Re: [BardonPraxis] Essential Meaning objectivity

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

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@...
rawn@...
http://www.ABardonCompanion.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BardonPraxis
http://E.webring.com/hub?ring=arionthebardonwe