Not really. It's meant to suggest that some aesthetic judgments may be objective under pantheism. It's not just a question of beauty. Indeed, I emphasize nature's monstrousness. Schopenhauer hints at this line of argument, as does Lovecraft's cosmicism.

I'm not sure the aesthetic judgments would entail a cosmic purpose. On the contrary, the monstrous absurdity in question lies in the pointlessness and mindlessness of natural developments.

But I agree that we may have an instinct for recognizing or projecting aesthetic properties. That inherent skill would be ambiguous in this case, though, since all our senses and rational faculties are inherent or are based on innate aptitudes. Does that mean everything we perceive and think about is purely subjective?

It could be that we adapt to some constructed realities by evolving the ability to wrap our mind around them. So we'd simplify or humanize them, but the content of our mental representations wouldn't be purely subjective. That would be a neo-Kantian reading.