Essential Meaning objectivity

["metaphysics0000" <crispinp@...>]

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