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

# Re: Essential Meaning objectivity

#### Message 01923 of 3835

- To: <BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com>
- Subject: Re: [BardonPraxis] Essential Meaning objectivity
- From: "Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@...>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:59:59 -0800
- References: <bqouh0+e0jg@eGroups.com>

    Dear M,

    >> In reading Rawn's inspiring post on synesthesia <<

    Actually, that was on the FBM. :) I'll try to remember to post it here
    as well so folks will know what you're referring to.

    >> and doing a bit of experimenting with the perception of Essential
    Meaning, I have come to the conclusion that essential meaning is
    conveyed through an object's form, but often has little to do with how
    the object appears. <<

    An object's physical appearance is directly related to its essential
    meaning. Physical form is the densest manifestation of essential
    meaning. What makes it *seem* disconnected are our filters of
    perception, but when you remove those filters, it is possible to
    *directly* perceive an object's essential meaning *through* its form.
    In other words, the form clearly expresses essential meaning but we
    seldom perceive a form *clearly* and without filtration.

    >> There are various points that bring me to this consclusion: Changing
    an object on a physical level does not change it's essential meaning
    (i.e. a roses essential meaning doesn't change because you paint it to
    look like a dandelion) <<

    I disagree. Every change in form represents a shift in essential
    meaning. The essential meaning of a rose is different than that of a
    dandelion. However, the essential meaning conveyed by a painter's
    rendition of a rose might well be the same as his intention behind
    painting a dandelion.

    >> Although a plastic figure of King Kong (using Rawn's example)
    expresses it's *personality* clearly (gregariousness, courage, etc) -
    it's essential meaning has little or nothing in common with these
    perceptions of personality - my reasoning is that a person from another
    culture could perceive it's personality as being shy and embarrassed,
    and surely an object's essential meaning does not change dramatically
    depending on who is looking at it. These personality traits simply make
    it easier to CONNECT with the object and PERCEIVE the essential meaning.
    <<

    Here again, we must differentiate between the *perception* and the
    essential meaning itself. The perception of an object's personality is
    an interaction between object and observer. This interaction does lead
    us to connecting with the essential meaning expressed by that object's
    personality but our perception of the personality also includes a bit of
    ourselves and thus, seems disconnected from the *object's* own essential
    meaning.

    Working with the personality of an object, as in my exercise with the
    plastic figurines, is helpful in that it takes us one step or level
    closer to essential meaning. But it is only a bridge which, as you
    stated correctly, connects us -- we must still penetrate deeper by
    crossing that bridge.

    >> This, of course, begs the question of, where does the essential
    meaning of the King Kong come from (I think it is located on the
    Atziluthic Plane, but I mean how did it come into being), and how does
    it relate to the physical form - I've reasoned that it has little in
    common with the King Kong's personality, does it have something in
    common with the plastic the figure is made out of? <<

    Essential meaning is a holistic thing that encompasses all the factors
    of a thing's being, not just one specific factor. The essential meaning
    of the King Kong figurine for example, arises from the intention of the
    original designer, the cultural history of the image, the materials it
    was made from, the workers in the factory who actually made it, its
    final form, etc.

    >> 1 If the King Kong was broken into a million pieces, and these were
    scattered about the place, would they still be an expression of the
    essential meaning from when they were a big King Kong? <<

    No. Each piece would then express a different essential meaning than
    the whole had.

    >> 2 When a painter creates a painting, I assume this painting has an
    essential meaning of it's own - how then is it possible that
    manipulating physical material (paints, canvas, etc) cannot change
    essential meaning? Or does the artists *intention* somehow effect
    things on another level? <<

    The artist's intention is the primary factor in the creation of their
    work's essential meaning. Every brush stroke and each variation of
    color contributes something to the final expression. The essential
    meaning of a painting will evolve as the artist works on it.

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

- Prev by Date: Re: Sequential order
- Next by Date: Fw: re. Synesthesia
- Previous by thread: Essential Meaning objectivity
- Next by thread: Re: Essential Meaning objectivity
- Indexes:
  - Main
  - Thread

Main Index | Thread Index