How to prove the metaphysical

Florence Amit (
Tue, 03 Dec 1996 08:15:25 +0200

Daniel Pearson wrote,
>I agree with Rivka on the point of physics and metaphysics being
>complementary. Unfortunately, I probably can't handle an entire Cognitive
>Sciences department by myself either--but I'll lend you my own insights.
>One piece of evidence for the metaphysical is the concept of Beauty.
>Beauty is something that is completely separated from the physical world.
>Any attempts to quantify it ultimately fail. No one can definitively say
>what is 'beautiful' and what is not, because it is--as the saying goes--
>"in the eye of the beholder." In other words, beauty exists only in the

May I just comment that though "beauty is in the eye of the beholder,"
artists who are specialists in beauty and may be thought to be by nature
more sensitive to it as well as to those affects that disturb its
revelation, learn certain rules that ensure a beautiful result. (They also
sense when the moment is ripe to overthrow a rule.) It is a vulgar mistake
to assume that a lay person's judgement must be as relieable as that of an
artist, because he has his own taste. That taste might (or might not) be
kitche. It very likely is not attuned to the advance of an artistic
revelation that will be beautiful to the public only in the future. To
specialize in beauty is to have certain attributes, perhaps a certain kind
of soul. Just like being very kind needs another kind of special soul.

Florence Amit
Phone: 972 76278843