Iacchus: What is the relationship between essence and form?

[FZ+]

This is a continuation of the essence and form discussion started in Materialism vs Idealism.

A summary:

FZ hypothesis: essence = form, to at least a close degree. The two cannot be separated.

Iacchus theory: essence is eternal and forms the focus around which form can accrete.

LW Sleeth: FZ, that doesn't make sense...

-----


Iacchus: Why do you consider cognitive to be eternal? I think of it as the ultimate example where form and pattern mean the essence we call consciousness.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
This is a continuation of the essence and form discussion started in Materialism vs Idealism.

A summary: . . . LW Sleeth: FZ, that doesn't make sense...

Very funny. I am starting to think you are a trouble maker.

In any case, let me think of a good argument.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by FZ+
Like different reactions within all their cells, an excess of calcium in the bloodstream, certain parts switched to self destruct mode, lack of breathing, end of coherent synapse signals in brain, end of blood current...

Death is a very physical affair.

But why is it that we're cognitive one moment and gone the next? I don't know, but there's something about being cognitive, that at least to me, suggests that which is eternal. And indeed "the moment" is--by which cognizance manifests--"eternal."

Note: Have also attempted to define this on the two previous threads, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=611" ...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Iacchus: Why do you consider cognitive to be eternal? I think of it as the ultimate example where form and pattern mean the essence we call consciousness.

Isn't cognizance and consciousness one and the same?

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Isn't cognizance and consciousness one and the same?

I think to have cognizance (sp) means to re-cognize thoughts or events... as in... using the congnitive process to identify a previous experience and work from there.

I would imagine that consciousness is a result of the cognitive process. The cognitive process gives rise to a desire to create more re-cognizable events and thoughts and so... one makes the conscious desicion to pursue new and wonderful events and thoughts... in a conscious manner...

Sub-consciously, in humans... most events, thoughts and matters have been absorbed, quanified, qualified and otherwise "experienced" by-way of cognitive process... yet the conscious is not aware of this myradical set of subconsciousunderstandings. The conscious is coaxed to find prompters in the external in an attempt to meld with its counterpart's inate intellegence...(of the sub-conscious).

Could be... but... next time I'll try to address essence and form

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Could be... but... next time I'll try to address essence and form

Could I take that to mean yes?

You see I could say I'm "cognizant" of my surroundings, and also say I'm "conscious" of my surroundings, which pretty implies the same thing, Right?

 

[wuliheron]

Essence is a slippery term which can imply the magical and various forms are often considered magical. Magicians, wizards, and witches will make assorted geometric patterns on the floor, the walls, and by waving their hands in the air. Essence then can represent magic while forms represent the performance of magic.

These associations can be traced back to more primative Shamanistic cultures and may relate to the final altered state of consciousness exhibited by sensory deprived people. Notably, many of the more shamanistic cultures employ sensory deprevation such as meditating in caves for days on end. The final stage of sensory deprevation is that the subject no longer thinks or dreams of anything. Instead, they just visualize geometric shapes.

Undoubtedly geometry or form is rudamentary to existence.
Essence may be the other side of the coin.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
This is a continuation of the essence and form discussion started in Materialism vs Idealism.

A summary:

FZ hypothesis: essence = form, to at least a close degree. The two cannot be separated.

I have thought about it for a couple of hours and decided I don't yet understand what you are saying. Can you explain your idea more? Can you give examples of how essence and form are inseparable?

I can say at this point that I can see how form cannot be separated from essence, but I cannot understand why you say essence can't survive (and even thrive) being disassociated from form.

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=830&perpage=15&pagenumber=8" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by nevagil
By the way, we have observed enough rocks to say they are not conscious. This ain't spiritual geology 101. If we can't agree on that, we will have trouble getting anywhere.

When a class called spiritual botany 101 evolves I think they'll say plants are not conscious also. Boy, would I be embarassed if a tree just falls on me now.

And yet there is an energy field (or pattern) which defines it as a rock. And let's say you had a dream about a rock? How do you know that what you're dreaming about is not somehow subconsciously connected (through its energy field) to an actual rock? In which case it might be reasonable to "assume" that rocks exist within the realm of the "collective unconscious." And, while they may not be cognizant as rocks, they still remain a part of "consciousness" as a whole.

