This is rather an important point for reading this site, as I am making a distinction with my terminology that is not at all commonplace (though not unused) and not at all readily apparent.

Throughout these pages I will strive to keep distinct in their usage two very similar phrases: "the aesthetic" and "aesthetics." The distinction is easily made, however; and once recognized, easy to maintain.

"The Aesthetic": is the usage that will mark the modality and nature of the aesthetic, opposed to that of the nomic, that I loosely deliniate in the Basic Statement on Aesthetics."

"Aesthetics": is used to identify the philosophical field of aesthetics. This is a larger body of knowledge, which includes the aesthetic within its study. What it also includes is nomic aesthetics (e.i., aesthetics as derived from rationality, convention, and nomic reality). When it comes down to it, nomic aesthetics does function within the aesthetic (which I will also call "cosmic aesthetics") -- as, as described in the Basic Statement, the cosmic is the totality, and the nomic but a part of that totality; and, thus, cosmic aesthetics encompasses and recognizes the play of nomic aesthetics within the worlds of literature and art.

There is also a third term: simply, "aesthetic," as in the phrases "the aesthetic of the Imagists" and "H.D.'s early aesthetic." This, as is customary, refers to the approach to writing -- and both aesthetics and the aesthetic – by the stated individual or individual group. (Thus, one could say H.D.'s early aesthetic was constituted by an Imagist approach to poetry that created sparse use of imagery and a gentle if not broad ideation – to pop something off the top of my head.)