Boris cites my question: > "I continue to maintain that the most interest questions in aesthetics > involve just what is happening when we get the feeling that we often try > to > cite > with the term 'aesthetic experience'. Do you believe we get that feeling > only when contemplating what most of us call "works of art"? What "IS" > it?!" > And he offers: > > How about physiologically, in broadest sense, positive stimulation of our > DNA, to different degree, through the senses is an 'aesthetic experience'. > If disagree, why not? > I accept that something physiological is going on during an a.e., as it is during any experience that we'd call a "pleasure", a "pain", an "anxiety", a "thrill". And I accept that stimulation of some sort is occurring, beginning with stimulation of senses -- sight, hearing, etc.
"Stimulation of DNA" doesn't work for me as an explanatory phrase because it's too vague for me to grasp. How would we ever verify that "DNA" is being "stimulated"? Even if we momentarily accept the notion, why expect that DNA would not be stimulated by pain or fright, etc? And a basic question still remains: Why do Mozart, Van Gogh, and Emily Dickinson stimulate in such a way as to cause an a.e., while other lesser would-be stimulators don't? I'm afraid that to say "During an a.e. the DNA is being stimulated positively" leaves too much unanswered.
