Considering the initial difficulty you had wrapping your head around the concept of Essence, I find it ironic that in some ways your explanation is even more esoteric than Jay's original definition!
In fact, as I'm writing this, I had to go back and read it a second time just to make sure I understood it correctly. If I were a novice trying to explain Essence based on my initial reading of your post, I would've said something like this: "Essence is any poetic, artistic, musical, or literary expression that conveys a deeper meaning than mere words can convey." In my heavily Lauser-influenced view of Essence, this is a bit of an eschewed and deficient definition.
However after re-reading your post I realized that what you were actually saying was more along the lines of this: "Essence is the deeper meaning or emotion that artists, writers, and poets try to communicate using visual or literary imagery. It also describes imagery, writing, or art, that successfully communicates that deeper meaning." I'd say that is an adequate definition. However, your post definitely seems to emphasize the means by which Essence is communicated/received more than what exactly it is that is being communicated. Like I said, it was only after read #2 that I realized you actually did touch on that somewhat.
But again, this all coming from someone who came to understand Essence through Jay and his explanations. So I'm probably being overly picky.
Otherwise, the post as a whole was pretty good.
