Aesthetics as a Structural Field of Subject-Conditions
美学作为主体条件的结构场域

Aesthetics as a Structural Field of

Subject‑Conditions: An Application of the Self‑as‑an‑End Framework

Han Qin

Self‑as‑an‑End Theory Series — Applied Paper Two

Abstract

This paper is the second applied paper in the Self‑as‑an‑End theoretical framework.

The first applied paper analyzed the subjectivity crisis in the age of AI. The present

paper applies the framework to the domain of aesthetics, arguing that aesthetic judg‑

ment is neither a matter of personal preference nor a problem of cultural critique, but

a structural field of subject‑conditions.

The paper makes five contributions. First, through etymological and structural ar‑

gument, it reveals that the Chinese distinction between meixue (美学, aesthetic the‑

ory/discipline) and shenmei (审美, aesthetic experience/resonance) corresponds to the

framework’s base layer and emergent layer — meixue is the negativity of boundary‑

drawing, shenmei is the positivity of subject‑resonance. Second, it establishes a three‑

layer instantiation model for aesthetics — the institutional layer constitutes the bound‑

ary conditions of aesthetics, the relational layer constitutes the transmission medium,

and the individual layer constitutes the layer of final realization. Third, it proposes a

domain‑specific distinction — negative shenmei and positive shenmei — and argues

for their structural affinity with colonization risk. Fourth, it argues that the core of

aesthetic problems is a transmission problem rather than a content problem — the

same aesthetic expression has entirely different structural functions at different lay‑

ers. Fifth, it proposes four non‑trivial cross‑layer predictions that are in principle

testable.

Core thesis: Aesthetic judgment is not a single‑layer phenomenon. It simultaneously

involves base‑layer boundary‑drawing, emergent‑layer subject‑resonance, and cross‑

layer transmission that alters structural function. Aesthetics is the everyday battle‑

field of subject‑conditions — every aesthetic dispute involves subjects contesting the

structural conditions of being an end in oneself across relational and institutional lay‑

ers.

Author’s Note

This paper is the second applied paper in the Self‑as‑an‑End series. The complete

theoretical framework is constructed in three foundational papers: Paper 1, “Sys‑

tems, Emergence, and the Conditions of Personhood” (Zenodo, DOI: 10.5281/zen‑

odo.18528813); Paper 2, “Internal Colonization and the Reconstruction of Subject‑

hood” (Zenodo, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18666645); Paper 3, “The Complete Self‑as‑an‑

End Framework” (Zenodo, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18727327). The first applied paper is

“The Subjectivity Crisis in the Age of AI: When Systems No Longer Need People” (Zen‑

odo, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18737476). The present paper references the framework but

is self‑contained.

This paper does not discuss “what is beautiful.” It asks how aesthetic experience

affects the structural conditions of subjects as ends in themselves. This is a philosoph‑

ical framework application paper, not an empirical social science study. Case materi‑

als are used to demonstrate the identifiability of mechanisms and the executability of

structural mapping, not to establish statistical representativeness.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Zesi Chen for her sustained feedback and critical discussion throughout

the development of this aesthetic application. Her professional training in art history

contributed significantly to the case analysis and conceptual calibration of this paper.

AI Assistance Statement

AI language models were used as aids in the writing process. Claude (Anthropic) was

used for structural discussion, outline development, draft iteration, and language edit‑

ing. Gemini (Google), ChatGPT (OpenAI), and Grok (xAI) were used for independent

review and feedback at the outline stage. All theoretical content, conceptual inno‑

vations, normative judgments, and analytical conclusions are the author’s indepen‑

dent work.

Chapter 1. The Problem: Why Aesthetic Judgment Is a Subject‑

Condition Problem

1.1 Two Incomplete Understandings

Aesthetic judgment is typically understood within two frameworks.

The first is the personal preference framework: “I just think it looks good.” In this

framework, aesthetic judgment is subjective, private, and beyond dispute. You think

it looks good, I think it doesn’t — there is no hierarchy between the two, and no

structural problem to be solved. Aesthetics is a purely emergent‑layer phenomenon —

each subject’s resonance with the world is unique and should neither be judged nor

contested.

The second is the cultural critique framework: “Aesthetic standards are power con‑

structions.” In this framework, aesthetic judgment is never purely personal — it is

shaped by social structures, class positions, and cultural hegemony. What you find

“beautiful” is not your genuine feeling but a product planted in your perceptual

structure by power relations operating through cultural mechanisms. Aesthetics is

a disguise for institutional‑layer colonization.

Both understandings are incomplete.

The personal preference framework cannot explain a key phenomenon: why do “per‑

sonal preferences” produce systematic subject‑compression effects in the public sphere?

If aesthetics were truly just personal preference, then “American athletes’ legs are

too thick” would be merely one person’s non‑preference for a particular body pro‑

portion, and should not constitute harm to anyone. But it does constitute harm — not

because of the statement itself, but because when similar expressions persistently ac‑

cumulate in the public sphere, they alter the structural function of aesthetic judgment.

This alteration cannot be identified within the “personal preference” framework.

The cultural critique framework cannot explain another key phenomenon: why can’t

subjects free themselves from aesthetic standards even after critiquing them? If aes‑

thetic standards are merely power constructions, then exposing them should suffice to

dissolve them. But in experience, a person who fully understands that “thin is beau‑

tiful” is a cultural construction may still feel anxiety in front of a mirror. Knowing

that a standard is constructed does not equal being able to escape its perceptual ef‑

fects. This means colonization occurs at a level deeper than cognition — it penetrates

the pre‑reflective perceptual structure.

This paper argues that aesthetics is a structural field of subject‑conditions, analyz‑

able through the Self‑as‑an‑End framework’s three‑layer, two‑dimensional structure.

Aesthetic judgment is not a single‑layer phenomenon — it simultaneously involves

base‑layer boundary‑drawing (what is excluded from the category of “beautiful”),

emergent‑layer subject‑resonance (what is beautiful for this particular subject), and

cross‑layer transmission that alters structural function (the same aesthetic expression

functions entirely differently at the relational and institutional layers).

1.2 An Introductory Case

A Chinese online comment about women’s figure skating can illustrate the multi‑

layered structure of aesthetic judgment:

“I don’t really want to say this⋯ but why is it that in the same sport, Amer‑

ican athletes’ legs are always several times thicker, and the aesthetic qual‑

ity is much worse? I feel like the Russian athletes are artists, while the Amer‑

ican athletes are more like mutants.”

(Translated from a Chinese online comment)

Setting aside the offensiveness of this comment, it operates simultaneously at multi‑

ple structural levels. “I don’t really want to say this” — the commenter senses some

tension, a signal that negativity has not yet died. “American athletes’ legs are too

thick” — this is not describing personal resonance (which would stay at “I personally

prefer slender lines”) but rewriting the boundary conditions of meixue (“this body

type does not belong in the category of beauty”). “Mutants” — this goes beyond

rewriting meixue boundaries and attempts to rewrite the boundary of recognition it‑

self, expelling particular bodies from the category of “human.” “Russian athletes

are artists” — a positive statement, but its structural function is to establish an exclu‑

sionary standard.

This comment cannot be fully understood within the personal preference framework

— it is not merely “one person’s preference”; its public expression structurally par‑

ticipates in boundary‑rewriting. Nor can it be fully understood within the cultural

critique framework — the commenter may genuinely feel the beauty of slender lines;

this feeling itself is not “false,” but its structural effects in the public sphere exceed

the scope of personal feeling.

The task of this paper is to provide a structural model that allows these levels to be

simultaneously identified and analyzed.

1.3 Research Questions

Main question: In what sense does aesthetic judgment constitute a structural field of

subject‑conditions? How does the three‑layer, two‑dimensional structure of aesthetics

operate? How does cross‑layer transmission alter the structural function of aesthetic

judgment?

This main question contains six sub‑questions:

Sub‑question 1: Does a base layer / emergent layer two‑dimensional structure exist in

the aesthetic domain? If so, what is the relationship between them? (Chapter 2)

Sub‑question 2: How is the two‑dimensional structure of aesthetics instantiated at the

institutional, relational, and individual layers? (Chapter 3)

Sub‑question 3: Does the aesthetic domain possess a domain‑specific distinction be‑

yond the framework’s meta‑structure? (Chapter 4)

Sub‑question 4: How does the structural function of the same aesthetic expression

change across layers? What are the mechanisms of transmission? (Chapter 5)

Sub‑question 5: How do colonization and cultivation operate in the aesthetic domain?

(Chapter 6)

Sub‑question 6: What is the relationship between this analysis and existing traditions

in aesthetic theory? (Chapter 7)

1.4 Contribution Statement

Contribution 1 (Two‑dimensional structure discovered in aesthetics): Through etymo‑

logical and structural argument, reveals that the Chinese distinction between meixue

and shenmei precisely corresponds to the framework’s base layer (negativity, boundary‑

drawing, codifiable) and emergent layer (positivity, subject‑resonance, cannot be com‑

manded). This discovery is not a linguistic observation but structural evidence — lan‑

guage inadvertently preserved an ontological distinction that had not been theorized.

Contribution 2 (Three‑layer instantiation): Establishes the complete instantiation model

for aesthetics across institutional, relational, and individual layers, including four‑

quadrant states and four structural pains in their aesthetic‑specific forms.

