[Note: at the time when I started this campaign I didn't realize how damaging the phrase "rebellion" could be. It was intended as good fun, and indeed, everyone had great fun, and a new essence system was developed as a result of the discussions on this thread, but future "Rebellions" did not go so smoothly. To this purpose I have changed the title of this thread, and would request any future sojourners who find this record to think of it in those terms, rather than the one originally assigned to it.]

(this is going to be fun...)

I am the daughter of a computer programmer. I run Linux, I can run a command line, I can install programs using strings of code in a command line, I know basic CSS, I can read and understand HTML, I am familiar with people discussing Java, flash, and jquery. But I am not a computer programmer by nature myself. I have the unique position of being able to understand both classes. With this position I have come to the following conclusion.

Essence Syntax is unnecessarily complicated.

Now, before all you well meaning people start jumping all over me explaining how it's not that hard and how I should go about learning it, I understand the syntax. I can write it out. I can do CSS, remember?

Essence Syntax is unnecessarily complicated.

The people who get confused over it are people like my mother who cannot begin to understand. The people who think it is great are people like Jay who are computer programmers. The people like Evening who don't have a problem with it despite not being programmers are people like me. And I still say; Essence Syntax is unnecessarily complicated.

It may not be wise of me to start this rebellion during the time Mama Raven is taking her Netcation. But I'm tired, and I'm rarely wise when I'm tired, and I just want to complicate my life more by starting this off.

Jay is a computer programmer. He's surprised to find out not everyone knows what a slave drive is, and he's surprised when people don't understand PHP code, and he's probably surprised that not everyone finds Essence mapping a piece of cake. I've got nothing against complication, which is what I think everyone thinks is the only problem. I'm rebelling against unnecessary complication.

I don't think Essence mapping needs to be written like a computer language.
I think a computer language might be too strict and technical a framework to encompass something as poetical as essence.
I think that in order for essence mapping to become widely used it needs to be unrestricted to people who can think like a programmer.
I think that there are two schools of thoughts on everything else that matters, shouldn't there be two forms of essence mapping syntax?
I think essence mapping is almost an art form. It's poetical. And it can be beautiful.
Do I have another method? Not quite. I have some ideas, but I'm interested in hearing input from other Essence rebels. I'm going to close with a quote from Mama Raven when I asked her how important the syntax was:



And that, my friends, is the essence rebellion.

I sorta kinda maybe get essence. I get the point, the goal, and the function. I'm still working on absorbing the process. I would be interested in trying another system (another set of directions), should someone write one.

I am not a rebel, but I will gladly test the rebels' methods. Can I be a guinea pig for your insurrection, Katie?

I can test it, too! That quote from White Raven made me laugh inside.

Huh, I did an essence once with really weird syntax (I made it up in the middle of the night after I had been painting [nearly] all day) and Juliet and Jay both liked it... haha.

I use bubbl.us for my 'syntax'. Works really well.

I remember Mama Raven saying that to me While I too understand Essence and could create an essence map, I have found that the complexity causes me not to test it. Call me lazy, but I have a lot riding on my plate, and I've got a book I'm pushing to have published in the next year, so I don't attempt it because it takes too much energy. If it were simpler I might do one, not because I would understand it any better, but because the system might be less complex. I think Jay's method is good, but I think another method wouldn't hurt either. Some people do struggle with Essence, I've talked to some of them (I will not divulge their names).

Well, it took me a while, but I understand essence well now. That being said, I 'speak' HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, so I'd probably fall more on the edge of the programmers. But I'll support your rebellion if thou so wishest. Maybe if it were simpler I'd do it more often. =)

(Edit: I must say, that having learned and tried to use some of the features in X++ (which Jay is still withholding from us =D), that having the clear and defined definitions and complexity of the syntax is welcoming. However, for most people, who will not want to attempt X++ but just do some essence, that complexity isn't necessary. So I'm fully in favor of the 'two camps' approach, if possible. Just thought I'd say that since I know it's one of Jay's reasons for the syntax. =D)

(Edit Again: Actually, after giving it much thought, I'm going to have to decide not to be in favor of this. Not that I don't admire y'all for wanting to improve essence, just that I don't feel it's really super complicated, plus changing it would probably cause even more confusion as we attempt to simultaneously read essence maps in XBasic, XBeginner, X++, and this new one, essentially meaning that everyone would still have to learn everything. So, in favor of keeping things easier, I'd just recommend we leave things as they are. =D)

eruheran

If you showed me a CSS spreadsheet, I would have no idea of what it is. My extent of HTML is and that's about it. I am NOT a programmer, yet I find essence very simple. Before you shower me with praise, Jay, I'm not done yet.