Which brings up another question. How does one engery field react towards another, when say, two people get together and begin to socialize? If you could observe their energy fields without the physical mass, what would that entail? This is also the "very essence" by the way, which leaves the body almost immediately after death.

 

[steppenwolf]

Originally posted by wuliheron

These associations can be traced back to more primative Shamanistic cultures and may relate to the final altered state of consciousness exhibited by sensory deprived people. Notably, many of the more shamanistic cultures employ sensory deprevation such as meditating in caves for days on end. The final stage of sensory deprevation is that the subject no longer thinks or dreams of anything. Instead, they just visualize geometric shapes.

Undoubtedly geometry or form is rudamentary to existence.
Essence may be the other side of the coin.

i would think it would be quite the opposite, geometry is what would be considered 'essence', physical form, say, a wheel, is a crude imitation of the essential perfection of the idea of 'circle'. behind every wheel form is the essence of a circle basically.

 

[wuliheron]

i would think it would be quite the opposite, geometry is what would be considered 'essence', physical form, say, a wheel, is a crude imitation of the essential perfection of the idea of 'circle'. behind every wheel form is the essence of a circle basically.

Funny that you should use the example of a wheel. Here is an example of magical poetry expressing this relationship:

Tools
Thirty spokes meet at a nave;
Because of the hole we may use the wheel.
Clay is moulded into a vessel;
Because of the hollow we may use the cup.
Walls are built around a hearth;
Because of the doors we may use the house.
Thus tools come from what exists,
But use from what does not.


This kind of magical view ranges from the polytheistic to the atheistic. An atheist, for example, can believe existence itself is magical if nothing else. A miracle out of the blue so-to-speak which, in the final analysis, is paradoxical, that is, both form and essence are the same thing.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Could I take that to mean yes?

You see I could say I'm "cognizant" of my surroundings, and also say I'm "conscious" of my surroundings, which pretty implies the same thing, Right?

No... what I am saying is that one may not be conscious of their cognizant collection of cognitions.

I also assert that the cognitive process gives rise to consciousness. Consciousness is not always correct in its interpretation and its use of the cognitions, which are the facts, impressions etc... collected.

Consciousness could be construed to be the FORM taken from the ESSENCE of the cognizant behavior of neurons.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's an example of Form and Essence.

I have a thought that consists of a motive. (essence)

I carry out an action motivated by a thought (form)

I am considering starting a topic in the Psuedomysticogemoelectromagicalsciences area titled

Manifestation

This concept contains many of the elements that this topic will hold... yet... it could go into some very strange "loopy" logic and could look at the physics of metaphyics.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
No... what I am saying is that one may not be conscious of their cognizant collection of cognitions.

I also assert that the cognitive process gives rise to consciousness. Consciousness is not always correct in its interpretation and its use of the cognitions, which are the facts, impressions etc... collected.

Consciousness could be construed to be the FORM taken from the ESSENCE of the cognizant behavior of neurons

Consciousness could be the essence, which is being held in the physical world by neurons, yet abiding "above" its neuronal host as a witness; cognition could be the result of the sensitivity of the essence consciousness to energetic events that register there; interpretation and all other reasoning functions could be the computer brain being used by the metaphysical essence consciousness; and understanding could be when sufficient input has "impressed" essence consciousness so that a global, synergistic transformation occurs.

But then, maybe not.

 

[FZ+]

I have thought about it for a couple of hours and decided I don't yet understand what you are saying. Can you explain your idea more? Can you give examples of how essence and form are inseparable?

Heh. I am try to form a new philosophy interrelating the idea of form and essence. My approach is that essence itself is something that we have only in interpretation. Ie. It is innately a subjective notion, requiring understanding. The fact that essence is something we cannot really locate in reality leads me to consider that essence is form. When we talk about the essence of something, like the essence of life, the essence of water etc, we talk about properties. We talking about the things of the object that are essential for our definition of what that really is. These properties come only from the form, of the action of the whole of an item. In life, it is the pattern of cells in harmony.
Essence is something we establish it as having the moment the form reaches the necessary structure for it. Consider the essence as our concept of an object and form as our image of the object. In terms of perspectives, what we consider the essence, and whether it is present is completely interdependent on the image of the form. While essence can be the word "water", and it's connations of "flowing", or "wet", form is the H2O, the thing we connect with. The mind works by setting up these relations, and so we cannot have the dissociated essence or form.