Contribution 3 (Domain‑specific distinction): Proposes the distinction between nega‑

tive shenmei and positive shenmei — aesthetic experience itself has a two‑dimensional

structure, with structural affinity to colonization risk but no relation of identity.

Contribution 4 (Transmission thesis): Argues that the core of aesthetic problems is a

transmission problem, not a content problem. The structural nature of an aesthetic

expression is determined by the layer at which it operates and whether transmission

conditions are met, not by its content.

Contribution 5 (Non‑trivial predictions): Proposes four testable predictions derived

from the structural logic of the framework — one each at the individual, relational,

institutional, and cross‑layer transmission levels.

1.5 Paper Structure Overview

Chapter

Sub‑question addressed

Core concepts

Chapter 2

Sub‑question 1 (Two‑dimensional

Meixue/shenmei

structure)

etymological distinction,

base/emergent layer

instantiation in aesthetics

Chapter 3

Sub‑question 2 (Three‑layer

Institutional/relational/individual

instantiation)

layers in aesthetics, four

quadrants, four pains

Chapter 4

Sub‑question 3 (Domain‑specific

Negative shenmei /

distinction)

Chapter 5

Sub‑question 4 (Six‑directional

transmission)

positive shenmei,

relationship to

meta‑structure

Transmission

mechanisms in aesthetics,

transmission necessary

conditions

Chapter 6

Sub‑question 5 (Colonization and

Aesthetic colonization /

cultivation)

aesthetic cultivation,

complete case analysis

Chapter 7

Sub‑question 6 (Theoretical dialogue)

Positioning vis‑à‑vis

Baumgarten, Kant,

Bourdieu, Rancière

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Non‑trivial predictions

Four testable predictions

Recovery of all sub‑questions

Complete thesis:

aesthetics as the everyday

battlefield of

subject‑conditions

Chapter 2. Meixue and Shenmei: The Two‑Dimensional Struc‑

ture of Base Layer and Emergent Layer

2.1 A Concealed Distinction

English has only one word: aesthetics. Chinese has two: meixue (美学) and shenmei

(审美).

This is not translational redundancy but a structural distinction that has not been ad‑

equately theorized.

Meixue is systematic knowledge about beauty — it draws boundaries (what constitutes

the category of “beauty,” what is excluded), it establishes principles (symmetry, pro‑

portion, harmony), and it can be codified into rules, taught to students, and institu‑

tionalized as standards. The core operation of meixue is negativity: it says “this is

not beautiful.” A systematically trained meixue judgment is first of all exclusionary

— it knows what should not appear in a good composition, what fails to meet the for‑

mal requirements of a given tradition. Meixue can say “no” with certainty, but it

cannot say “yes” with certainty.

Shenmei is the concrete experience between a subject and an object — a person paus‑

ing before a painting, a physical response triggered by a melody, the colors of an au‑

tumn leaf striking you in a particular moment. The core operation of shenmei is pos‑

itivity: it says “this is beautiful to me.” Shenmei experience is pre‑reflective (it oc‑

curs before theoretical judgment), concrete (it is always the resonance between this

subject and this object), and cannot be commanded (you cannot command yourself to

find something beautiful, nor can you command someone else to). Shenmei can only

say “for me, yes,” but it cannot say “for everyone, yes.”

Between the two exists a dialectical support relationship. Meixue provides a secure

base for shenmei — formal training allows aesthetic resonance to occur at richer lev‑

els; a person trained in music can hear structures that an untrained listener cannot; a

person who has studied painting can perceive tensions in composition. Shenmei pro‑

vides existential meaning for meixue — without living shenmei experience, meixue

rules are empty dogma; a person who has only rules and no resonance is not a meixue

scholar but a dogmatist.

This distinction structurally corresponds, with precision, to the Self‑as‑an‑End frame‑

work’s base layer and emergent layer.

Meixue = base layer. Negativity. Draws boundary conditions. Codifiable, institution‑

alizable, high designability. The grammar of meixue is “no.”

Shenmei = emergent layer. Positivity. Pre‑reflective resonance between a concrete

subject and a concrete object. Cannot be derived from rules, cannot be commanded,

low designability. The grammar of shenmei is “toward.”

This is not analogy but isomorphism. The framework’s base layer in all three layers

has the core function of “saying no” — the baseline condition of not being instru‑

mentalized. Meixue in the aesthetic domain has the same core function of “saying

no” — drawing what does not belong in the category of beauty. The framework’s

emergent layer in all three layers has the core function of “moving toward the other”

— the subject actively unfolding itself. Shenmei in the aesthetic domain has the same

core function of “moving toward” — the subject actively unfolding its perceptual

possibilities in resonance with an object.

The reason disputes about “is this beautiful or not” are irresolvable is that they con‑

flate base‑layer judgment and emergent‑layer experience. When a person says “this

is not beautiful,” they may be making a base‑layer boundary judgment (this does not

meet the formal standards of a particular meixue tradition) or describing the absence

of emergent‑layer resonance (this did not produce resonance for me). The two judg‑

ments look identical but are structurally entirely different — the former is disputable

(boundary standards can be questioned and revised), the latter is indisputable (you

cannot tell me my feeling is wrong).

2.2 Etymological Argument

This structural distinction is not hindsight. Etymological evidence shows it was inad‑

vertently preserved in the history of language.

The Greek root of aesthetics, aisthesis, means “sensation” or “perception” and

has nothing to do with “beauty.” It refers to the way humans make contact with the

world through the senses — closer to what this paper calls shenmei (emergent‑layer

subject‑resonance). In 1735, the German philosopher Alexander Baumgarten appro‑

priated this word in his doctoral dissertation to mean “the science of beautiful cog‑

nition” (scientia cognitionis sensitivae), replacing the original meaning of aisthesis

— a mode of perception — with a theoretical system about standards of beauty. This

appropriation completed, at the linguistic level, the overwriting of the emergent layer

by the base layer: a word that originally pointed to how subjects experience the world

became a word pointing to what counts as beautiful.

Kant attempted to recover the original meaning of aisthesis in the Critique of Judgment

— he emphasized the subjectivity and non‑conceptualizability of aesthetic judgment,

features that structurally belong to the emergent layer — but his effort did not succeed.

Aesthetics in English became firmly locked to the study of beauty and taste, a single

word carrying both base‑layer and emergent‑layer meanings, with speakers unable to

distinguish which layer they are speaking from.

The history of Chinese took a different path.

In 1866, the missionary Wilhelm Lobscheid (罗存德) provided the first Chinese transla‑

tion for aesthetics in his English and Chinese Dictionary, creating the expression shen‑

mei zhi li (审美之理, “the principle of aesthetic discernment”). Shen (审) means to ex‑

amine, to scrutinize — a verb embedding subject agency: the subject is not passively

struck by beauty but is actively scrutinizing and responding. Mei (美) is the object or

standard. The verb‑object structure of shenmei itself encodes the tension between

subjectivity and existing standards — the subject is actively scrutinizing “beauty.”

This expression structurally preserves the characteristics of the emergent layer: the

subject is active, the experience is concrete, the judgment is personal.

In 1883, the Japanese thinker Nakae Chomin (中江兆民) translated aesthetics as bigaku

(美学, literally “the study of beauty”). This is a Japanese‑coined Chinese term (wasei

kango), following the abbreviation path from shinbigaku (審美学, “the study of aes‑

thetic discernment”) to bigaku (美学). In the process of abbreviation, the charac‑

ter shin/shen (審, “to scrutinize/discern”) was erased — and with it, the grammat‑

ical trace of subject agency. Bigaku/meixue became purely a study of “beauty,” no

longer containing the subject’s active role in scrutinizing and responding. This ab‑

breviation inadvertently replicated, at the linguistic level, the same operation Baum‑

garten completed in the West: the emergent layer was overwritten by the base layer.

A translation that was abandoned provides a counterfactual reference. In 1873, the

German missionary Ernst Faber (花之安) translated aesthetics as ruhe ru miao zhi fa

(如何入妙之法, “the method of entering into the subtle”) in his Daguo Xuexiao Lunlue

(《大德国学校论略》, “An Outline of German Schools”), where he introduced the cur‑

riculum of Western universities. This translation preserved the original meaning of

aisthesis — it points to a mode of perception (knowing how), not a set of judgment stan‑

dards (knowing what). Ru miao (“entering into the subtle”) describes the process

by which a subject enters into aesthetic experience, not objective knowledge about

beauty. Had this translation not been abandoned, Chinese aesthetic discourse might

have taken an entirely different path — one closer to the emergent layer.

The etymological evidence thus presents a consistent structural pattern: in the transla‑

tion histories of both East and West, the conceptual evolution of aesthetics/meixue has

tended toward the overwriting of the emergent layer by the base layer — from “mode

of perception” to “standards of beauty,” from “how the subject experiences the

world” to “what counts as beautiful.” Chinese happens to have preserved two words

(meixue and shenmei), allowing this overwritten distinction to remain visible. The

work of this paper is to structure this linguistic intuition into a theoretical distinction.

2.3 Dialectical Support and Structural Risk

The dialectical support relationship between meixue and shenmei precisely replicates

the dialectical structure between base layer and emergent layer in the framework.

