Re: [BardonPraxis] Re:Essential meaning

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

Dear Scott,

Nice to hear from you. :)

>> Is the 'core' essential meaning the same for everybody that perceives
it? In other words, we as individuals will color the perception with
subjectivity or emotion, but is the core essential meaning, the root,
exactly the same no matter who is perceiving the form?
For example, if we look at a rose someone may perceive it's essential
meaning as beauty and another as proportion or something different, but
at the core; is the innermost essential meaning the same for everybody
or does it express itself differently for different people? <<

Essential meaning is the same for all who *directly* perceive it. Where
variation arises is in the *interpretation* of essential meaning. That
is when it becomes a subjective, personalized thing, but this is not
*direct perception*.

Your description of the essential meaning forming a 'core' and the
interpretation/subjectification forming an outer shell, so to speak, is
*only how it appears*. It appears this way when one is looking through
the filter of personal, thinking, interpreting self. But this is really
*our* (i.e., the interpreter's) projection, not an attribute of
essential meaning.

In other words, essential meaning *appears* to be at the 'core' of
things only when we look *through* our own filters of subjectification.
So what *appears* to conceal it is really only ourselves -- it is never
truly concealed or hidden.

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