I'll admit, at the beginning I was VERY confused by syntax. My first map was a mess. But then Seer came along, and he showed me how to do it, and now I can make maps quite easily. I still make errors, but who doesn't?

Finally, I will support ya'll. I can see where you are coming from and understand your logic. Just because I was able to pick it up doesn't mean anybody will be able to.

lol, It's very fun reading all the responses because I haven't a clue what anyone's talking about! Hehe! Would anyone care to explain to me what essence mapping is? Simply as I'm not into understanding computer jargon lol. And sorry if I sound dumb! I use my computer a lot and once tried to programme a game (I didnt't get very far at all) but I just don't get the programming side etc etc. Maybe if I understood essence I could have a go at it! Because apparently you make maps out of it which would be super cool for my new fantasy story. Sorry if I sounds very uneducated in the world of computer programmers!

Essence mapping is a way of authors trying to communicate the essence of their character in a CSS-like spreadsheet or whatever they call them. You describe characters, mostly, but it can be used for much, much more. A completed essence spreadsheet is called an essence map, so I can see how you where confused.

I'm up for whatever... I don't mind trying to figure this syntax out as is, but I'd probably need some help. I haven't learned any sort of coding really, so although I can figure out a little bit of HTML (as long as I'm not having to actually write any of it ), that's about as far as my knowledge goes.
Maybe after I learn more programming it'd be easier, but until then I'll take all the help I can get/

Hail, fellow rebels! I am greatly encouraged by your support!

The first thing I think that needs to be done is the separation of essence from essence mapping. Essence should be very natural to writers, and probably most artists. Essence is, to me, what Christopher Alexander, (an architect) describes as "The Quality Without a Name". There's no name for it, you can't describe it, so you depict it by other means. In this case, essence mapping. I think part of the source of confusion is people are trying to learn essence mapping without really understanding essence. I don't see anything laying around that describes it really well... so we need to do that.

The second thing we need to do is help Jay finish standardizing his various levels. He's told me it will be simpler, and it remains to be seen if this is so. But you can hardly rebel against something that doesn't exist, and we must, after all, know our enemy, so I'll be helping him to do that.

(Only on Holy World would a Rebel help the opposite side, and the opposite side encourage the rebellion. )

Thank you for explaining that Elanhil. I have never heard of it before

And that is why I love it here ^^

DUDE! I'm the daughter of a programmer too! wow, small world...

No problem.

Cool! It comes in handy, huh?

Um, yeah...I'd be one of those people who doesn't understand the whose essence map. I love reading others, but I'm sit-next-to-me-and-show-me-step-by-step learner. ^^;; Even in school. (Math particularity. Yay dyslexia.) Anyways, I somewhat, maybe, sorta get the concept of essence, I just don't know how to set it up correctly...

I think something clicked in my brain last night after having read Amanda's essence map for Aaron. I think I made a semi-understandable essence map of my character Charlotte!!!!

Hooray, Calen! I like using bubbl.us myself, but I do it both ways. I don't necessarily get the explanation, but I get the concept. (And I don't know computer programming)

Exactly! the concept is pretty simple. It might be hard to explain, but once you grasp it, I think it would be second nature. It's the structure that's a mess.

I actually enjoy the structure in some ways, but then again, I like Logic...

I was bored one day...



Right click, save image as, and join the rebellion!

I am joining your rebelution, Jaynin.

You should make that your avatar for a while Jaynin.

I don't think they'd let me, Airianna.

Thanks for the support, White Raven! Jay already told me they're simplifying, and I am awaiting said revisions before I go further, since I can't exactly attack something that's either discarded or doesn't exist. That's on my list of things to ask Jay about...

All I can say is that people think differently.

I, for one, like thinking of essence in terms of code. I think it ought to continue looking like one.

Maybe that's because I'm an INTJ.

But I view the separate parts of essence as the separate parts of a sentence.

Language is a code. Language is a way of communicating a thought essence and code is a specific representation of language.