Meixue provides a secure base for shenmei. A person who has undergone systematic

formal training has richer levels of shenmei resonance — they don’t merely “think

it sounds nice”; they hear the unexpected resolution in a harmonic progression, and

the resonance triggered by that unexpected resolution is deeper than what an un‑

trained listener experiences. Meixue training (enrichment of the base layer) expands

the possibility space of shenmei experience (resonance of the emergent layer).

Shenmei provides existential meaning for meixue. A person who has only formal

knowledge but has never truly been struck before any work — their meixue knowledge

is hollow; they can accurately judge “this does not conform to the norm,” but they

do not know why the norm is worth having. Shenmei experience (activation of the

emergent layer) gives meixue knowledge (rules of the base layer) its reason for being.

This dialectical support contains structural risks entirely isomorphic with the frame‑

work.

The first risk is emergent layer cannibalizing the base layer — particular shenmei pref‑

erences rewriting the boundary conditions of meixue. “Thin is beautiful” is not the

natural unfolding of emergent‑layer expression; it is the emergent layer cannibalizing

the base layer: a specific emergent content (“I find thinness attractive”) disguises

itself as a base‑layer boundary condition (“not thin is not beautiful”), compressing

what was originally an open aesthetic space into a single dimension. This shares the

same meta‑pattern as all forms of colonization in the framework: the content of the

emergent layer may itself be valuable, but when it turns back to erode the base‑layer

conditions that produced it, colonization occurs.

The second risk is base layer excluding the emergent layer — meixue’s excessive de‑

fense blocking shenmei experience. “All aesthetic standards are oppressive,” “beauty

itself is a power construction” — these critiques are valuable insofar as they expose

colonization, but when they develop into systematic rejection of all aesthetic judg‑

ment, negativity degenerates from a protective mechanism into an isolation mech‑

anism. This is the aesthetic form of closure in the framework — excessive defense

caused by the aftereffects of colonization, blocking the restorative unfolding of the

emergent layer.

Chapter 3. Three‑Layer Instantiation of Aesthetics: Institutional,

Relational, and Individual Layers

3.1 Functional Asymmetry of the Three Layers

The base layer / emergent layer two‑dimensional structure of aesthetics has specific

instantiation at each of the three layers. The three layers are formally isomorphic

but functionally asymmetric — this asymmetry is entirely consistent with the frame‑

work’s core thesis: the institutional layer constitutes the boundary conditions of aes‑

thetics, the relational layer constitutes the transmission medium, and the individual

layer constitutes the layer of final realization.

This means: aesthetic diagnosis falls at the individual layer (a person’s aesthetic state

is ultimately experienced at the individual layer), causal tracing prioritizes the institu‑

tional layer (the structural conditions of individual aesthetic states are often set by the

institutional layer), and understanding change looks to the relational layer (changes

in aesthetic state typically occur through relational‑layer transmission).

3.2 Institutional Layer

Base layer = the formal principles of meixue and open evaluative dimensions. The

function of the institutional‑layer base layer is to draw the boundary conditions of

“what constitutes an object worthy of aesthetic attention” while maintaining plural‑

ity of evaluative dimensions. A healthy aesthetic institution is not one without stan‑

dards, but one in which standards compete and maintain tension with each other, not

monopolized by any single standard. Key indicators: whether evaluative dimensions

are plural, whether exit costs are bearable, whether the space for exploration is being

swallowed by a single logic.

Emergent layer = concrete meixue traditions, style movements, and taste discourses.

The emergent layer grows spontaneously from the open conditions of the base layer —

classicism, romanticism, modernism; each style movement is a concretization of the

institutional‑layer emergent layer. The emergent layer cannot be fully institutional‑

ized: you cannot legislate a vital artistic tradition into existence; it can only emerge

spontaneously under open institutional conditions.

Concrete cases of institutional forms include: beauty pageant standards (evaluative di‑

mensions compressed to a single body proportion), the fashion industry’s body stan‑

dards (a particular body type institutionalized as the only legitimate bearer of beauty),

art school admission criteria (a particular style institutionalized as the “correct” aes‑

thetic direction), algorithmic recommendation (engagement logic as an implicit single

evaluative dimension). In each case, the emergent‑layer content of the institutional

layer may itself be valuable — particular meixue traditions have indeed produced rich

works in history. But when these emergent contents are institutionalized as the only

legitimate standard, the emergent layer is cannibalizing the base layer.

3.3 Relational Layer

Base layer = recognition of the other’s standing as an aesthetic subject. The relational‑

layer base layer of aesthetics is not “recognizing that the other’s aesthetic judgment

is correct,” but something more fundamental: “recognizing that the other has the

right to have their own aesthetic feelings.” You may completely disagree with my

taste, but you cannot deny my entitlement to having taste. “How can you like that?”

— if asked with curiosity, it belongs to emergent‑layer aesthetic dialogue; if it consti‑

tutes a denial of the other’s standing as an aesthetic subject (“you simply don’t

understand beauty”), it is attacking the base layer.

Emergent layer = relational deepening of shenmei. Shared appreciation, aesthetic

dialogue, mutual influence and enrichment of taste — the emergent layer grows from

the secure base of recognition. Two people discussing a film on the premise of rec‑

ognizing each other’s standing as aesthetic subjects, even if their opinions are com‑

pletely opposed, are deepening both parties’ shenmei experience through the dis‑

cussion itself. The marker of emergent deepening is not convergence of taste, but

enrichment of the layers of aesthetic perception.

3.4 Individual Layer

Base layer = aesthetic integrity. “I have the right to have my own feelings.” Aes‑

thetic integrity is not “my taste is good” but “my taste is mine.” A person whose

aesthetic integrity is present can say “I find this beautiful” even when this judgment

contradicts mainstream standards, without doubting the legitimacy of their own feel‑

ing. Aesthetic integrity is negativity — it does not tell you what is beautiful; it tells you

“my feeling should not be denied.”

Emergent layer = aesthetic generativity. The unfolding of aesthetic capacity, the en‑

richment of taste, the deepening of shenmei resonance with the world. Aesthetic gen‑

erativity grows from aesthetic integrity — a person who is confident they have the right

to their own feelings dares to explore unfamiliar aesthetic territories. The marker of

aesthetic generativity is not that taste has become “better” but that it has become

richer — the subject can discover resonance in more objects.

3.5 Four‑Quadrant Aesthetic Instantiation

High emergent layer

(aesthetic generativity)

Low emergent layer

High base layer

Flourishing: Aesthetic

Dormant: Aesthetic

(aesthetic integrity)

autonomy and aesthetic

autonomy is present but

generativity are

the emergent layer has not

simultaneously present

unfolded. Two causes:

and mutually nourishing.

excessive defense from

The subject freely explores

colonization aftereffects

the aesthetic world from a

(“all aesthetic standards

secure base; each new

are oppression” —

resonance in turn

rejecting all external

reinforces the conviction

aesthetic influence); or

that “I have the right to

never having been

my own feelings.”

aesthetically challenged

(absence of catalysis —

unfulfillment was never

activated, the emergent

layer stays in place).

High emergent layer

(aesthetic generativity)

Low emergent layer

Low base layer

Overdrawn: Aesthetic

Depleted: Neither

activity is lively but

aesthetic autonomy nor

aesthetic autonomy has

aesthetic generativity. The

been lost — the subject

subject neither knows

appears to have rich taste

what they find beautiful,

and active aesthetic

nor dares to say so, and

engagement (following

has no motivation to

fashion, tracking trends,

explore. The aesthetic

carefully curating social

dimension has effectively

media images), but the

shut down in the

direction of these

subject’s life.

activities does not grow

from the subject’s own

shenmei resonance; it is

guided by external

standards (algorithmic

recommendation, social

circle pressure, market

signals). Subjectively feels

“fulfilled”; structurally

being hollowed out.

3.6 Four Structural Pains: Aesthetic Instantiation

Emergent layer

Base layer

Cultivation (internal

Unfulfillment: Wanting to

Intolerability: Aesthetic

pain)

express but unable to,

autonomy is violated.

wanting to create but

“My feelings should not

unable to, seeing a kind of

be denied.” “I should

beauty but unable to

not be forced to accept

articulate it. On the secure

this standard.” A signal

base of aesthetic integrity,

that negativity has been

this pain catalyzes the

activated — marking that

enhancement of aesthetic

aesthetic integrity is still

generativity — precisely

alive, the base layer is still

because “not yet

resisting.

reaching” drives the

subject to develop new

perceptual capacities and

modes of expression.

Colonization (external

Foreclosure: Direction

Inescapability: The base

pain)

space compressed by

layer is being eroded and

external forces. “You can

exit channels are sealed.

only paint in this style.”

“If you don’t meet the

“That aesthetic has no

standard, you have no

market.” “Content that

value.” “If you don’t

doesn’t fit the algorithm

get cosmetic surgery, you

won’t be

won’t find a job.” “If

recommended.” Not the

you don’t lose weight,

subject failing to reach a

you don’t deserve to be

goal (that is unfulfillment),

loved.” Exit costs are

but the subject being

artificially inflated; the

deprived of the freedom to

subject is trapped in a

try — the fork rights of

single aesthetic

shenmei are suppressed.

dimension.

The deepest point of colonization is not the moment when pain is most intense, but

the moment when even intolerability can no longer be felt — external aesthetic stan‑

dards have been fully internalized as one’s own feelings; the subject “sincerely”

finds themselves not beautiful, having completely lost the cognitive possibility that

“this standard may have been implanted.” Intolerability has been normalized into

the tolerable; inescapability has been normalized into “that’s just life.”

