Question 1

Which worldly experiences transcend  from " the world of man's activity to a world of aesthetic exaltation"?

Bell seems at first to supersede the form versus content debate among representationalists and formalists. but as we discussed in class Bell's thought pattern does not completely exclude content. It suggests the relationship between the two is necessary in a more abstract way which is less respective of content and more of form. But then this I feel does in fact contradict the divorce between this world and one of "Aesthetic exaltation".

I feel that to understand this with a sincere desire to capture Bell's thought pattern we must presuppose a platonic "world of forms" view that the abstract features of content which don't denote the Hawthorne tree outside precisely but that connote their more indistinct form. With this view we can simultaneously hold that the abstract form of the tree is found in "man's" world and the other described realm, but use this understanding to support the conclusion that the organic, or real object of emotional arousal lies in the mysterious and unknown form, thus separating the spatial world from the cognitive. I feel that as observers we can conclude that there is a relationship between our perception and the environment where our perceptions have developed and I think Bell understands this by trying to removing content which denotes specific worldly structures. However, he assumes that what is left from the content, the form, is itself independent of the worldly structures which render such forms with meaningfulness that varies from person to person.

So in Bell's view I think we can separate worlds, but when we supplant his understanding of form and content with our observed insight that the form of our biology and occurance of worldly content mixed within us are themselves manifestations of the real world and are not independent of it, but dispositions embedded in us as the form of a function of our individual evolution.