Essence and Form

  • Thread starter FZ+
  • Start date
  • #26
FZ+
1,589
3
No. Essence is that which we apply to the form. The set of values we put on it.
 
  • #27
2,312
0
Originally posted by FZ+
No. Essence is that which we apply to the form. The set of values we put on it.
From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1158&perpage=15&pagenumber=4" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Tom
Are you reading my posts?

The standard to the without comes from the fact that there are other people who have basically the same experiences as you do. So, either the reality we all agree on is really "without" or all the people you talk to about it are "within".

Since the latter is absurd, I choose the former.
It's very easy to put labels on things. But, to "experience" the soup which is "within" the can, is an entirely different story.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Tom
What are you talking about?
I'm saying it's really easy to acknowledge what something is from the outside, almost everybody can agree upon that. But, to understand what's going on on the inside, and hence the essence or "experience" of the matter, it goes beyond just getting everybody to agree.

And yet at the same time it's far more personal and meaningful to "understand" things for oneself. Perhaps this is why in the "spiritual sense" understanding corresponds to "one's food." You know, like a "discerning palate?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,250
2
Originally posted by FZ+
By seeing the brick, do you know the house? If the essence is one that is common and fundamental, you make form the carrier of the information.

True, you don’t know the structure the house, but you know something utterly fundamental about the house. An analogy:

Say you have entered an ice sculpture contest (as you can probably tell, I like water analogies for essence/potentiality discussions, and it’s because water is so malleable). To win you must excel in several respects such as originality, intricacy and symmetry of design, etc. These are elements of form. But if you understand the potentials and limitations of frozen water, you will accentuate some things and avoid doing other things, so understanding essentiality can help guide your creative efforts.

In other words, there are different principles for form and essence. If one evaluates essence principles with the same standards one uses with form principles, then whatever essentiality has to offer will be missed.

Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm... But while potential does not equal nothing, it does not equal something either. If everything came of one single essence, then this essence would represent what everything has in common. And indeed, what anything that can exists has in common. Now, if essence is ABSOLUTELY fundamental, this would place it within the realm of all possibility, however slight, even our laws may be constructed of this essence. . . what does literally infinitely many everythings have in common?

I don’t see how you can say potentiality “does not equal something either.” The only reason you and I can discuss this issue is because potentiality is so fertile it can evolve into a living, conscious universe (at least in one location).

You are correct to reason that this essence would “represent what everything has in common . . . even our laws may be constructed of this essence,” but I don’t think you are correct to assume it “would place it within the realm of all possibility . . . literally infinitely many everythings.” Let’s return to the water analogy for a second. If water were the only essence there was, it would mean all that exists is some form of the essence water. How many sorts of water forms are possible depends on the nature of water. If, as an “essence,” water is highly neutral/flexible, then it might assume a great variety of forms; if it is too predisposed and rigid, it will allow less variation. To say some essence is the base substance of everything which does or can exist is not the same as saying the base substance is capable of anything.

Originally posted by FZ+
So, what does literally infinitely many everythings have in common? I believe nothing. So in terms of properties, essence can have no properties.

Not true. All possess energy, and all oscillate, all change, most if not all have a polar disposition . . .

Originally posted by FZ+
Anyway, any comments on my idea that essence is the virtual part of existence, the mental counterpart of form?

As I said in my previous post here, as a mental exercise I think it could be useful to understanding what makes something work. But your interpretation denies essentiality any real existence outside of the mind, so given my beliefs of course I wouldn’t be able to accept it as all there is to essentiality.
 

Related Threads on Essence and Form

  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
61
Views
13K
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
Top