Because if you actually tried to "look into the microscope" and put the same vigor into deciphering your mind as you put into churning out articles that are not even wrong only to support your initial thesis of "universe of horrors" and subsequent "aesthetic reconciliation" which, I assume, in effect goes all the way back to defending your PhD thesis, you would know that intuition and its evolution goes far beyond your simplistic interpretation and there's no need for a prescribed "default stance" you would like to see implemented (but such ignorant striving for mental "default" is the hallmark of western philosophy at least from Plato onward, so I understand that you may not be even aware of your acquired biases).

Of course, you would also know this, if you didn't dismiss (replicable!) reports that falsify your wild claims (GIYF). Frankly, without the ability to admit that you are wrong, there's no chance in the hell that you will ever know the truth. But I guess that's not your primary concern as the insane amount of words you produce almost daily clearly attests that your priorities lie elsewhere. Which is ironic when I consider your dislike of mainstream writers and their bland ideas. I guess, you still didn't grasp the fact that subversive alternative counterculture can live only in opposition to mainstream, is vitally dependent on it, and is equally misguided (plus hypocritical as every counterculture deems itself superior to mainstream despite its own shortcomings — the mainstream is at least honest about its base philistinism).

And btw. what you call artificial is merely imitation (of nature!). Elaborate beyond recognition, but still.