fully. But put briefly, I'm
arguing that just as with different logical systems, of equal rational
validity, "aesthetic" considerations are decisive, so too where there are
(fully rational) "aesthetic" systems of equal validity, the one that is most
good (highest quality really) is the superior one. (in other words, as you
put it later, a transformative praxis is crucial. Or as Wittgenstein would
say "praxis gives the words their sense").
I haven't yet read Wilber, although he is now on the 'to be examined' list.
He seems to be a synthetic thinker, is that right? (which isn't a criticism,
just an observation.) But you write:
>
> But Wilber goes on to say that the disaster of modernity was its inability
> to find a way of integrating them, and the subsequent slide into
> dissociation, where nothing could be said to each other, leading to
> alienation from the totality of an ethical context of life (the
traditional
> role of religion). This is surely the root of Pirsig's unhappiness with
> modernity. "Modernity as it actually unfolded was heavily weighted toward
> the knowing and minipulation of a 'disenchanted' and objectified world
> dominated by an 'instrumental' or 'technical' rationality". (p417) "In
> short, depths that required interpretation were largely ignored in favor
of
> interlocking surfaces that can simply be seen". (p418) The great loss in
> modernity was the whole dimension of depth.
This I quite strongly agree with, and would argue (from my perspective) that
with all its faults, the medieval Christian synthesis is intellectually
superior to modernity for this very reason. (Which doesn't mean we should go
back to it, because the world has changed too much, only that the wholesale
rejection of the Christian world-view is self destructive). "Depth" is
actually an important word for Wittgenstein (I'll dig out some references)
> In Wilber's view, the recovery of an ethical life involves transformations
> of consciousness. One has to grow or develop, to change one's perceptions,
> because the deeper and wider and more encompassing motivations are not
just
> lying around to be seen by the senses or their extensions. A truly ethical
> life demands transformation, and that requires a praxis, a transformative
> practice.
Amen. That's what I was trying to say the religious traditions provide in my
earlier substantive Wittgenstein post, about the philosophy of love. Lots to
come back to, once I get another chance.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:38 BST