It seems defensible to propose that one of the most important tasks of both philosophical and psychological aesthetics ought to be the delineation of responses of different quality and intensity, with particular attention devoted to peak experiences.1 A related goal would presumably be the discovery of commonalities among the responses to man-made objects (works of art, architecture, and engineering) and to those induced by natural wonders.2 Furthermore, it seems self-evident that the exploration of responses would profit a comparison of their cognitive and emotional attributes with those that characterize non-aesthetic (for example, more explicitly utilitarian) responses.3 Such a comparison may also facilitate the formulation of hypotheses about the evolutionary origins of responses. These are the kinds of concerns that Vladimir Konecni's recently developed Aesthetic Trinity Theory (ATT hereafter) attempts to address.4 After presenting the main features of ATT as succinctly as possible, the article will focus on the concept of the sublime and especially on its treatment within ATT. The general point of view throughout the essay is derived psychological aesthetics and the emerging field of experimental philosophy.5 Although new empirical data regarding ATT and the sublime will not be presented in detail, references will be made to some relevant research findings and to the kind of data that it would be useful and feasible to obtain. One of the key claims will be that it is advantageous for the sublime to be conceptualized in such a way as to become amenable to meaningful operationalization and thus to experimental manipulation and measurement of its effects. In fact, a field of scholarship that genuinely respects empirical findings - regardless of whether its primary emphasis is philosophical or psychological - must require a definition of the sublime that is sufficiently rigorous and circumscribed to allow the concept to be testable or manipulable in research. It remains to be seen whether the traditional philosophers-aestheticians will agree that the gain adopting a less vague and less idiosyncratic definition of the sublime, which makes empirical work possible, offsets a certain degree of impoverishment in the content of this ancient philosophical idea. However, some preliminary results that have already been obtained are such that they would have been unlikely to be correctly predicted by thought experiments. This essay will not address music, either with regard to the sublime or to responses. The reason is that music, especially absolute music, is an exceedingly complex domain in both theoretical and empirical aesthetics, and one that abounds in conceptual and technical peculiarities; this is especially true with regard to the relationship of music and emotion.6 Aesthetic Trinity Theory In ATT, a tripartite hierarchy of responses is proposed: Aesthetic awe, as the peak experience; the state of being-moved (or being-touched), as a less pronounced experience; and thrills (or chills), as the most common experience. The three responses are conceptualized as levels of experience that differ in terms of intensity, depth, and frequency.7 In this essay, the discussion of responses of being-moved and thrills is rudimentary. Far more attention is devoted to awe, primarily because of its relationship to the sublime. Awe and Aesthetic Awe According to the Oxford English Dictionary, from its use in reference to the Divine Being [the meaning of awe] passes gradually into: dread mingled with veneration, reverential or respectful fear; the attitude of a mind subdued to profound reverence in the presence of supreme authority, moral greatness or sublimity, or mysterious sacredness.8 In an important article, Keltner and Haidt discuss awe as a moral and spiritual, as well as well as an aesthetic emotion, but do not pursue the notion of sublimity or the sublime that is offered in the OED definition. …