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

# Re: Essential Meaning objectivity

#### Message 01925 of 3835

- To: BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: Re: Essential Meaning objectivity
- From: "metaphysics0000" <crispinp@...>
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:05:40 -0000
- In-reply-to: <007401c3bb62$1d304e40$cfa37fd8@ownerbqacdlzy6>
- User-agent: eGroups-EW/0.82

    Dear Rawn,
    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.

    My observations were based mostly upon the second quote, but the first
    quote seems to clear things up.

    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.

    One more thing:

    Quote:
    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.

    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?
    All the best,
    M

    --- In BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com, "Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@n...> wrote:
    > 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@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: Essential Meaning objectivity
    - From: "Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@...>

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

Main Index | Thread Index