Re: [BardonPraxis] Re: Colour Correspondences in the Tree of Life

["Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@...>]

Dear Peter,

>> So the "light blue" is meant to express the essential meaning of
Aleph. Yet "light blue" is different for each person, despite the
fact that the essential meaning of Aleph should be the same. Which
doesn't make much sense to me, or am I trying to rationalize an
essentially intuitive process overly much? <<

The specific shade of 'light blue' that clearly and without a doubt
expresses the essential meaning of Aleph will be the same for every
person. But each person will *start* from their own version of 'light
blue' until they find The One Shade of 'light blue' that expresses the
essential meaning of Aleph. The attribution of 'light blue' therefore,
merely directs the person where to start and the person must find The
One Shade on their own.

>> Let's see if I can put this little technique into my own words. One
starts to look for the essential meaning of things where essental
meaning is clearly expressed. Then move onto other things in which
essental meaning is less clearly expressed.
So, how do you know that you've hit upon the essential meaning of a
thing? I mean, if I looked at that figure of Quasi Moto I might get
the feeling of hurt and lonliness whereas, as you stated, one could
also interpret it as hurt innocence. Is this direct perception of
essential meaning? Or is it rather the perception of essential
meaning through the filter of one's own psyche? <<

Let me quote something from that post:

"Each one of these figures communicated something about itself
*through* the details of its particular *form*. This 'something' is its
essential meaning. The *voice*, so to speak, of that essential meaning
is the form's personality -- i.e., its *emotional tone*, to use your own
term.
"The personality of each one of these figures is VERY easy to
perceive, and because it "speaks" so loudly, it's also fairly simple to
*directly* perceive the underlying essential meaning that their
personality communicates. "

So, for Quasimodo, my description of "hurt innocence" was a description
of its *personality* -- the "voice", so to speak, of its essential
meaning. A direct perception of the essential meaning occurs when you
look beneath the personality-voice. As I've said before, essential
meaning itself cannot be put into words. Words *interpret* essential
meaning -- they are not a *direct* perception.

>> For example, when I look for the direct perception of a broom, I get
the feeling of "sweeping dust and debris" as it's essential meaning. Yet
at the same time I know that that broom can be used for a multitude of
other uses that this broom could be used for. The
statement of essential meaning of "sweeping dust and debris" would just
appear to be the most common use for a broom, not exactly the best
expression of essential meaning... <<

The direct perception of a thing's essential meaning occurs *before* you
start putting your perception into words and *before* your mind begins
its process of associating past experiences with your perception. I
suggest that you work further at letting go of the rational intellect.
When your mind goes into analysis mode, force it to stop and, instead of
analyzing, just *perceive*.

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