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

# Re: Essential Meaning objectivity

#### Message 01932 of 3835

- To: BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: Re: Essential Meaning objectivity
- From: "metaphysics0000" <crispinp@...>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:12:36 -0000
- In-reply-to: <004001c3bb8f$aedd4500$2ba37fd8@ownerbqacdlzy6>
- User-agent: eGroups-EW/0.82

    Dear Rawn,
    Thanks for your patient advice, I think I understand the concept now.
    I won't labour this post with my experiences, but when I practice
    perceiving essential meaning, I seem to receive a flash of intuition
    that reveals the true 'nature' of that which I am perceiving - with
    the Moon I receiving one flash in which I sensed that the Moon has a
    very intimate connection with myself (and the rest of earth), though I
    didn't seem to perceive the details. The experiences seem to unveil a
    kind of vibrant beauty that reappears when I look at the subject again
    (without trying to perceive it's e.m.).

    On an unrelated note, I have been reading a book to do with Franz
    Bardon/Hermetics lately, and the author really labours the point of
    how correctly performed pranayama is indespensable to making progress
    with IIH - he says it opens the Chakras, but doesn't this happen in
    step three?
    All the best,
    M

    --- In BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com, "Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@n...> wrote:
    > 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@n...
    > rawn@a...
    > http://www.ABardonCompanion.com
    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BardonPraxis
    > http://E.webring.com/hub?ring=arionthebardonwe

- Follow-Ups:
  - Re: Re: Essential Meaning objectivity
    - From: "Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@...>

- References:
  - Re: Re: Essential Meaning objectivity
    - From: "Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@...>

- Prev by Date: Bardon and Tarot
- Next by Date: Re: Bardon and Tarot
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: Essential Meaning objectivity
- Next by thread: Re: Re: Essential Meaning objectivity
- Indexes:
  - Main
  - Thread

Main Index | Thread Index