Now the argument is that we cannot appropriately appreciate what we do not understand. Science understands how landscapes came to be and how they now function as communities of life. But people, too, form their communities of life; humans cannot appropriately appreciate what they do not stand-under, that is, undergo; and the scientist qua scientist does not objectively undergo any such experience. That requires persons sensitively encountering land- scapes, evaluating them, making a living on them, rebuilding them, responding to them. The argument, it seems, must spiral around two foci—the one that aesthetic experience must be participatory, relating an actual beholder.
