DN added a
note on my recommendation about Douglas Hofstadter: "I know it
not fair play to make unsupported affirmations. I have written on Hofstadter
before (elsewhere), but unfortunately cannot abandon current tasks to dig for
justification. For now let me say that I most strongly disagree with such a
recommendation."
In another message DN wrote: "I trust that by now you've seen my
explanation of that passage from Nabokov''s Butterflies, as well as
echoes of recognition from other quarters."
Dear Dmitri,
Your are right, my arguments were
rather unsubstantiated since, unfortunately, I don't have Douglas H.
book by me to re-read certain arguments in favor of the hypothesis
that intuitions and insights may be expressed through different
means by different people and leading to similar "effects". I lack the necessary
mathematical and philosophical skills to counter your "strong
disagreement".
All arguments inspired in Douglas Hofstadter
were unnecessary since my intention was simple: I
wanted to argue against the idea I got from MR's
postings that from "counterpoint" we could only
advance from "Gradus Ad Parnassum" to "Gradus
Ad Arcadia", by the recognition of its
musical texture. Plain common-sense will
do.
[ Whenever I remember it, I try to write down
"Douglas" while referring to him since there is another D.
Hofstadter ( Dan) who wrote an interesting book about famous love
letters ( Georges Sand, A. Musset, Chateaubriand, Mme.
Récamier..].
Thank you for the special note on "Father's
Butterflies", which I haven't yet been able to read. The poetic transition
from wind-animated vegetable to the realm of animal life by the
stabilizing force of Nature was very moving and the underlying
concepts new to me.
Jansy
-----
Original Message -----