Chapter 4. Negative Shenmei and Positive Shenmei: A Domain‑

Specific Distinction

4.1 The Two‑Dimensional Structure of Shenmei Experience

The preceding chapters established the meixue/shenmei distinction and three‑layer

instantiation. This chapter proposes a distinction that has no direct counterpart in the

framework’s meta‑structure and belongs specifically to the aesthetic domain: nega‑

tive shenmei and positive shenmei.

Shenmei experience is not unidirectional. Facing the same object, an aesthetic re‑

sponse can unfold along two different directions.

Negative shenmei — “this makes me uncomfortable.” It faces toward rejection,

drawing boundaries. A person sees a color combination and finds it jarring, hears a

passage of music and finds it discordant, sees a particular body type and feels “some‑

thing is off” — these are all operations of negative shenmei. The grammar of negative

shenmei is “no”: not this, it shouldn’t be like that, this is not beautiful.

Positive shenmei — “this gives me pleasure.” It faces toward the object, building

connection. A person pauses before a painting, is struck by a song, sees beauty in

someone’s smile — these are all operations of positive shenmei. The grammar of

positive shenmei is “toward”: toward this object, toward this possibility, toward this

point in the world.

Both are natural operations of the emergent layer — both are pre‑reflective resonance

between a concrete subject and a concrete object, neither can be derived from rules,

neither can be commanded. A person cannot command themselves to stop finding

something unpleasant, just as they cannot command themselves to find something

beautiful. At the emergent layer, negative shenmei and positive shenmei have equal

legitimacy.

4.2 Structural Affinity with Colonization Risk

However, the two have different structural affinities with colonization risk.

Negative shenmei is formally closer to the boundary‑drawing grammar of the base

layer. The core operation of the base layer is saying “no” — drawing what is not per‑

missible. The core operation of negative shenmei is also saying “no” — drawing what

is not beautiful. The two kinds of “no” are formally difficult to distinguish. When

a person says “this is not beautiful,” they may be performing a natural emergent‑

layer operation (“this did not produce resonance for me”) or performing a base‑layer

boundary rewrite (“this should not be considered beautiful”). The formal similarity

makes it easier for negative shenmei to slide from the emergent layer into the base

layer — and the slide can occur without the subject’s awareness.

Positive shenmei is formally closer to the emergent layer’s grammar of “moving to‑

ward.” The core operation of the emergent layer is “moving toward the other.” The

core operation of positive shenmei is “moving toward the object.” Positive shenmei

is more likely to remain within the natural operation of the emergent layer, because

“I find this beautiful” does not grammatically contain exclusion of the other.

But this affinity is probabilistic, not deterministic. Negative shenmei does not equal

colonization; positive shenmei does not equal cultivation. The distinction lies not in

the direction of the aesthetic experience (negative or positive) but in whether the aes‑

thetic expression remains at the emergent layer or is attempting to rewrite base‑layer

boundary conditions.

Positive shenmei can equally colonize. “Girls should be gentle to be attractive” is

a positive statement — it describes an aesthetic preference and does not directly ex‑

clude anyone. But its structural function is to use a specific emergent‑layer content

(“gentleness is beautiful”) to rewrite the base‑layer boundary condition (“not gen‑

tle is not beautiful”). Colonization structures can hide within positive expressions

— which makes the colonization of positive shenmei harder to identify than that of

negative shenmei.

4.3 Relationship to the Framework’s Meta‑Structure

An important conceptual distinction must be explicitly marked here.

Negative shenmei and positive shenmei are not equivalent to the negativity and pos‑

itivity dimensions in the framework’s meta‑structure. The framework’s negativity

(rejection of the non‑subject) and positivity (recognition of other subjects) are consti‑

tutive dimensions of subjectivity — they are the ontological ground of the base layer

and emergent layer. Negative shenmei (“this makes me uncomfortable”) and posi‑

tive shenmei (“this gives me pleasure”) are phenomenological directions of shenmei

experience — they are two modes of operation within the aesthetic emergent layer.

Structural affinity exists between the two: negative shenmei shares the grammatical

form of “saying no” with the framework’s negativity dimension, and is therefore

more easily co‑opted by the base layer’s boundary‑drawing function; positive shen‑

mei shares the grammatical form of “moving toward” with the framework’s positiv‑

ity dimension, and therefore more easily operates naturally within the emergent layer.

But affinity is not identity — negative shenmei is a phenomenon within the emergent

layer, not the base layer itself; positive shenmei is a phenomenon within the emergent

layer, not the ontological ground of the emergent layer. Conflating these two levels

leads to an erroneous judgment: “negative shenmei is inherently bad, positive shen‑

mei is inherently good.” This judgment does not hold within the present framework.

The following comparison table marks the distinction between the two levels:

Framework

meta‑structure

Aesthetic domain

Negativity

Constitutive dimension of

Phenomenological

subjectivity: rejection of

direction of shenmei

the non‑subject

(ontological level)

experience: rejection,

boundary‑drawing

(experiential level)

Positivity

Constitutive dimension of

Phenomenological

subjectivity: recognition

direction of shenmei

of other subjects

(ontological level)

experience: moving

toward, building

connection (experiential

level)

Relationship

Ontological ground of the

Structural affinity, not

base and emergent layers

identity

4.4 Social Media’s Structural Bias Toward Negative Shenmei

The colonization risk of negative shenmei comes not only from its own grammatical

structure but also from the systematic amplification of negative content by contempo‑

rary transmission environments.

The interaction structure of social media inherently rewards negative shenmei. Mock‑

ery, exclusion, and ridicule generate more engagement than praise — more reposts,

more comments, stronger emotional triggers. This is not the “malice” of platforms

but a structural effect of engagement logic: the emotional responses triggered by neg‑

ative content (anger, ridicule, shock) have more propagation advantage than those

triggered by positive content (pleasure, appreciation, resonance).

This means platforms are structurally biased toward pushing negative shenmei from

the emergent layer into the base layer. A person says “I don’t think that looks good”

in the relational layer — if this is a conversation between two people, it is the natural

operation of the emergent layer; the other person can respond “I think it looks fine”;

transmission is bidirectional. But the same sentence posted on social media, amplified

by algorithmic recommendation, receiving large numbers of likes and reposts — the

transmission conditions change: the contact condition (a public platform creates an

actual interaction interface between the expression and an unspecified audience), the

compatibility condition (the content can map onto a compression of evaluative dimen‑

sions), and the accumulation condition (similar expressions persistently accumulate

to reach the threshold of structural transmission) — all three conditions become easier

to satisfy, and emergent‑layer personal feeling more easily transforms into base‑layer

boundary conditions.

The colonization risk of negative shenmei in the social media era is therefore twofold:

it comes both from its own formal affinity with base‑layer grammar and from the struc‑

tural amplification of negative content by the transmission environment.

Chapter 5. Six‑Directional Transmission in Aesthetics

5.1 Core Thesis: Aesthetic Problems Are Transmission Problems

This chapter proposes the most central theoretical thesis of this paper: aesthetic prob‑

lems are not content problems but transmission problems.

The structural nature of the same aesthetic expression is determined by the layer at

which it operates and whether transmission conditions are met, not by its content. “I

find slender lines more beautiful” — the content of this sentence is the same in any

context, but its structural function is entirely different at the relational and institu‑

tional layers.

At the relational layer: “I find slender lines more beautiful” is an aesthetic dialogue

between two emergent subjects. As long as the base layer of recognition is present

— the other’s standing as an aesthetic subject has not been denied — transmission

is bidirectional (the other can say “I disagree”), and this is natural emergent‑layer

operation. A discussion, even an argument, between two people arising from aesthetic

differences can itself be a catalyst for intimate cultivation — through collision with

shenmei perceptions different from one’s own, the aesthetic layers of both parties

may become richer.

But when the same sentence enters the institutional layer — posted in a public com‑

ment section, amplified by algorithmic recommendation, receiving large numbers of

likes, forming consensus — the structural function changes. The three necessary con‑

ditions for transmission are met: the contact condition (a public platform creates an

actual interaction interface between the expression and an unspecified audience), the

compatibility condition (the content can map onto a compression of evaluative di‑

mensions — from “multiple body types can be beautiful” compressed to “slender

is beautiful”), and the accumulation condition (similar expressions persistently ac‑

cumulate to reach the threshold of structural transmission — not one comment but

thousands of comments in the same direction). Once transmission is complete, the

emergent‑layer personal feeling has transformed into a base‑layer boundary condition

— from “I think” to “what counts as beautiful.”

This thesis resolves a long‑standing core contradiction about aesthetics: the relation‑

ship between personal preference and systemic effect. Preference is genuine emer‑

gence — it is protected; it should not be criticized; you cannot tell a person that their

feeling is wrong. But the structural effect of preference in the public sphere is partic‑

ipation in boundary‑rewriting — it needs to be identified, not because the preference

itself is problematic, but because transmission has altered its structural function.

Both things are simultaneously true. “Your preference is genuine emergence” and

“your preference participates in boundary‑rewriting in the public sphere” do not con‑

tradict each other — they occur at different levels. Contradiction only appears when

the levels are conflated.