I can say at this point that I can see how form cannot be separated from essence, but I cannot understand why you say essence can't survive (and even thrive) being disassociated from form.

I am saying that the essence is nothing else than our understanding of the form. Without the necessary form, we cannot contemplate the essence. Is a random mix of hydrogen and oxygen gas "water"? No, it is the form of hydrogen and oxygen together that we consider important. Can any other form be water? No.
Now let as suppose essence does exist, and thrive without form. Then, unless we go into the idea that essence is something that is recycled, we would have a form for everything that has existed, and if we believe in the idea of a free universe, for everything that can exist. So, we end up with an infinity of essences at the same time, which is an absurdity. In terms of occarum's razor, it is far more probable that essences are simply destroyed, than exist in invisible form.

Maybe you need to be drunk to appreciate the intricacies... Hey, it's just a hypothesis.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
Heh. I am try to form a new philosophy interrelating the idea of form and essence. My approach is that essence itself is something that we have only in interpretation. Ie. It is innately a subjective notion, requiring understanding. The fact that essence is something we cannot really locate in reality leads me to consider that essence is form.

FZ, that doesn't make sense . . .

First, let me state what I believe about essence, and that is that ultimately there is only one essence of which every thing or "form" existing is composed of. A monistic view to be sure.

Maybe we can't locate it because every sort of detecting device and power source we have is a form of this necessarily more-subtle essence.

Originally posted by FZ+
When we talk about the essence of something, like the essence of life, the essence of water etc, we talk about properties. We talking about the things of the object that are essential for our definition of what that really is. These properties come only from the form, of the action of the whole of an item. In life, it is the pattern of cells in harmony.

It seems like you are talking about something's constituents, but I don't think you've taken it to the level of "essence" yet. Yes, everything we know seems to be made up of more basic forms. Even atoms have constituent parts. However, an atom and its parts can be converted to energy. What are the parts that compose energy?

Originally posted by FZ+
Essence is something we establish it as having the moment the form reaches the necessary structure for it. Consider the essence as our concept of an object and form as our image of the object. . . . I am saying that the essence is nothing else than our understanding of the form. Without the necessary form, we cannot contemplate the essence.

That reminds me of Plato's "Forms" and a little of Leibniz's monadology, except it seems you are saying essence is purely a concept with no corresponding existence in reality. If I understand you, you mean essence is simply a way to recognize what makes a "form" have the characteristics it does. I can see essence used like that, and even having usefulness in terms of understanding forms. But it doesn't really allow essence to have a reality of its own.

Originally posted by FZ+
Is a random mix of hydrogen and oxygen gas "water"? No, it is the form of hydrogen and oxygen together that we consider important. Can any other form be water? No.

But I think you are not giving enough importance to potentiality, which is diminished when essence assumes form. For example, you can have many forms of of wood furnature, of which wood is the common denominator. If I were a dictator and said I am going to force you to choose for the world that it can have either all the wood furnature it wants or it can have all the wood it wants, which choice allows for the most potential?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But I think you are not giving enough importance to potentiality, which is diminished when essence assumes form. For example, you can have many forms of of wood furnature, of which wood is the common denominator. If I were a dictator and said I am going to force you to choose for the world that it can have either all the wood furnature it wants or it can have all the wood it wants, which choice allows for the most potential?

How about quantity (mass) versus "innate quality?" ... Or code?

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
FZ, that doesn't make sense . . .

Evidently not... I think I am going to change my hypothesis a bit..

That reminds me of Plato's "Forms" and a little of Leibniz's monadology, except it seems you are saying essence is purely a concept with no corresponding existence in reality. If I understand you, you mean essence is simply a way to recognize what makes a "form" have the characteristics it does. I can see essence used like that, and even having usefulness in terms of understanding forms. But it doesn't really allow essence to have a reality of its own.

