the dynamic and mathematical sublime

Speaking of wonder, Xefirotarch, as mentioned below, claims to be very much inspired by Kant's notion of the sublime. In the Critique of Judgment, Kant holds forth on what he describes as two distinct species of sublime: the dynamic and the mathematical. The former is terrorizing-but-awe-inspiring and deals with a “tremendous force that dwarfs our power of resistance into insignificance.” A lightning storm certainly would conjure this experiential quality of dynamic sublime, but this exists as a kind of supplement too: it at once points out that we are inconsequential in the grand majesty of seismic and cosmic reactions, but at the same time bestows a visual and psychic transcendence upon us. The mathematical sublime is that which produces pleasure, albeit a negative pleasure, and inspires wonder. It spurs on the imagination – apparently “the mind is alternately attracted and repelled by the object.” I like this subtle distinction on Kant's part (hear that? good job, Immanuel!) and am certainly curious to find out more, and explore the feeling of wonder, and the mathematical sublime in future installation work (questions: what is wonder? why does that feeling arise in us? how come children seem to contain a more robust sense of wonder than adults? does it stem from things unknown or majestic? is it primarily about the imagination? does it have to be large scale, or can you experience an intimate and tiny feeling of wonder, or an overwhelming one based on a small scenario? can wonder really ever be shared, or is it about the individual and the object of wonder, even when others are present? how is the feeling of wonder communicated (it is something almost beyond language, but a common and very much palpable experience)?).