No. There is no difference between the object and our perception of it...It is like saying brain and nervous system opposed to mind... The difference is imposed from without... We conceive of our reality spiritually, as so many essences... Well, we are confusing our filing and classification system with the reality so organized...No one can get a blade between the thing and its essence without drawing blood...

I look at it more like interchangable parts... we are all made of the same essence, the same type of things, but we are each unique as branches on a tree.

I think through asking about your definition I gave my position in a way...

I see what you are saying and this is an important point. The essence is the conception is the thing as thing. Minus our concepts/essences/names, perception would be a chaos of sensation.

This is a hard thing to address I think, the "chaos of sensation". Where does one draw the line for consciousness? Do other animals have a chaos of sensation? It would seem to point to a built in system for certain concepts. A bee may have a built in concept of "flower" or a squirrel a built in concept of an "acorn"... this is the hard part where one has to decide whether or not concepts can stem from purely physical means, and the ability of non-self aware animals to have concepts seems quite a roadblack to the idea of essence.

Koko (born July 4, 1971, at San Francisco Zoo) is a Western Gorilla who, according to Francine 'Penny' Patterson, is able to understand more than 1,000 signs based on American Sign Language,[1] and understand approximately 2,000 words of spoken English.[2] She has lived most of her life in Woodside, California, although a move to a sanctuary in Maui, Hawaii has been planned since the 1990s.[3]

This is a good point. We can't know what it's like for animals. As Witt says, we can't see out of our human form of life. But we know our human form of life from the inside.

I suspect that animals do experience a minimal essence, for much of their behavior is inexplicable without. Of course extremely simple lifeforms can just respond in basic ways to basic stimuli. But as you move up the evolutionary ladder, you can suggest that essence is more and more likely. Think of Koko. Koko (gorilla) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Koko's case it seems unreasonable to deny essence.

To me this diminishes the term essence to marking on an imaginary line. It seems to make the word a metaphor for a certain level of complexity. If the only thing separating us from lower animals is that we are self aware, then it stands to reason that our definition should incorporate that and avoid using the ability to conceptualize as a standard. Being self aware may also be marking on a line, but I think it marks on a more tangible line.

That is kind of the problem with the term essence... it is terribly slippery.

That is kind of the problem with the term essence... it is terribly slippery.

You are looking at everything from just the present perspective. If you look at everything in it's entirety, then everything necessarily happens the way it does based on events leading up to it. I'm sure you've heard of the butterfly effect. If one butterfly didn't exist as it did, then that would change the entire essence of our universe.

Nothing couldn't have happened differently in the past, or else the present and future would be different.

What is significance is that our conception is evolving. Koko is a freak, a gorilla pushed to the limit. She can't go and teach the other Gorillas. This is why man is time and not boring eternity. A minimal essence is not enough. What is required is a creative essence that can create technology and perfect self-consciousness., etc.

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 08:43 PM ----------


Essence is nothing but pure negativity that separates an object from its environment. Many animals can do this. But they can't go up a level, and essentialize their essence. Man is not just essence but the synthesis of its essence to its absolute beauty/truth. But very few humans can get that far.

What is significance is that our conception is evolving. Koko is a freak, a gorilla pushed to the limit. She can't go and teach the other Gorillas. This is why man is time and not boring eternity. A minimal essence is not enough. What is required is a creative essence that can create technology and perfect self-consciousness., etc.

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 08:43 PM ----------


Essence is nothing but pure negativity that separates an object from its environment. Many animals can do this. But they can't go up a level, and essentialize their essence. Man is not just essence but the synthesis of its essence to its absolute beauty/truth. But very few humans can get that far.

If I were you, I would try to find a more common way of saying what you're trying to say. I do not think many people will be receptive to you if you keep talking about "pure negativity", "essentialize their essence", synthesis of its essence", etc... I have tried to understand you, and I think I do to a degree, but if you wish to share this view I think it would be helpful for you to try and make it more comprehensible in the few posts people will see.

I am not sure how comprehensible such ideas can be made, but that is my advice... (I try to come up with examples as much as possible)

There is a vote for the common man... Dumb down your speach to meet the expectations of the thoughtless...It is his thoughts... Let him have the whole box of words if he wants it...This isn't scrabble... Dis is filosofee.

As far as I can tell there is no end to the debate concerning determinism and what is called free will.

That's only because most people have a 19th century view of "laws of nature" as actual laws that force things to happen and other things not to happen rather than just being true descriptions of whatever happens.

In short, yes, it does. How can one define the essence of a thing without first knowing it exists?