Re: Essential Meaning objectivity

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

Dear Rawn,
Thanks for your patient advice, I think I understand the concept now.
I won't labour this post with my experiences, but when I practice
perceiving essential meaning, I seem to receive a flash of intuition
that reveals the true 'nature' of that which I am perceiving - with
the Moon I receiving one flash in which I sensed that the Moon has a
very intimate connection with myself (and the rest of earth), though I
didn't seem to perceive the details. The experiences seem to unveil a
kind of vibrant beauty that reappears when I look at the subject again
(without trying to perceive it's e.m.).

On an unrelated note, I have been reading a book to do with Franz
Bardon/Hermetics lately, and the author really labours the point of
how correctly performed pranayama is indespensable to making progress
with IIH - he says it opens the Chakras, but doesn't this happen in
step three? 
All the best,
M




--- In BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com, "Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@n...> wrote:
> Dear M,
> 
> >> You commented in your post that:
> Quote: "Every change in form represents a shift in essential meaning."
> However, in your article that I referenced to, you stated that:
> Quote: "if you alter the physical form alone, you do not thereby change
> the essential meaning -- all you do then is express it less clearly."
> Surely these are contradictory statements? I'm not trying to play the
> angry skeptic :) I would just like to understand. <<
> 
> It sure looks contradictory, doesn't it! :) However, the /DP3.html
> quote was in reference to a *natural* form and my recent remark was in
> reference to a painter's creation (i.e., a human created form).
> 
> If, for example, we pluck one petal from the rose (nature's creation),
> we do not change the rose's essential meaning -- all we have done is mar
> its clarity of expression. However, if the painter decided to repaint
> his red rose, blue, then the essential meaning would be radically
> changed.
> 
> Another way of stating it is that only the creator of a thing can alter
> its essential meaning through an alteration of the physical form.
> 
> >> I have come to the (new) conclusion that the various parts of an
> object express a different essential meaning than the object as a whole.
> <<
> 
> That's not quite it. Each part expresses an *aspect of* the essential
> meaning of the sum of those parts.
> 
> >> So the cultural history of the image, and the (intention, accuracy?)
> of the workers who made it can be expressed to me through essential
> meaning irrespective of me having no prior knowledge of them? Sort of
> like a 'psychic perception', i.e. I could sense the cultural
> significance of an African fertility doll despite me initially thinking
> it was some sort of shrunken head used to ward off evil spirits? <<
> 
> Essentially, yes. Psychometry is rooted in the perception of an
> object's essential meaning, mostly at the astral level which is readily
> influenced by the object's environment. Essential meaning in a physical
> object also manifests astrally and mentally; therefore, the perception
> of a physical object's essential meaning will have those components to
> it as part of the perceptual gestalt. With practice, one can learn to
> focus in on one particular layer of the essential meaning's
> multi-layered expression.
> 
> My best to you,
> :) Rawn Clark
> 05 Dec 2003
> rawnclark@n...
> rawn@a...
> http://www.ABardonCompanion.com
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BardonPraxis
> http://E.webring.com/hub?ring=arionthebardonwe