5.2 Six‑Directional Transmission: Aesthetic Instantiation

The framework’s six‑directional transmission model has a complete instantiation in

the aesthetic domain.

Institutional layer → Individual layer: Internalization of aesthetic standards. The

singular body standards of the beauty industry, the aesthetic norms of fashion maga‑

zines, the “attractiveness value” discourse of social media — these institutional‑layer

emergent contents are internalized as self‑judgment standards through sustained ex‑

posure. A young woman does not one day suddenly decide “I should be thinner”;

rather, after countless encounters with aesthetic signals in the same direction, she

gradually re‑encodes “thin is beautiful” as her own pre‑reflective feeling. When in‑

ternalization is complete, she no longer experiences this as an external standard —

she “sincerely” feels she is not thin enough, not beautiful enough. The marker of

internalization is the subject’s loss of the ability to distinguish “my own feeling”

from “an implanted standard.”

Individual layer → Institutional layer: Reproduction of colonizing standards. An

individual who has completed aesthetic internalization colonization in turn maintains

and reinforces the colonizing standards. She tells friends “you should lose weight,”

shares “skin‑whitening” tips on social media, and assumes the posture of a judge

scrutinizing other women’s bodies. She is not forced to do this — the depth of col‑

onization is precisely shown by her treating colonizing behavior as a spontaneous

choice motivated by “good intentions.” The internalization products at the individ‑

ual layer feed back to the institutional layer; the colonizing standard gains support

from “real users” and becomes even harder to identify as colonization.

Institutional layer → Relational layer: Aesthetic competition replacing aesthetic

dialogue. When the evaluative dimensions of the institutional layer are singularized,

aesthetic interactions in interpersonal relationships are also pushed toward competi‑

tion. “Who is better looking” replaces “what do we each find beautiful.” Beauty

pageants, social media like‑rankings, the “condition matching” of dating markets —

these institutional arrangements compress aesthetics from emergent‑layer dialogue to

base‑layer ranking. The relational layer of aesthetics is no longer a field of resonance

between two subjects but a competitive arena on a single dimension.

Relational layer → Institutional layer: Collapse of aesthetic trust generating more

standardization. When aesthetic trust at the relational layer has been destroyed by

competition, the institutional layer will attempt to fill the trust deficit with more stan‑

dardization. “You should trust expert aesthetic judgments,” “AI can tell you what

combinations look good,” “data shows this style is most popular” — when people

can no longer trust each other aesthetically, the institutional layer provides algorithms

and experts to substitute for trust. But institutionalized aesthetic judgment is itself a

base‑layer operation (it draws boundaries) and cannot substitute for emergent‑layer

subject‑resonance. Using institutional standards to replace aesthetic trust in relation‑

ships is attempting to fill an emergent‑layer absence with the base layer — structurally

impossible to succeed.

Individual layer → Relational layer: Aesthetic self‑instrumentalization spreading

to the relational layer. A person who has internalized aesthetic standards as a self‑

judgment tool will naturally apply the same standard to judge others. Their position

in relationships is no longer “a person with their own aesthetic feelings” but “a

judge carrying a measuring stick.” They offer friends suggestions on clothing not

out of interest in aesthetic dialogue but from the impulse to “help you meet the stan‑

dard.” Aesthetic self‑instrumentalization spreads through the relational layer into

instrumentalization of others.

Relational layer → Individual layer: The restorative power of aesthetic recogni‑

tion. This is the only explicitly positive restorative pathway among the six directions of

transmission. When a person is persistently denied standing as an aesthetic subject in

relationships — “your taste is terrible,” “how can you like that,” “you don’t un‑

derstand beauty” — their aesthetic integrity (individual‑layer base layer) is weakened.

But the reverse also holds: if someone in the relationship recognizes their standing as

an aesthetic subject — “what you see has value,” “tell me why you like this” — this

recognition can trigger the repair of aesthetic integrity, even if institutional‑layer colo‑

nization pressure persists. Relational‑layer recognition cannot eliminate institutional‑

layer colonization, but it can provide a repair channel for the individual layer — consis‑

tent with the framework’s core judgment that the relational layer is the transmission

medium, the actual channel through which change occurs.

5.3 Social Media and Algorithms: A Content‑Indifferent Transmission Ac‑

celerator

Social media and algorithmic recommendation systems play a special structural role

in aesthetic transmission. They are not the source of colonization but the amplifier

of transmission — they are entirely indifferent to whether the transmitted content is

emergent‑layer or base‑layer, caring only about engagement.

The algorithm does not care whether “thin is beautiful” is an emergent‑layer per‑

sonal preference or a base‑layer boundary rewrite. It cares how many likes, com‑

ments, and shares the content generates. If negative shenmei produces more engage‑

ment than positive shenmei (and it does — as Chapter 4 has argued), the algorithm

will systematically amplify negative shenmei. If boundary‑rewriting expressions pro‑

duce more debate than emergent‑layer personal resonance (and they do — “this is

not beautiful” is more likely to trigger debate than “this is beautiful to me”), the

algorithm will systematically amplify boundary‑rewriting expressions.

The algorithm is therefore a content‑indifferent accelerator of aesthetic transmission.

It takes aesthetic differences that should be naturally absorbed at the relational layer

and pushes them to the institutional layer at institutional scale and speed. The three

necessary conditions for relational → institutional transmission — contact, compati‑

bility, accumulation — are all accelerated in the algorithmic age. The acceleration of

transmission means the acceleration of colonization: emergent‑layer personal prefer‑

ences transform more rapidly into base‑layer boundary conditions.

Chapter 6. Colonization and Cultivation in Aesthetics: The Neg‑

ative and Positive of Transmission

6.1 Colonization: The Negative of Transmission

Aesthetic colonization is the concretization of emergent layer cannibalizing the base

layer in the aesthetic domain.

Its core mechanism is: a specific shenmei preference (emergent‑layer content) is used

to rewrite the boundary conditions of meixue (base‑layer rules), compressing an orig‑

inally open aesthetic space into a single dimension. “I find thinness attractive” is le‑

gitimate emergent‑layer operation; “not thin is not beautiful” is base‑layer boundary

rewriting. The transformation from the former to the latter is accomplished through

transmission — when transmission conditions are met, emergent‑layer content ac‑

quires the power to rewrite the base layer.

The gradualism of aesthetic colonization is entirely consistent with the general char‑

acteristics of colonization in the framework. Colonization is not a one‑time event but

a sustained, gradual process — each step of erosion is kept within the subject’s toler‑

able range while exit channels are progressively sealed. A young woman does not one

day suddenly feel “I must be thin”; rather, through countless accumulated transmis‑

sions: every “skin‑whitening” advertisement, every body comparison among peers,

every “perfect body” image on social media — each time is just a tiny signal, each

time insufficient to be identified as colonization. But when accumulation reaches the

threshold, her aesthetic base layer has already been rewritten: she can no longer feel

“my body is beautiful” — not because she rationally disagrees with this judgment,

but because her pre‑reflective perceptual structure has already been re‑encoded.

The deepest point of colonization is not the moment when pain is most intense, but the

moment when even intolerability can no longer be felt. When external aesthetic stan‑

dards have been fully internalized as one’s own feelings, the subject “sincerely”

finds themselves not beautiful — this is not lying or self‑deception but colonization

that has already penetrated to the pre‑reflective level, deeper than cognition. This

explains why the “exposure” strategy of the cultural critique framework has limited

effectiveness: “knowing the standard is constructed” is an operation at the cognitive

level, but colonization occurs at the pre‑reflective perceptual structure level — the two

are not on the same layer. You can cognitively fully accept that “thin is not the only

standard of beauty” and still feel anxiety in front of a mirror. This is not cognitive dis‑

sonance but a structural disconnect between cognition and pre‑reflective perception

— colonization occurs in the latter, and “knowing” only reaches the former.

6.2 Cultivation: The Positive of Transmission

Aesthetic cultivation is the process by which the aesthetic emergent layer grows healthily

from the base layer and in turn reinforces the base layer.

The healthy form of aesthetic education is cultivation — not telling students what is

beautiful, but creating conditions that allow the capacity for shenmei resonance to

grow spontaneously. The catalytic conditions for cultivation are entirely consistent

with the framework: a secure base at the base layer (aesthetic integrity — “I have

the right to my own feelings”), plus the presence of at least one catalytic pain — un‑

fulfillment (wanting to express but unable to, wanting to create but unable to) drives

emergent‑layer growth; intolerability (“my feelings should not be denied”) drives

base‑layer repair.

Cultivation does not equal protection. Overprotection — eliminating all aesthetic chal‑

lenge and standards — may itself produce dormancy. A subject who has never been

challenged by heterogeneous aesthetics has never had the catalytic pain of unfulfill‑

ment activated; the emergent layer stays in place. “Whatever you think is beautiful is

fine” — if this becomes “you never need to face aesthetic judgments different from

your own,” then the base layer is present (no one is attacking your standing as an

aesthetic subject) but the emergent layer has never had the conditions for growth —

shenmei experience stays at its original level, taste is never enriched by heterogeneity.

