The duration and delivery of the dialogue are part of the aesthetic content (terse, spare, long, flowery, etc). The linguistic meaning of the dialogue is not.
Right. Because the manner in which you talk has no effect on the meaning of your speech.
Your dualism in this matter is a false construction and the real sophism here. Who could deny that, for example, the imagery of a poem is part of its aesthetic and part of any aesthetic consideration of it; and yet these images are no differently apprehended than the "linguistic meaning" of words. They, too, are "interpreted" from the sound of the language, and yet you would have us believe such an interpretation is non-aesthetic. So much for the imagery of poets: whatever they may be, Nothing assures us they not
Choreography, lighting, set design, costume design, physical casting (the appearance of the actors), musical accompaniment, sound mixing / manipulation of acoustics (where used) - these are the core aesthetic components in a stage play.
Those things create sensory impressions, yes. But aesthetics is more
than just simple sense impressions. Again, I will quote the Phililogical Museum: "Perception in general is something very different from [aesthetics,] that peculiar and complex modification of it which takes cognizance of the beauties of poetry and art. Esthetics would naturally designate the doctrine of perception in general."
Aesthetics is a "doctrine" of perception and not simple perception itself, of which aesthetics is a "peculiar and complex modification." Not only that, but as expressely stated, aesthetics is a specific school which takes "cognizance" of the beauty of poetry and art. Your whole sophistical point has been to try to pretend the mind and the senses operate distinctly from on another and that any attempt to use the mind to understand a thing (like language, as tho' one didn't apprehend the sound and the sense simultaneously, like there was a gap between the processes!) suddenly shuts off your senses altogether and is performed in some giant brain-vacuum. Nonsense. You do not understand aesthetics.
The whole point of appreciating poetry aesthetically--plays included--is to appreciate the sound and the sense working together and to understand the effect the words have on your emotions and thoughts. Your inability to understand this point is mystifying and I'm going to assume you're doing it entirely for the sake of argument. There is no dualism on this point. There is no
legimitate aesthetic appreciation of poetry or drama which treats it like a piece of uncomprehensible, non-representational music, and thinks its meaning is non-formal and beside the point. Aesthetic criticism is all about understanding
the way that your taste and your emotions and your thoughts have been affected by the culmulative impressions made on you by the art-object in and of itself; it is active, not passive; it requires thought and interpretation. Read Walter Pater and John Ruskin. You will not find any aesthetic understanding in them that matches your narrow conception of it.
Aesthetics refers to the first definition - ie. the actual sound of the word, as perceived by the senses; the overall sensory impression created. 'Sense', in the context of your sentence above, refers to the latter definition - which is something different altogether.
No, that would be nothing more than a simple perception. In your defintion, there is nothing that distinguishes "aesthetic" from simple sense perception at all. Casually and uninterestedly looking in front of me as I walk is as "aesthetic" a moment as watching Tarkovsky. What a debasement of the term! It is you who've made the word aesthetic pointless.
Aesthetic, as I've been trying, in vain, to get you to understand, is a peculiar and particular receptiveness and cogitation upon the impressions created by an object of art based upon the function of its elements (yes, words included, those things most calculated to make impressions). Until you understand this you will not understand aesthetics nor your own argument.
By your definition, what are the NON-aesthetic components of a film or play?
The political or historical context of the piece. Theoretical or ideological approaches to the material. Extrapolations from the material. Anything not part of the formal construction of the thing, really.