Aesthetics and Purposelessness

On the assumption that the behavior of particular human organisms is essentially teleological, i. e. a means to an end, unpurposeful activity is not natural, and is only possible through the supervention of some impersonal vehicle. Hence, to enjoy the mere appearance of an object, in abstraction from any end that the object might serve, is possible only via some transcendence of subjectivity, most frequently a Universal idea. But, on the Formaterial thesis, human activity is fundamentally self-creativity, and the experience of an object is primarily constructive, so, unpurposeful behavior is exemplary of personhood. Part of the historical endurance of the teleological model is due to a lack of what Formaterialism calls the 'Material Principle', which accounts for e. g. the locomotility of a particular organism independent of any external stimulus. But, part, too, may be simply due to interpreting the natural dependence of a child as natural purposefulness, which the equally natural playfulness of a child, e. g. walking for the sake of walking, tends to contradict, anyhow. So, while Formaterialism does not disagree with the tradition that holds that Aesthetic experience is in some respect symbolic of Moral experience, it does dispute that it must be on the basis of impersonalism that it is so. For, as has been discussed, Dance exemplifies Idionomic activity, and Idionomy is the locus of the Formaterial analogue of Morality, i. e. Phronetics. Or, to put it equivalently, Aesthetic experience can promote the Evolvement of the Individual from Heteronomy, or Autonomy, to Idionomy, and continues to promote it even after Idionomy is achieved.