> My objection is your and Joanna's implicit assumption (which I don't
> think you hold -- but your words surely carry it) that your judgments
> are valid from some perspective "outside" human perception and
> judgment
> -- that there is/would be something beautiful about the B-Minor or the
> arc of a dolphin even if humans did not exist. Both of you
> anthropomorphize the Cosmos itself.
There's a whole tradition in thought, a tradition to which Marx belongs, that makes this assumption. You don't demonstrate it's mistaken merely by pointing out its inconsistency with the "materialist" assumptions now dominant.
A similar point can be made about the claim that "empathy" is in conflict with higher cognitive functioning. In fact, understanding one's own and other minds requires a highly developed capacity for cognition. Shakespeare illustrates this. The cognitive capability in question is what Keats called "negative capability".
Such understanding explains the misunderstanding of cognitive ability - of "rationality" - that makes it inconsistent with empathy. It explains, for instance, the misidentification of "reason" with "remorseless logic".
Ted