[katar]

Nature also follows the Golden Ratio. Consider a nautilus shell for example, in which an inner spiral is 61.8% the diameter of the next outer spiral. There are thousands of compelling examples like this. BTW, the John Cleese special with Liz Hurley about the Golden Ratio in human beauty is fascinating.

Where I'm going with this is as follows:
Humans and nature are unified. The things that the strict laws of nature dictate are pleasant to human beings in some way. We can sense that the beauty we see is in accord with nature, with the laws of physics and etc...

This seemingly innocent conclusion is the mother of startling subsidiary conclusions. For one, it means that 'beauty' in a theoretical sense is an objective concept. A piece of art is 'beautiful' to the extent that it corresponds to laws of nature.

An example is necessary to reify this nebulous statement. I offer the scientific experiment in which fish swam in rhythm with an orchestral piece by Beethoven. Unfortunately, there was no control group of fish listening to Britney Spears. However, my argument is that the work of Beethoven more closely follows the rules of nature! I submit that something in the Beethoven piece resonated with the fish, based on physics of sound, consonance, richness of harmony, etc. Science, nature, and art are, in my opinion, unified under common "RULES". This conclusion leads to the observation that "RULES" are intrinsically ABSOLUTES.

Harami knows where I want to go with this. For starters, I want to defeat the idea of moral relativism, which is so persuasive to college-age students for obvious reasons. (They get to make up their own rules and standards about how to live.)