We will always have a language problem. Right now I am wrestling with C. S. Peirce folk about what constitutes a root triad - mine is reality, ethics, aesthetics and I would defend it against Peirce himself if he was about. What I will argue is that we make language and that increasingly it will come less from the academy than the world mind that the Internet is becoming.
Aesthetic has been so tied to the "art world" (Danto) that its universal meaning has not even begun to evolve. But we will change that. Aesthetics is a characteristic of all human action. The explication of the triad in terms of a sculptor (1st, etc...) is sort of fitting pieces of a puzzle. I see things differently. First is the utterly amorphous and vague and inexpressible penumbra I sense Pierce may have evoked. I see the second as a defining challenge. A bump in the road. I think conscious consideration can accept the free choice of the values-ethical nature of that challenge. If the aim of life is truth and beauty (reasonableness) then it might follow that the proper place for aesthetics is in the third position because aesthetics embraces all action and expression. It is performance. It is representation for real. I respect Peirce and I respect this list and I would respect the "verdict" that such discussion as this is peripheral, self-referential and so forth. If that is so, I will desist and be glad to carry on dialog with anyone who thinks I am on to something.