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

# Essential Meaning objectivity

#### Message 01917 of 3835

- To: BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: Essential Meaning objectivity
- From: "metaphysics0000" <crispinp@...>
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 03:37:04 -0000
- User-agent: eGroups-EW/0.82

    Hello Everyone,
    Please feel free to comment/correct any of the points written below,
    they are my musings, and I am not an authority on this subject -

    In reading Rawn's inspiring post on synesthesia 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. 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)
    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.
    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?

    Two final points:

    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? If so, we could
    argue that all objects are an amalgam of other parts, so when we look
    at something we are perceiving an amalgam of essential meanings.

    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?

    I made a few references to http://www.abardoncompanion.com/DP3.html in
    this post, you may want to read it.

    Something to chew on.

    All the best,
    M

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

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

Main Index | Thread Index