Claim. Because joy arises from accord between an external object and the subject’s internal prototypes, appreciating beauty requires that one cultivate those prototypes through purity of mind (which lets them surface naturally) and through education (which stimulates them via theoretical study and exposure).
Elaboration. Building on the epistemological claim that the human being is an ‘encapsulation of the universe,’ Lee argues that all Sungsangs and Hyungsangs of the universe exist in latent form within the human body as prototypes (Art and Joy). When one perceives a flower, one is already equipped with prototypes of its color, form, softness, etc.; recognition and aesthetic joy occur when give-and-take action confirms accord between prototype and external sense content.
The practical question follows: how does a prototype arise to surface awareness, since most prototypes sit in the subconscious? Lee names two requisites. (1) Purity of mind: ‘If one’s mind is pure, prototypes will come to the surface naturally.’ This is an ethical-spiritual condition — fallen impurity clutters consciousness and blocks aesthetic perception. (2) Education: ‘Through a theoretical study and appreciation of the various forms of beauty, the prototypes within one’s sub-consciousness are more easily stimulated and come to surface awareness.’
The combination is striking. It commits Lee to the position that aesthetic capacity is both innate (every human possesses all prototypes) and developmental (most prototypes lie dormant without cultivation). This neatly threads between aesthetic egalitarianism (anyone can in principle appreciate any beauty, since the prototypes are already there) and the empirical observation that trained appreciators experience more in artworks than untrained ones. It also means that aesthetic education is partly moral education — purity of mind is not optional.
Worth a thread: this position has uncomfortable implications. If prototypes are universal, why do cultures disagree so radically about what is beautiful? Lee’s framework would answer that differences are in which prototypes have been stimulated and which remain dormant, not in the underlying set — a position that may be empirically vulnerable but lets him maintain that ‘true beauty’ is recognizable across cultures by suitably cultivated appreciators. The Korean Sŏkkuram Buddha example later in the chapter (manifesting both national and transnational beauty) is offered as evidence for this universalism.
See also. prototype-as-standard-of-cognition, joy-arises-from-resemblance-between-subject-and-object, subjective-action-as-empathy-creative-appreciation