I've noticed over my few days on here that there is some confusion about essence. I myself am confused. However, I think I can aid at least the syntax of essence with some help from classical logic.

The purpose of essence is to find a way to express what certain things are, correct? If it is, then I have a classification scheme that should work.

The Porphyrian Tree

Category:
..................................Substance...........................
Material Non-Material
Remote Genus: (spirit)
.........................................Body.................................
Living Non-Living
Remote Genus: (mineral)
...................................Organism..........................
Sentient Non-Sentient
Proximate Genus: (plant)
....................................Animal..............................
Rational Non-Rational
Logical Species: (brute)
Man

To demonstrate the use of the Tree, let me put a couple different terms through the process.

First, I'll put an Angel through. Now, the first thing to decide is whether the Angel's substance is material, or non-material. We know that angels have appeared as material form, but that it is not their original form. Therefor, angels are non-material, so we can refer to them as spirits.

No, I'll put a Fern through. Ferns are material, so we can go on to Remote Genus (a). Since a fern's body is living, I can go on to Remote Genus (b). We know that a fern's organism is Non-Sentient. Therefore, we now know that a fern is a plant.

Any questions? Confusion perhaps?

So an essence is what something essentially is?

That's the idea that I've gathered.

That is a very good system for classification, Neil, but it is not what an essence is, unfortunately. Sapphira was closer.

An essence is what something essentially is, yes. But it is the essential artistic part of the something. If that helps any.

So an essence isn't a classifying scheme?

That helps immensely, Sir Emeth! It seems to me, though, that trying to define certain aspects of art that people consider 'indefinable', is often contrary to the nature of the aspect itself. I may place a certain value-or 'definition'-on an aspect of artistic creation, someone else may assign a different definition.

So, is 'Essence' a way to conceptualize an essential aspect of artistic creation?

I'm completely confused with the whole "essence" thing...

Right. It is a description scheme, though.

That is fine. I hope to explain it better soon...

Good!

That is what you would think, but I have found that essence can define even the most indefinable concepts and emotions in a meaningful way, without destroying the concept or emotion at all. In fact, it helps it grow better. I have even made an essence for my own writer's block to get my creative juices flowing, and it worked!

Exactly, each person will create a different essence articulation for anything. My system for articulating essence makes it possible for people to be able to talk about what they see, though. When you create an essence articulation, it can become a guide to help you articulate what you want the reader to see in a scene.

Yes! Though the essence is generally more of an 'artistic creation' itself, and it can be applied to things that are not artistic at all.

Progress...

Thanks! The only thing I still don't understand is the syntax, as far as it relates communicating the concept. I must go read all your syntax related posts!

Perhaps teaching essence is better suited for a different setting.

Ditto.

Sorry.