[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Main Index][Thread Index]

# Re: Re: Essential Meaning objectivity

#### Message 01928 of 3835

- To: <BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com>
- Subject: Re: [BardonPraxis] Re: Essential Meaning objectivity
- From: "Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@...>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:26:00 -0800
- References: <bqqoek+oukp@eGroups.com>

    Dear M,

    >> You commented in your post that:
    Quote: "Every change in form represents a shift in essential meaning."
    However, in your article that I referenced to, you stated that:
    Quote: "if you alter the physical form alone, you do not thereby change
    the essential meaning -- all you do then is express it less clearly."
    Surely these are contradictory statements? I'm not trying to play the
    angry skeptic :) I would just like to understand. <<

    It sure looks contradictory, doesn't it! :) However, the /DP3.html
    quote was in reference to a *natural* form and my recent remark was in
    reference to a painter's creation (i.e., a human created form).

    If, for example, we pluck one petal from the rose (nature's creation),
    we do not change the rose's essential meaning -- all we have done is mar
    its clarity of expression. However, if the painter decided to repaint
    his red rose, blue, then the essential meaning would be radically
    changed.

    Another way of stating it is that only the creator of a thing can alter
    its essential meaning through an alteration of the physical form.

    >> I have come to the (new) conclusion that the various parts of an
    object express a different essential meaning than the object as a whole.
    <<

    That's not quite it. Each part expresses an *aspect of* the essential
    meaning of the sum of those parts.

    >> So the cultural history of the image, and the (intention, accuracy?)
    of the workers who made it can be expressed to me through essential
    meaning irrespective of me having no prior knowledge of them? Sort of
    like a 'psychic perception', i.e. I could sense the cultural
    significance of an African fertility doll despite me initially thinking
    it was some sort of shrunken head used to ward off evil spirits? <<

    Essentially, yes. Psychometry is rooted in the perception of an
    object's essential meaning, mostly at the astral level which is readily
    influenced by the object's environment. Essential meaning in a physical
    object also manifests astrally and mentally; therefore, the perception
    of a physical object's essential meaning will have those components to
    it as part of the perceptual gestalt. With practice, one can learn to
    focus in on one particular layer of the essential meaning's
    multi-layered expression.

    My best to you,
    :) Rawn Clark
    05 Dec 2003
    rawnclark@...
    rawn@...
    http://www.ABardonCompanion.com
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BardonPraxis
    http://E.webring.com/hub?ring=arionthebardonwe

- Follow-Ups:
  - Re: Essential Meaning objectivity
    - From: "metaphysics0000" <crispinp@...>

- References:
  - Re: Essential Meaning objectivity
    - From: "metaphysics0000" <crispinp@...>

- Prev by Date: Re: Re: Sequential order
- Next by Date: Re: self knowledge_imagination
- Previous by thread: Re: Essential Meaning objectivity
- Next by thread: Re: Essential Meaning objectivity
- Indexes:
  - Main
  - Thread

Main Index | Thread Index