The structural challenge of aesthetic education is isomorphic with the challenge of

institutional‑layer design in the framework: not eliminating all resistance (that pro‑

duces dormancy), not allowing all pressure (that accelerates colonization), but main‑

taining a balance between protecting the base layer (ensuring that aesthetic challenges

do not become aesthetic trauma — challenge constitutes catalysis only when the base

layer is secure) and preserving real resistance (ensuring the emergent layer has the

conditions for growth — collision with heterogeneous aesthetics provides the cataly‑

sis of unfulfillment). Good aesthetic education both protects students’ right to say

“I find this beautiful” and continuously exposes them to the challenge of “I never

imagined this could also be beautiful.”

6.3 Complete Analysis of the Figure Skating Comment

Returning to the figure skating comment introduced in Chapter 1, we can now perform

a complete structural diagnosis with the full analytical framework.

“I don’t really want to say this” — a signal of intolerability. The commenter

senses a tension; the existence of this tension marks that negativity has not yet died —

they are aware that what they are about to say “should not be said.” But they misiden‑

tify this tension as “the oppression of political correctness” rather than identifying

it as a sign that their own aesthetic premises may have been colonized. This is the

misidentification of negativity in the framework — misreading what could have been

a cultivating positive influence as a colonizing intrusion. Had they correctly identified

this tension, it could have become the catalysis of intolerability: why does my aesthetic

judgment make me uncomfortable? Is this discomfort telling me something?

“American athletes’ legs are too thick” — emergent layer cannibalizing the base

layer. This is not describing emergent‑layer personal resonance (which would be

“I personally prefer slender lines,” staying at the emergent layer) but rewriting the

boundary conditions of meixue (“this body type does not belong in the category of

beauty,” entering the base layer). From “I think” to “this is not” — transmis‑

sion has altered the structural function of the expression. And when this comment

is posted on a public platform and receives likes, the three necessary conditions for

transmission are further satisfied, accelerating the transformation of emergent‑layer

personal preference into institutional‑layer boundary conditions.

“Mutants” — the most extreme form of cannibalization. This word is not merely

rewriting the boundaries of meixue (what is beautiful); it attempts to rewrite the bound‑

ary of recognition (what is human). Expelling particular bodies from the category of

“human” — the emergent layer’s specific preference not only rewrites the base layer

of meixue but even attempts to rewrite the most fundamental base layer in the frame‑

work: recognition. In the three‑layer structure, this is the extreme form of coloniza‑

tion — from singularization of the aesthetic dimension (institutional‑layer base layer

rewritten) all the way through to denial of subject standing (relational‑layer base layer

attacked).

“Russian athletes are artists” — colonization structure within a positive statement.

This sentence appears to be positive shenmei — praising a kind of beauty. But its struc‑

tural function is to establish an exclusionary standard: “artist” as the only legitimate

aesthetic category; those who do not fit this category are relegated to “mutant.” This

confirms the analysis of Chapter 4: positive shenmei can equally colonize, and be‑

cause its surface form is praise rather than exclusion, the colonization structure is

harder to identify.

Transmission analysis of the complete comment. The commenter’s aesthetic pref‑

erence is itself the natural operation of the emergent layer — they genuinely find slen‑

der lines more beautiful; this feeling is real and is protected. But when this prefer‑

ence is expressed in a public comment section, amplified by algorithmic recommen‑

dation, and receives extensive resonance, transmission has altered its structural func‑

tion: emergent‑layer personal preference has transformed into base‑layer boundary

conditions. The commenter does not need to “intentionally” rewrite boundaries —

the structural effect of transmission is independent of personal intent.

This is why aesthetic problems are transmission problems rather than content prob‑

lems. The same preference, at the relational layer, is the natural operation of the emer‑

gent layer (protected); at the institutional layer, it is base‑layer boundary rewriting

(needing to be identified). Both things are simultaneously true, without contradiction.

Chapter 7. Theoretical Positioning: Dialogue with Existing Dis‑

cussions

7.1 Principles of Dialogue

The aesthetic analysis of this paper builds upon existing traditions in aesthetic the‑

ory. The task of this chapter is not to refute predecessors one by one, but to precisely

mark what each interlocutor covered, what they missed, and in which dimensions the

present framework integrates or goes beyond their contributions.

7.2 Baumgarten: Foundation and Welding

Alexander Baumgarten established aesthetics as an independent philosophical domain

in his 1735 doctoral dissertation. His core contribution was elevating sensory cogni‑

tion (cognitio sensitiva) from a lower form of cognition to an independent cognitive

form — sensibility was no longer the defective remainder of reason but a mode of cog‑

nition with its own logic and value. This foundational contribution opened the space

for the theoretical legitimacy of aesthetics; without this step, no subsequent serious

discussion of aesthetics would have been possible.

However, in completing this foundation, Baumgarten simultaneously completed a con‑

ceptual welding. He appropriated aisthesis — originally pointing to a mode of percep‑

tion (how the subject experiences the world) — as the study of beauty (what counts

as beautiful). This appropriation welded, at the conceptual level, two phenomena of

different levels into a single word: meixue as boundary‑drawing (what is beautiful,

what is not) and shenmei as subject‑resonance (what this subject experienced in this

moment).

One of the core contributions of the present framework — the base layer / emergent

layer distinction between meixue and shenmei — is precisely to re‑separate the two

layers that Baumgarten welded together. The etymological argument of Chapter 2

showed how this welding was replicated in the translation histories of both East and

West, while Chinese happened to preserve the distinction that existed before the weld‑

ing. Once separated, the relationship between the two layers is not identity but dialec‑

tical support — meixue provides a secure base for shenmei; shenmei provides existen‑

tial meaning for meixue.

7.3 Kant: Precise Description of the Emergent Layer and Absence of Cross‑

Layer Analysis

Kant’s analysis of aesthetic judgment in the Critique of Judgment receives a precise

structural positioning within the present framework.

Kant distinguished two seemingly contradictory features of aesthetic judgment: sub‑

jectivity (“beauty is not a property of the object but a judgment of the subject”) and

universal communicability (“aesthetic judgment demands universal assent — it is not

merely saying ‘I think’ but saying ‘this ought to be’ ”). This contradiction is no

longer a contradiction within the present framework but the natural result of the two‑

dimensional structure. Subjectivity corresponds to the emergent layer — shenmei ex‑

perience is the pre‑reflective resonance of a concrete subject, not derivable from rules.

Universal communicability corresponds to the base layer — the boundary conditions

of meixue can be shared, discussed, and even institutionalized; what it demands is

not that everyone have the same feeling, but that boundaries concerning “what con‑

stitutes the category of beauty” can be publicly discussed.

Kant’s “purposiveness without purpose” (Zweckmäßigkeit ohne Zweck) is a pre‑

cise description of the aesthetic emergent layer. Shenmei experience does not serve

an external purpose (purposiveness without) but internally possesses directionality

(purposiveness) — it is not random sensation but structural resonance between sub‑

ject and object. This is highly isomorphic with the framework’s definition of the

emergent layer: the emergent layer does not serve the purposes of the base layer but

grows spontaneously and directionally from the conditions of the base layer.

However, Kant’s analysis has two structural limitations. First, his analysis essen‑

tially stays at the individual layer. Aesthetic judgment in Kant is an individual capac‑

ity — he asks “how does the individual make aesthetic judgments,” not “how do

aesthetic judgments change their structural function through relational and institu‑

tional layer transmission.” The core contribution of this paper’s Chapter 5 — that

aesthetic problems are transmission problems — has no counterpart in Kant’s frame‑

work. Second, Kant did not address how aesthetic judgment can be colonized. When

“purposiveness without purpose” is occupied by a particular meixue tradition and

institutionalized as the only standard — when “aesthetic judgment demands univer‑

sal assent” is transformed from a structural feature of the emergent layer into an

institutional‑layer enforcement — Kant’s framework lacks the conceptual tools to

identify this process. He described the healthy operation of the aesthetic emergent

layer but did not foresee how the emergent layer could be institutionalized, colonized,

and used to rewrite the base layer’s boundaries.

7.4 Bourdieu: The Sociology of Colonization and the Dissolution of the Emer‑

gent Layer

Pierre Bourdieu in Distinction (La Distinction) analyzed aesthetic taste as a tool for

the reproduction of social class. Aesthetic preferences are not expressions of personal

freedom but products of class habitus — what you find beautiful depends on your posi‑

tion in the social structure. Bourdieu’s analysis is incisive and thorough: he revealed

that the “personal nature” of aesthetic judgment is a structural illusion; aesthetic

taste is fundamentally a mode of encoding social power.

Bourdieu’s analysis covers a specific transmission pathway within the present frame‑

work: institutional layer → individual layer colonization transmission. Social struc‑

ture (institutional layer) reproduces itself through the internalization of aesthetic pref‑

erences (transmission) — individuals believe they are freely choosing their taste while

actually being positioned and controlled by social structure through aesthetic prefer‑

ences. This is entirely isomorphic with the “institutional layer → individual layer:

internalization of aesthetic standards” analyzed in Chapter 5 of this paper.

But Bourdieu’s framework has a fundamental absence: it has no positive analysis of

the emergent layer. In Bourdieu, all aesthetic preferences are products of social struc‑

ture — the category of “genuine emergence” does not exist. If all taste is a product

of habitus, then no shenmei experience is “one’s own.” This means that within

Bourdieu’s framework, aesthetic cultivation is logically impossible — after libera‑

tion from colonization, what the subject faces is not their own feelings but another

encoding by another social structure.