Like this. It wasn't what I initially considered, but it seems immeasurably better. I am NOW saying that essence does not have a reality of it's own. Essence represents the virtual component of existence. So while form can exist undiscovered and unobserved, hence without assigned essence, we cannot have essence without the form to generate it. Essence is something we create on observation.

First, let me state what I believe about essence, and that is that ultimately there is only one essence of which every thing or "form" existing is composed of. A monistic view to be sure.

Hmm... Like the stuff of the universe? I guess that can be a way of interpreting things... but is it useful as a concept? Because then, in perception what is important is not essence, which is uniform, but form. Essence is ironically not essential to our understanding - to the real world, it is meaningless.

Maybe we can't locate it because every sort of detecting device and power source we have is a form of this necessarily more-subtle essence.

I think there is a more fundamental reason than that. By your reasoning, all properties come not of essence, but of form. So, essence itself has no properties. And so, essence itself is by definition indetectable.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by FZ+
Evidently not... I think I am going to change my hypothesis a bit..


Like this. It wasn't what I initially considered, but it seems immeasurably better. I am NOW saying that essence does not have a reality of it's own. Essence represents the virtual component of existence. So while form can exist undiscovered and unobserved, hence without assigned essence, we cannot have essence without the form to generate it. Essence is something we create on observation.


Hmm... Like the stuff of the universe? I guess that can be a way of interpreting things... but is it useful as a concept? Because then, in perception what is important is not essence, which is uniform, but form. Essence is ironically not essential to our understanding - to the real world, it is meaningless.


I think there is a more fundamental reason than that. By your reasoning, all properties come not of essence, but of form. So, essence itself has no properties. And so, essence itself is by definition indetectable.

Yeah, FZ+, except we are talking about essence... so something spurred this on. Perhaps just other people's words have spawned the idea of essence... or perhaps it is detectable...

The essence of Beethoven (form):

What is it? It is the collection of his works... his nuances... his deafness... his persistence to carry on... his ingenuity... his funny hairdoo... his pensive look... etc etc...

All these forms do seem to work collectively/synergistically to give us an essence of Beethoven.

How about...

The essence of Cammomile:

In this case the essence of Cammomile is the pressed oils and liquids extracted from the flower of the Cammomile.

The Cammomile flower(form) is the culmination(form) of its mineral and meterological environments (or forms). These are large, big, huge components of the Cammomile flower(form)... these go into the essence of Cammomile... like having a condensed 600 acre field of wild flowers, rain storms, lightning and thunder(form) dripping from the bottle of extracted Cammomile essence.

Do these examples bring anyone any closer to an understanding of essence and form?

[zz)]

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
That reminds me of Plato's "Forms" and a little of Leibniz's monadology, except it seems you are saying essence is purely a concept with no corresponding existence in reality. If I understand you, you mean essence is simply a way to recognize what makes a "form" have the characteristics it does. I can see essence used like that, and even having usefulness in terms of understanding forms. But it doesn't really allow essence to have a reality of its own.

And yet it's the essence which "dictates" reality. Or, "is" the reality (i.e., behind form). Much in the way reality for us, can only be "experienced" through our being "conscious." Therefore is it possible that consciousness is in fact "the essence," and hence this whole notion behind M. Gaspar's "a conscious universe?"

Another question. Does essence give rise to form within form? For example, what gives rise to our thoughts? (and gives them form). Although I suppose in that sense emotions give rise to thoughts ...

Originally posted by FZ+
I think there is a more fundamental reason than that. By your reasoning, all properties come not of essence, but of form. So, essence itself has no properties. And so, essence itself is by definition indetectable.

You can't have something come from nothing can you? So there has to be a property or blueprint which lays out the code that tells the form how to take shape, like DNA perhaps?

Or perhaps essence and form are more like a chain of cause and effect? Where the one cause creates an effect, which becomes the cause which creates another effect, etc., etc. Where the "real mystery" lies in discovering what lies beneath each layer, like peeling an onion perhaps? ...

 

[wuliheron]

The essence of Beethoven (form):

What is it? It is the collection of his works... his nuances... his deafness... his persistence to carry on... his ingenuity... his funny hairdoo... his pensive look... etc etc...