Essence is a way of communicating meaning.

Its a code, its a language, and that's inescapable.

When we break down the components of language, we break them down into categories. There are the basics: noun-phrase, verb-phrase, whatever-phrase.

Then there are advanced distinctions like conjugating a verb to express the singular third-person.

Essence-mapping ought to make those distinctions. If you bag the scientific, concrete, and logic coding-language style, you loose the ability to pin it down and calculate it. You'll reduce poetic phrasing to an instinctive ability that cannot be learned, developed, or really understood.

Essence isn't the spawn of philosophy. Its a science of human thought-association.

The math example is true but not used appropriately.

We all know that 2 + 2 = 2.

But we've also found that E=MCsq. is a rather useful bit of math.

Equally useful is 9(1x/10)=14w.

The truth is that sometimes poetry is complicated. Sometimes it is simple.

Jay and family are trying to create a system that allows both simple and complex uses depending on the needs and constraints of the user.

Just because essence mapping CAN be complicated doesn't mean it has to be. You can use it in a very simple form, as well.

I'd like to note that Jaynin is reluctant about the Character Fractaling System as well. At least, she has been.

Essence mapping is also a fractaling system. Those of you who can get away without fractaling may go ahead, but Randy Ingermanson is really on to something.

So is Jay.

Anyone ever read a book about classical logic? Sometimes the terms and apparently meaningless distinctions seem...pointless.

But we actually use them all instinctively. Someone just came along and found a way to express in complicated words the complicated system that is logic. Those terms and distinctions are REAL. They're just complicated.

The distinctions of essence mapping are important to Jay. Jay is smart and is probably on to something. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath-water.

Not in my math book it doesn't. Last I checked, 2 + 2 = 4 Just kidding. I'll get get back on topic

Pardon me Seer. My family is arguing about local churches in the background. It's hard to think.



This is what I'm trying to address. Essence Syntax is not a programming language. It's a fractaling language.

There's a difference.

Programming languages impute commands.

Fractaling languages distinguish between different parts of a whole.

Fractaling is everywhere.

Literature is divided into books. Books are divided into chapters. The bible divides chapters into verses.

Language divides paragraphs into sentences. Sentences types of words. Types of words into applications of words. Words into sounds.

We understand EVERYTHING by seeing parts of a whole. Fractaling is a way of distinguishing the various parts in a logical, concise, and helpful order.

Essence mapping is fractaling. Its a logical dissection of essence. It takes an emotional impact and expresses it in clear terms.

I think that the distinction is important.

Hehehe, opposition.

That may be true. (Or the parts of it that I understood.)

But fractalling is kind of a different subject. Fractalling is like outlining; it's for some people and not for others. And there are different methods, etc. The System of Death doesn't scare people away from fractalling as a concept the way the Syntax scares people from doing Essence.

I don't know what you mean to your reference of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, since my attempt is not to do away with essence, or even essence Syntax, but to come up with another method, a simpler one, for those who are intimidated.

My guess is that you are one of the people who can actually understand the language. It's going to be difficult for you to understand then, that some people can't wrap their mind around it at all. Are we to deny those people the thrill of essence mapping because they're confined to one system?

On a side note, I never once cast any doubt whatsoever on Jay's brilliance, and I would never move to undermine it. A little competition is a good thing. As a matter of fact, Jay has yet to oppose my rebellion, and as I understand it has finished reworking the essence syntax to include a simplistic non-code version, and an advanced, complicated, mind-boggling version.

In view of which fact, this rebellion has mostly been just a party where much is said and nothing done...

Fractaling is not outlining. Outlining is one expression of fractaling. You see, you can fractal in two directions:

You can take a sentence, and expand each clause into a complete sentence of its own. That's basically what outlining boils down to. (At least, that's how I outline speeches.)

Or, you can take a whole object (perhaps a paragraph) and try to divide it into groups, groups within groups, and finally individual parts. That's also fractaling.

Essence mapping takes the form of the latter.



Well, the thing is that it can be very simple. I could just say.

Horse-
Body-
Legs-
motion like windmills.

Or I can use percentages and complex references to complicated things that nobody has heard of.

It's the same system. It has degrees of complexity. Just because a lot of the words are confusing doesn't mean the structure doesn't work.