The present framework distinguishes between internalized products of colonization

and spontaneous resonance of the emergent layer — a distinction absent from Bour‑

dieu’s framework. A person “finding thinness attractive” may be an internalized

product of institutional‑layer colonization, or it may be spontaneous emergent‑layer

resonance — the two may be phenomenologically identical but structurally entirely

different. The criterion for distinction is not content (what is considered beautiful) but

structural conditions (whether this judgment grew spontaneously on the secure base

of aesthetic integrity, or was implanted by external forces under conditions where

the base layer was being eroded). Bourdieu cannot make this distinction because his

framework has no conceptual space for “secure base” and “spontaneous growth.”

7.5 Ranciere: The Politics of the Base Layer and the Absence of a Transmis‑

sion Model

Jacques Ranciere’s concept of “the distribution of the sensible” (le partage du sen‑

sible) touches on a core dimension of aesthetics: aesthetics is not only about “what

is beautiful” but about “who has the right to be seen, to be heard, to be considered

beautiful.” The distribution of the sensible determines what is perceptible (sensible)

in public space — what sounds are treated as language rather than noise, what bodies

are treated as subjects rather than background.

This is highly relevant to the present framework’s base‑layer analysis. The boundary‑

drawing function of meixue as the base layer lies precisely in its determination of

“what is included in the category worthy of aesthetic attention” — and what is ex‑

cluded from this category loses not only the status of “beautiful” but potentially

the status of being seen and recognized. The extremity of the word “mutant” in

the figure skating comment lies precisely here: it expels particular bodies not merely

from the category of “beautiful” but from the category of “human.” Ranciere’s

“distribution of the sensible” provides conceptual resources for understanding this

extreme form.

But Ranciere’s analysis stays at the political description of the institutional layer. He

is concerned with the political structure of “distribution” — who distributes, what

are the criteria, how to redistribute. He does not independently analyze the relational

layer — in his framework, the distribution of the sensible is institutional and does

not need to pass through relational‑layer transmission. This means Ranciere cannot

explain the core phenomena revealed in Chapters 5 and 6 of this paper: that the same

aesthetic expression has entirely different structural functions at the relational and

institutional layers, and that relational‑layer recognition can provide a repair channel

for individuals even while institutional‑layer colonization persists.

7.6 Synthesis

The four interlocutors each covered one dimension of the aesthetic problem and each

omitted the others.

Baumgarten provided the foundation for aesthetics as an independent cognitive do‑

main but welded the base layer and emergent layer into a single concept. Kant pro‑

vided a precise phenomenological description of the aesthetic emergent layer but lacked

cross‑layer transmission analysis and colonization identification tools. Bourdieu pro‑

vided the sociological mechanism of institutional‑layer colonization but dissolved the

positive dimension of the emergent layer. Ranciere provided a political description of

the base layer but lacked independent analysis of the relational layer and a cross‑layer

transmission model.

The present framework integrates these contributions and supplements each one’s

absence. For Baumgarten: re‑separating the two layers he welded together, establish‑

ing the two‑dimensional distinction. For Kant: building a cross‑layer transmission

model and colonization identification tools on top of his individual‑layer analysis. For

Bourdieu: restoring the positive analysis of the emergent layer on top of his coloniza‑

tion analysis, distinguishing internalized products of colonization from spontaneous

emergent‑layer resonance. For Ranciere: building a three‑layer structural model on

top of his institutional‑layer political analysis, particularly the analysis of the rela‑

tional layer as an independent transmission medium.

The present framework does not provide “the correct aesthetic standard” — that it‑

self would be colonization. What it provides are structural distinction tools: distin‑

guishing emergent‑layer feelings from base‑layer judgments; distinguishing relational‑

layer expression from institutional‑layer effects; distinguishing cultivation from colo‑

nization.

Chapter 8. Non‑Trivial Predictions: Testable Implications of

the Framework

8.1 Methodological Status of Predictions

If a framework can only describe phenomena that have already occurred, it is merely

a narrative tool. The hallmark of a theory is its ability to derive non‑trivial, testable

predictions from structural logic — predictions that cannot be directly obtained from

common sense but for which empirical studies can be designed.

The following four predictions are derived from the structural logic of the individual,

relational, institutional, and cross‑layer transmission levels respectively. Each predic‑

tion includes a testable empirical direction.

8.2 Individual‑Layer Prediction: The Irreversibility of Internalized Coloniza‑

tion

Prediction: If an individual has been in an institutional environment with a singu‑

lar aesthetic evaluative dimension (such as social media appearance standards) for

an extended period, their aesthetic judgments will continue to operate along that di‑

mension even after leaving the environment. Simply “knowing the standard is con‑

structed” is insufficient to restore aesthetic autonomy.

Derivation logic: Aesthetic colonization occurs at the level of pre‑reflective percep‑

tual structure (Chapter 6). Once internalized colonization is complete, the pre‑reflective

responses the subject uses to feel “what is beautiful” have themselves been rewrit‑

ten. Cognitive‑level “knowing” (“I know this standard is constructed”) and pre‑

reflective‑level “feeling” (“but I still feel I’m not beautiful enough”) are not on

the same layer — the former is a reflective operation of the emergent layer; the lat‑

ter is a structural effect of the base layer having been rewritten. Cognitive operations

cannot directly reach the structural state of the base layer, just as cognitive‑level awak‑

ening in the framework does not equal structural‑level decolonization.

Non‑triviality: Common intuition would hold that “once you know, you can change”

— once aware that a standard is constructed, one should be able to escape it. This pre‑

diction refutes that intuition: knowing does not equal escaping, because colonization

and cognition are not on the same layer.

Testable direction: Compare the diversity of aesthetic judgment between long‑term

users vs. never‑users of a particular social media platform, and the speed of aesthetic

judgment recovery after leaving the platform. If the prediction holds, even after leav‑

ing the platform, long‑term users’ recovery of aesthetic judgment diversity will sig‑

nificantly lag behind their cognitive‑level acceptance of the judgment that “the stan‑

dard is constructed.”

8.3 Relational‑Layer Prediction: The Protective Effect of Recognition

Prediction: An individual who is persistently denied standing as an aesthetic subject

in relationships will experience atrophy of aesthetic generativity faster than an indi‑

vidual who is subject only to institutional‑layer colonization but whose relational‑layer

recognition remains intact. Conversely, even if institutional‑layer aesthetic coloniza‑

tion is intense, as long as one person in the subject’s relationships recognizes their

standing as an aesthetic subject, a repair channel for aesthetic integrity exists.

Derivation logic: The framework’s functional asymmetry thesis specifies that the

relational layer is the transmission medium (Chapter 3). Institutional‑layer coloniza‑

tion must pass through the relational layer to reach the individual — if the relational

layer’s recognition structure is intact, institutional‑layer colonization signals are buffered

by the relational layer’s recognition structure during transmission. But the absence

of relational‑layer recognition directly strikes the individual‑layer base layer — “you

don’t understand beauty” and “your taste is terrible” do not need to pass through

the institutional layer to directly attack aesthetic integrity. The relational layer there‑

fore has a dual role vis‑a‑vis aesthetic integrity: it is both a buffer for colonization

transmission (when recognition is present) and a direct attack surface for the base

layer (when recognition is absent).

Non‑triviality: Common intuition would hold that “the environment (institutional

layer) has the greatest influence” — media standards and advertising bombardment

should be the primary sources of aesthetic colonization. This prediction refutes that

intuition: one person’s recognition at the relational layer may be more important

than tens of millions of advertisements at the institutional layer, because the relational

layer is the actual channel of transmission.

Testable direction: Compare the sources of aesthetic confidence — from relational‑

layer recognition (“what you see has value”) vs. from institutional‑layer validation

(awards, likes, expert evaluation) — which has a stronger long‑term sustaining effect

on aesthetic generativity. If the prediction holds, the protective effect of relational‑

layer recognition will be significantly stronger than institutional‑layer validation.

8.4 Institutional‑Layer Prediction: The Direction‑Compression Effect of Eval‑

uative Dimension Singularization

Prediction: If an aesthetic education system uses a singular aesthetic standard as its

evaluative dimension, even if teaching content is rich and technical training thorough,

its graduates’ aesthetic direction exploration after leaving the system will be signifi‑

cantly narrower than that of students trained under plural evaluative dimensions.

Derivation logic: The core function of the institutional layer is boundary condition

setting (Chapter 3). Singularization of evaluative dimensions means the institutional‑

layer base layer has been occupied by a single emergent content — not “no standards”

(that is base‑layer absence) but “only one standard” (the emergent layer cannibaliz‑

ing the base layer). A singular evaluative dimension, through the institutional → indi‑

vidual layer transmission pathway, compresses the individual’s aesthetic base‑layer

boundary to a single standard. Even if teaching content is rich (diverse emergent‑layer

content), if evaluation operates along only one dimension, the individual’s aesthetic

direction space is still institutionally sealed — the pain of foreclosure has been institu‑

tionalized.

Non‑triviality: Common intuition would hold that “teaching diverse content is enough”

— if the curriculum covers many styles and methods, students should be able to de‑

velop plural aesthetic directions. This prediction refutes that intuition: plurality of

content does not equal plurality of evaluative dimensions; the latter is the true vari‑

able of the institutional‑layer base layer. You can show students a hundred styles, but

if the final exam grades on only one standard, the direction space remains singular.