Yeah, this leads back to what I said before about essence and form being possibly two sides of the same coin. Where do you draw the line and say this is Beetoven and this is not either in form or in essence? Modern physics deals with relationships and I think when discussing a lot of metaphysical things like this that is essentially what it comes down to.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+Hmm... Like the stuff of the universe? I guess that can be a way of interpreting things... but is it useful as a concept? Because then, in perception what is important is not essence, which is uniform, but form. Essence is ironically not essential to our understanding - to the real world, it is meaningless.

If there were a way to experience the “stuff of the universe” you’d acquire knowledge of the first principle of existence, and therefore have a basis for insight into every “form” that the “stuff” has taken.

Originally posted by FZ+By your reasoning, all properties come not of essence, but of form. So, essence itself has no properties. And so, essence itself is by definition undetectable.

I do not recall reasoning or implying that. I don’t know if you read the opening post in my thread on “potentiality” but there I inferred from universal traits present in creation several properties of the stuff including, vibrancy, luminescence, and concentrative force.

I think most the explanations people are giving in this thread for essence can be useful concepts. When you see a form, like a successful movie, business, music, marriage, etc., it can be very useful to understand what made it “work.” That is, to examine its makeup and see what contributed to the success. Some here are using essence and form in that way.

It is just a personal interest of mine to wonder what the most fundamental essence is; what it is that is so basic it cannot be further reduced. You think even if such a something exists, it has no practical value. But I’ve found it to be a very useful contemplation.

 

[FZ+]

You can't have something come from nothing can you? So there has to be a property or blueprint which lays out the code that tells the form how to take shape, like DNA perhaps?

DNA, by LW's (at least, as I see it) interpretation, would be based on form, or the arrangement of it's constituent parts. Rather, while form can reproduce it's pattern, essence would be merely a resource.

If there were a way to experience the “stuff of the universe” you’d acquire knowledge of the first principle of existence, and therefore have a basis for insight into every “form” that the “stuff” has taken.

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.

I do not recall reasoning or implying that. I don’t know if you read the opening post in my thread on “potentiality” but there I inferred from universal traits present in creation several properties of the stuff including, vibrancy, luminescence, and concentrative force.

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. (Ok, stop me now if I am going too far) So, what does literally infinitely many everythings have in common? I believe nothing. So in terms of properties, essence can have no properties.
Now, suppose we have a base layer of properties that is set out by the essence. If we try to detect it, would we not be inevitably clouded by the form? A sort of Heisenberg's uncertainty, on the philosophical level.

Anyway, any comments on my idea that essence is the virtual part of existence, the mental counterpart of form?

 

[FZ+]

Do these examples bring anyone any closer to an understanding of essence and form?

I think it can be shoehorned into my idea that essence is the property set in our minds that we associate with a particular form. Essence of camommile for example, is made to represent the taste and smell that our mind use to recognise the physical form of cammomile. It is "what we find important".

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think it can be shoehorned into my idea that essence is the property set in our minds that we associate with a particular form. Essence of camommile for example, is made to represent the taste and smell that our mind use to recognise the physical form of cammomile. It is "what we find important".

I'm seeing the essence of this topic now. Thank you!

edit I stayed in a town in Deutchland for a while called Essene... as in "Delicatessene"... as in eating... or nourishment...

Essence has an element of nourishment to it. Like a mastigation of one's resources... a synthesis of one's surroundings that creates the essence of nourishment.

I don't think essence stops at being a "thought-form" but is moreover in the realm of "Sum Of The Parts Being Greater Than The Whole..." or "essence".

note: The Essene (sp) sect of the Judaen approximation may have some writings that pertain to Essence... as well.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think it can be shoehorned into my idea that essence is the property set in our minds that we associate with a particular form. Essence of camommile for example, is made to represent the taste and smell that our mind use to recognise the physical form of cammomile. It is "what we find important".

Hey, gettin' close! Isn't that basically what form does, accretes itself around that which it deems important? Or else why do we do anything?

 

[FZ+]

No. Essence is that which we apply to the form. The set of values we put on it.

 

[Iacchus32]

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?"

 

[Les Sleeth]

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 possesses 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.