I was actually one of the last people to come around to understanding (thanks to White Raven) when Jay first posted about it.

I actually don't think that the semantics (the terminology) is particularly important. It's in Lauser-ese and pretty much outside of my interest.

But I really like the format and the structure. I actually think that it's the only structure that makes sense. Divide larger groups into smaller groups until you get to individual essence fragments.

I've never finished an essence map. But I really enjoy reading them. At least the ones without percentages and math.



I'm not saying you doubt Jay's brilliance. I'm saying that Jay is usually good at making people understand him and he'll figure out how to do it with this eventually. How else did he drag us all on here in the first place?

I thought Jay had already posted about several different levels of difficulty within mapping. Doesn't he have a sub-forum for each level?

The lack of accomplishment...that's interesting. Everybody wants a better system...I'd like it if somebody posted about one. I mean a fully working, well developed one that everyone understands.

I'm not trying to be critical. Maybe we just understand mapping differently. Maybe I'm the one who doesn't understand it.

But we're both positive that we're right, right?

Eruheran has posted about SEM, which is a rebellion approved system.

Basically, Jay told me he was developing a new system the day after I started this rebellion, effectively preventing anything from happening, because I don't even know what we're rebelling against any more. Once he unveils it we'll see what becomes of this errand...

Actually, you sound like you're on my side. I'm now completely confused, and I believe we are suffering from a deplorable lack of communication.

No, I like the current system. I think people just don't understand that it CAN be simple if they use it simply.

How is this?

That looks sort of like SEM, Jay. I like it.

As to Jaynin/Neil of Erk - I think you are breaking down when you're referring to 'syntax.' What do each of you mean by that? Because Seer's taking Jaynin to mean that she doesn't like essence, but then says that he doesn't understand 'Lauser-ese' But I think it's that part that Jaynin is saying we don't need.

eruheran

I'm referring to the structure (which appears to be preserved pretty straightforwardly in SEM and firstX) not the semantics.

I'm unsure about what you mean by semantics.

Thanks, Eru, that could very well be it.

Now you've got me confused too, Neil. Can you elaborate on what you mean by semantics?

eruheran

Semantics are relationships between the meanings of the words and the words that Jay used. It's the meaning behind the words.

Syntax is related to the order of sentences and would refer to the structure of the map. All the mapping styles I have seen operate on the same structure.

It's just the words like "metaphor" and "element" and "body" that are confusing people. That and the unnecessary symbols. (Symbols, BTW, also fall under the definition of semantics.)

I can see where Essence could be useful but its really pointless for me. I can write something the same without it.

If you wrote something the same, it would be essence mapping. If you don't use essence mapping, it won't be the same. The structure itself has meaning inherent in it.

Huh? i'm not sure what you said there...
What i was trying to communicate was you can still write good stories without "Essence mapping"

Ah yes, I misunderstood what you were saying. Of course you can write good stories without essence mapping. But of course that also doesn't mean it is pointless.

Essence mapping has two uses.

Essence mapping is useful for deepening you understanding of a character, a place, or something of that nature.

Essence mapping also allows you to create a list of useful metaphors for characters and places which you can then insert into your story when appropriate.

Certainly, you don't need essence mapping to have a good story. But if you have a tool that will HELP you write a story, it makes sense to use it.

For those of us who are bad at metaphors, essence mapping is very helpful. Writing is like driving a tent peg into the ground. Some people need help, by a hammer or rock. Essence mapping is a helpful tool for those who struggle with metaphors.

In that case, though I disagree with your definition of semantics (all the marks and stuff are syntax to me)...I agree with your definition of everything you think is unnecessary. =)

eruheran

Well, I was operating on the basis of a plain English dictionary. Semantics has to do with words and their meanings (I included the mark-stuff because its value was in the meaning), syntax has to do with structure.

In terms of language, semantics has to do with your lexicon, which words to use, and meanings of symbols (words are symbols, you know), whereas syntax has to do with the order of words, structure of phrases, etc.

But yeah...it's the stuff that's unnecessary that matters, not what we mean by words.

Joining.

SEM has really helped me. It's not "put twenty periods after this, then you put a line, then your word under all of these twenty thousand categories, and then put a colon underneath that, and begin your 20,001 category, and then after that you put fifty periods, then a second colon after that, and then describe this 20,002th thing."