William writes:
> The whole point of seeking a definition of the aesthetic is to > distinguish it > from the non-aesthetic. If, as claimed below, there is no distinction > between > the aesthetic and any other 'sudden' feeling then we don't have a > definition. > If it can't be falsified, as the scientists like to say, it can't be > claimed > as a defintion or theory. I would suppose that the sensation of being > shot is > not an aesthetic one. When I stub my toe on the damned table it is not an > aesthetic feeling. In history, the aesthetic has always been associated > with > a sensation of euphoria or a sense of helpless dread or awe, as is > typically > associated with the sublime. > > I'm with William on his core point here. (In my last email I should not have said it WAS an a.e.. I'm allowed to say only that it FELT to me like what I tend to CALL an a.e.. Underlying that remark is my conviction that an a.e. feels as generically different from other types of experience as, say, a taste-experience feels different from an auditory experience. I agree that's not a totally satisfactory "explanation", but that incomplete understanding of "aesthetic experience" is why I've urged the forum examine the stuff.