Testable direction: Compare the diversity of subsequent creative directions among

graduates of different aesthetic education models. If the prediction holds, graduates

from education models with plural evaluative dimensions will have significantly more

diverse subsequent aesthetic exploration than graduates from models with singular

evaluative dimensions, even if the latter were exposed to equally rich teaching content

during their studies.

8.5 Cross‑Layer Transmission Prediction: Non‑Linear Acceleration of Dual‑

Layer Colonization

Prediction: When institutional‑layer aesthetic colonization and relational‑layer aes‑

thetic colonization simultaneously act on an individual, the speed of aesthetic integrity

collapse will accelerate non‑linearly — far faster than the simple sum of any single‑

layer colonization effects. The effect of single‑layer intervention will be significantly

weaker than dual‑layer simultaneous intervention.

Derivation logic: The framework’s cross‑layer transmission model predicts that the

effect of simultaneous multi‑layer colonization is not a linear addition of each layer’s

effect but non‑linear acceleration — because each layer’s colonization weakens the

defense capacity of the other layers.

Institutional‑layer colonization (singular aes‑

thetic standards pushed by media/algorithms) weakens the individual’s resistance

to relational‑layer colonization (“everyone thinks so, maybe they’re right that my

taste is bad”); relational‑layer colonization (aesthetic judgment replacing recognition

in social circles) weakens the individual’s capacity to filter institutional‑layer colo‑

nization (“the people around me all say so, the media says so too, it must be right”).

Simultaneous dual‑layer colonization forms a positive feedback loop; the speed of col‑

lapse far exceeds single‑layer colonization.

This prediction explains an empirical phenomenon: why is body anxiety in the so‑

cial media era more severe than in the traditional media era? Not merely because

institutional‑layer standards are more uniform (algorithmic convergence — that is

only a single‑layer effect), but because the relational layer has been simultaneously

colonized — social media feeds, comment sections, and private messages implant aes‑

thetic comparison into everyday interpersonal interaction, transforming the relational

layer from a safe space for aesthetic recognition into a second battlefield for aesthetic

competition. Dual‑layer simultaneous colonization, non‑linear acceleration.

Non‑triviality: Common intuition would hold that colonization effects are additive —

pressure from two sources equals twice the pressure. This prediction refutes that intu‑

ition: the effect of simultaneous dual‑layer colonization far exceeds double, because

the cross‑layer positive feedback loop produces a non‑linear acceleration effect. This

also means that intervention logic must be adjusted accordingly: single‑layer inter‑

vention (only media literacy education, or only improving interpersonal relationships)

will be significantly weaker than dual‑layer simultaneous intervention.

Testable direction: Compare groups that receive only media literacy education (institutional‑

layer intervention) vs. groups that simultaneously receive media literacy education +

relational‑layer aesthetic recognition intervention (dual‑layer intervention), measur‑

ing differences in aesthetic autonomy recovery. If the prediction holds, the effect of

dual‑layer intervention will significantly exceed the simple sum of single‑layer inter‑

vention effects.

Chapter 9. Conclusion: Aesthetics as the Everyday Battlefield

of Subject‑Conditions

9.1 Recovery of Core Theses

This paper has argued that aesthetics is a structural field of subject‑conditions, fully

analyzable through the Self‑as‑an‑End framework’s three‑layer, two‑dimensional struc‑

ture. The following is a recovery of the core thesis of each chapter.

First, the Chinese lexical distinction between meixue and shenmei corresponds to the

framework’s base layer and emergent layer two‑dimensional structure. Meixue is the

negativity of boundary‑drawing (codifiable, institutionalizable); shenmei is the pos‑

itivity of subject‑resonance (cannot be commanded, cannot be derived from rules).

Between them exists a relationship of dialectical support rather than identity. The

reason disputes about “is this beautiful or not” are irresolvable is that they conflate

base‑layer judgment and emergent‑layer experience. (Chapter 2)

Second, the two‑dimensional structure of aesthetics has specific instantiation at each

of the three layers; the three layers are formally isomorphic but functionally asym‑

metric. The institutional layer constitutes the boundary conditions of aesthetics, the

relational layer constitutes the transmission medium, and the individual layer con‑

stitutes the layer of final realization. The four‑quadrant states (flourishing, dormant,

overdrawn, depleted) and four structural pains (unfulfillment, intolerability, foreclo‑

sure, inescapability) of aesthetics each have domain‑specific instantiations. (Chapter

Third, shenmei experience itself has a two‑dimensional structure — negative shenmei

and positive shenmei. Between negative shenmei and colonization risk exists a struc‑

tural affinity in grammatical form, but this is a probabilistic association rather than a

deterministic identity. Positive shenmei can equally colonize. The interaction struc‑

ture of social media inherently amplifies negative shenmei, constituting an accelera‑

tor of contemporary aesthetic colonization. (Chapter 4)

Fourth, the core of aesthetic problems is a transmission problem, not a content prob‑

lem. The structural nature of the same aesthetic expression is determined by the layer

at which it operates and whether transmission conditions are met, not by its content.

Preference is genuine emergence (protected), but the structural effect of preference

in the public sphere is participation in boundary‑rewriting (needing to be identified).

Both things are simultaneously true. (Chapter 5)

Fifth, colonization and cultivation are the negative and positive of transmission, shar‑

ing the same transmission structure. Colonization occurs at the level of pre‑reflective

perceptual structure; therefore cognitive‑level “exposure” is insufficient to dissolve

colonization. Cultivation does not equal protection — overprotection eliminates the

conditions for catalytic pain and produces dormancy. The structural challenge of aes‑

thetic education is maintaining a balance between protecting the base layer and pre‑

serving catalytic resistance. (Chapter 6)

Sixth, the present framework integrates and goes beyond the existing contributions

of Baumgarten, Kant, Bourdieu, and Ranciere. It provides two‑dimensional distinc‑

tion for Baumgarten, supplements cross‑layer transmission and colonization identifi‑

cation for Kant, restores positive emergent‑layer analysis for Bourdieu, and builds a

three‑layer structural model for Ranciere. (Chapter 7)

Seventh, the framework produces four cross‑layer non‑trivial predictions — individual

layer (irreversibility of internalized colonization), relational layer (protective effect of

recognition), institutional layer (direction‑compression effect of evaluative dimension

singularization), and cross‑layer transmission (non‑linear acceleration of dual‑layer

colonization) — testable in principle through empirical research. (Chapter 8)

9.2 Framework Contribution

This paper demonstrates the applicative power of the Self‑as‑an‑End framework in the

aesthetic domain.

This application is not “fitting” the framework onto aesthetics — not forcing aes‑

thetic phenomena into a preset structural template. Rather, it is a bidirectional illu‑

mination between the framework and the aesthetic domain: the framework provides

aesthetics with a structural model it previously lacked (two‑dimensional distinction,

three‑layer transmission, colonization identification); aesthetics provides the frame‑

work with its most everyday, most foundational experiential field of validation (aes‑

thetics is the most primal interface of contact between subjects and the world — before

reflection, before judgment, before institutions, there is perception).

The present framework does not provide “the correct aesthetic standard” — that it‑

self would be colonization. What it provides are structural distinction tools:

Distinguishing emergent‑layer feeling from base‑layer judgment — your feeling is real,

but it is not equivalent to a boundary condition.

Distinguishing relational‑layer expression from institutional‑layer effect — your aes‑

thetic dialogue in relationships is the natural operation of the emergent layer, but the

same expression at the institutional layer may participate in boundary‑rewriting.

Distinguishing cultivation from colonization — the enrichment of the emergent layer

may be spontaneous growth (cultivation) or the internalization of external standards

(colonization). The two may be phenomenologically identical; the criterion for dis‑

tinction is structural conditions, not content.

9.3 Open Questions

Three questions are left for subsequent research.

Technological institutionalization of aesthetics. Have algorithmic recommendation

systems in fact become the boundary‑condition setters of the aesthetic institutional

layer? This paper positions algorithms as “content‑indifferent transmission acceler‑

ators” — they amplify existing transmission but do not themselves produce aesthetic

standards. However, when the amplification effect of algorithms is strong enough,

have they in fact crossed the threshold from “accelerator” to active setter of bound‑

ary conditions? This question connects with the open discussion on the technology

layer in Paper 3 of the framework.

Cross‑cultural aesthetic transmission. The meta‑structure of this framework is a pri‑

ori; it does not depend on any particular cultural tradition — aesthetics in any culture

faces the dialectical structure of base layer / emergent layer and the dynamics of three‑

layer transmission. But the three‑layer weights and transmission pathways of aesthet‑

ics may differ across cultures. For instance, in collectivist cultures the transmission

weight of the relational layer may be higher than in individualist cultures; in cultures

with deep religious traditions the boundary conditions of the institutional layer may

be more rigid. Trajectory differences do not weaken the framework’s validity; they

precisely demonstrate its validity — the same structure produces different trajectories

under different boundary conditions.

The resistance threshold of aesthetic cultivation. Cultivation requires the presence

of catalytic pain, but where is the boundary between catalytic pain and trauma? What

kind of aesthetic challenge, under what base‑layer conditions, constitutes catalysis

(driving emergent‑layer growth) rather than trauma (attacking the base layer itself)?

This question has direct implications for the practical design of aesthetic education

and makes demands on the operationalization of the “secure base” concept in the

framework.