Problem. In inherited aesthetic vocabulary, taste, beauty, and deliciousness are often treated as overlapping predicates within a single aesthetic field. This conflation obscures the structural differences between object-property registration, interpersonal resonance, and bodily assimilation. It also produces persistent misattributions, such as treating a painting as "beautiful" in the same sense as a person, or treating food as if it merely possessed an external aesthetic property.

Approach. Three-Modal Aesthetics proposes a contact-modality model: projection, resonance, and assimilation. Projection describes subject-to-thing contact and is indexed by taste / 味; resonance describes same-layer subject-to-subject contact and is indexed by beauty / 美; assimilation describes ingestive transformation and is indexed by deliciousness / 美味. The discipline therefore treats aesthetic words as structural indices rather than flexible stylistic adjectives.

Contribution. TMA re-reads Kant's disinterested pleasure as taste-studies rather than aesthetics proper, provides a misattribution table for everyday aesthetic vocabulary, and supplies a link/delink protocol for placing aesthetic experience across the MellowAcademic ecology without collapsing TMA into clinical, engineering, or value-evaluative domains. V1.5 further integrates the counter-evidence audit results: the completeness axiom is clarified as a system-internal structural closure; the "unique" claim of food is downgraded to "most typical"; the sublime is suspended as an open problem; and a cross-cultural terminology firewall is activated.

问题。既有美学词汇常把 taste / beauty / deliciousness,以及汉语中的"味 / 美 / 美味",混作同一审美域里的可替换谓词。这种混合遮蔽了对象属性登记、人际共振、身体同化之间的结构差异,也制造了大量归属错误。

方法。三模态美学提出接触模态模型:投射、共振、同化。投射描述主体对物的接触,由"味"索引;共振描述同层主体对主体的接触,由"美"索引;同化描述摄入后的主体转化,由"美味"索引。因此,本学科把美学词视为结构索引。

贡献。TMA 将康德的无利害愉悦重读为味学,提供日常美学词汇的误用归位表,并为 MellowAcademic 生态中的美学经验提供联系/去联系协议。V1.5 进一步整合反证审计结果:完备公理被明确为系统内部结构闭合;食物的"唯一"宣称降为"最典型";崇高被悬置为开放问题;跨文化术语防火墙激活。

This statement is not a theorem. It is not derived from other premises within Three-Modal Aesthetics; it is the position from which the discipline begins. Like Spinoza's substance or the Daoist 道, the ur-theme is the unargued origin — what every subsequent axiom presupposes.

这一陈述不是定理。它不从三模态美学内部的其他前提推出;它是这门学科起点的位置。如 Spinoza 的实体、道家的道,母题是不被论证的起源——每一条后续公理都预设它。

Three-Modal Aesthetics is a discipline, not a single theory. Its founding thesis: aesthetic words (taste / beauty / deliciousness) are not synonyms in a single domain — they are the attribute-words of three structurally distinct contact modalities. Every aesthetic experience must be re-positioned according to which modality is actually operating. The chronic confusion of these three is a common structural confusion pattern in inherited aesthetic vocabulary — not an ultimate root error, but a systematically recurring misattribution.

三模态美学是一门学科,不是一条理论。其奠基论题:美学词(味/美/美味)不是同一领域内的同义词——它们是三种结构上不同的接触模态的归属词。每一种美学经验必须按照实际运作的模态被重新归位。这三者的长期混淆是继承下来的美学词汇中的常见结构混淆模式——不是终极总根,而是系统性的重复归属错误。

Kant's sublime (the mathematical and the dynamical) presents a case that resists immediate classification into TMA's three modalities. The experience of being overwhelmed by vast scale or immense power — followed by a rational rebound — is neither projection (no object-property registration in the taste sense), nor resonance (the object is not a person-like entity capable of bi-directional semantic resonance), nor assimilation (no ingestion occurs). The sublime appears to involve a subject's confrontation with its own limits and a subsequent self-affirmation through reason.

康德的崇高(数学的崇高与力学的崇高)是一个抗拒被直接归入 TMA 三模态的案例。面对压倒性的巨大尺度或力量,主体先经历感官局限的痛感,然后通过理性产生超越性的快感——这既不是投射(非味觉意义上的对象属性登记),也不是共振(对象不是能够双向语义共振的人状存在者),更不是同化(没有摄入发生)。崇高似乎涉及主体与自身界限的对抗,以及随后通过理性的自我确认。

Kant (1790) framed "the beautiful" as the object of disinterested pleasure. As of V1.5, TMA's position on Kant is expressed as a structural re-reading rather than a settled scholarly verdict. The split-position now reads: Kant's phenomenology (no bodily resonance with things) remains locally accurate at the description layer and is preserved as taste-studies by TMA; his extension of surface disinterest into a general structure of aesthetics is challenged by CA's Universal Interest Principle, which holds that cognitive interest is always present. Together, TMA and CA propose a layered diagnosis of Kant's account: preserve the surface observation, challenge the structural generalization.

康德 (1790) 把"美"框定为无利害愉悦的对象。自 V1.5 起,TMA 对康德的立场表述为结构性重读,而不是已经被学界共同接受的终局裁决。分层立场现在是:康德的现象学(对物的无身体共振接触)在描述层局部准确,由 TMA 保留为味学;但他把表面无利害推广为美学一般结构的动作,受到 CA 全域利害原则的质疑——因为认知利害始终在场。TMA 与 CA 共同提出一种分层诊断:保留表面观察,质疑结构推广。

TMA does not stand in parallel to existing disciplines; it cuts vertically across them. Each existing discipline contains aesthetic experiences operating in one or more of the three modalities. TMA's role is to specify the modal distribution for each.

TMA and Cognitive Aesthetics (CA) are sibling-position disciplines. TMA handles bodily contact modalities: projection, resonance, and assimilation. CA handles cognitive-aesthetic intuition, especially how aesthetic verdicts compress cognitive-interest structures. The two sites must synchronize when a definition touches their shared interface, but they do not need to mirror every internal case study.

TMA 与认知美学 (CA) 是兄弟位态学科。TMA 处理身体接触模态:投射、共振、同化。CA 处理认知审美直觉,尤其是审美 verdict 如何压缩认知利害结构。当某个定义触及共同接口时,两站必须同步;但二者不需要镜像彼此所有内部案例。

TMA, like MetaLogic, observes the Link/Delink rule. It must specify which disciplines share modal dependency with it, and which must remain delinked to avoid forced association.

This section is a scaffold for later formal footnotes. The listed traditions are dialogue partners or boundary references; TMA does not claim to be reducible to any of them.

本节是后续正式脚注的支架。以下传统是对话对象或边界参照;TMA 不声称自己可被还原为其中任何一个传统。