#essences

CONTINUANCE

Survival and safety are the bedrock of our existence, they're our most 'animalistic,' primal needs. Before we're even able to think about making friends, having agency, or understanding what's out there, we need to know how we're going to survive the next minute, hour, day, year.

CONTINUANCE is based on Maslow's "Psychological" and "Safety" Needs, as well as Clayton Alderfer's "Existence" need from ERG theory.

CONTINUANCE isn't only survival and safety. It's also our need to feel healthy, the desire for sex and relaxation, the need to feel like we're going to be okay.

While all the four hungers are important, CONTINUANCE is seen as the most essential because, until it is satisfied, it's near impossible to balance the others. Not totally impossible, but much harder than it should be. When we're limited in our CONTINUANCE needs, it triggers threat responses in our brain that make it impossible to develop and grow.

A plant can only grow high if its roots and soil are safe.

However, the only way to truly see growth and stability is to find the virtues that develop your Continuance. These two are Calmness and Courage.

Calmness allows us to make steady, healthy choices for our bodies without falling into panic, shame, or fear-based absolutist choices.

Meanwhile, Courage acts as our shield. It gives us the strength to protect our boundaries and needs and to face the harsh truths of reality.

In Interluminism, CONTINUANCE is associated with solidity/stability, our essence of SALO, the color green, and the shape of a square.

GREEN: #24AB25

If you've been exploring this blog for a while, you may start to see some repeating phrases/concepts. One of these are a set of four terms:

Continuance, Connection, Control, and Comprehension.

You might ask: What does any of this mean?

Here's the basic idea*:

*I am not a professional psychoanalyst or researcher, these are my own ideas I've developed as an autodidact. Do not take them as gospel or absolute truths.

Humans, at their core, have needs we're always trying to attain and ascertain. Based on Humanistic Psychology and the Internal Family Systems, I've attempted to synthesize a more comprehensive way of viewing these inner needs.

To make a long story short,

Continuance: The hunger to stay alive and feel safe. Connection: The hunger to belong and feel close to others. Control: The hunger to make our own choices and have power over our lives. Comprehension: The hunger to understand ourselves and the world and find a sense of meaning.

370. One ought to ask, not what images are or what goes on when one imagines something, but how the word “imagination” is used. But that does not mean that I want to talk only about words. For the question of what imagination essentially is, is as much about the word “imagination” as my question. And I am only saying that this question is not to be clarified — neither for the person who does the imagining, nor for anyone else — by pointing; nor yet by a description of some process. The first question ["what is an image?"] also asks for the clarification of a word; but it makes us expect a wrong kind of answer. 371. Essence is expressed in grammar. 372. Consider: “The only correlate in language to an objective necessity is an arbitrary rule. It is the only thing which one can milk out of this objective necessity into a proposition.” 373. Grammar tells what kind of object anything is. (Theology as grammar.)

Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 4th edition (trans. Hacker and Schulte)

From the translators' notes:

#Amouage continues to explore time with #Essences

Of all the skin care product categories, perhaps the most misunderstood are facial mists, toners and essences. What are they, why does my skin need them and where do they fit into my routine? We’re here to clear up the confusion, explain the differences and show why these essentials shouldn’t be missed. What Is a Toner? | What Is an Essence? | What Is a Bi-Phase Mist | Which Should I Choose? |…

Talking about that, I have noticed something... tell me why I feel attracted to people that have both classic and ethereal as their essence..?? You can't look at Kakashi and say my man is not ethereal. Also Aemond Targaryen. I'm threatical romantic and have romantic, ingenue and not so prominent dramatic essence 🧚.

What essence do you have, do you feel attracted to certain essence..?? Like maybe your ideal type have it..??

Love ya 💋

i haven't studied kitchener, nor do i subscribe to essence typing. it seems even more vague than kibbe can be sometimes, and i prefer certainty over abstraction - otherwise, i don't arrive at final typings. a lot of ethereal types are just soft subtypes, i see it as a synonym of yin or SD, just like ingenue has become gamine over the decades. it seems fun and experimental for moodboards, but doesn't work for me personally. i can't tell if someone's ethereal or not, i think in structured or rounded lines.

and, yes this is a sore spot, a lot of celebrities are confusing to type because they've had extreme amounts of work done to become someone else. the exact opposite of that david strives to do, which is why surgery and kibbe are nemeses. there's a reason why david refuses to type people by the face as of recently, and removes his typology from the body to "concept" again. which is regrettable and counterintuitive to me.

nowadays, even the body's outline can be morphed into resembling another ID, so - i always felt that typing celebs by clothing was the only worthwhile method to use. someone has to look consistently proportional (no too short/long sleeves!) in the garments of their kibbegory. the only caveat is padding and corsets we can't see, so many different images go into analysis. essence typing doesn't help me with that, so i discarded this part of the kibbeverse pretty quickly.

But with poor phenomena, the essential point is found... in the privilege that metaphysics has always accorded them over and above all other thinkable phenomena: the privilege of certainty.

That is, admitting an intuition that is only formal or categorical, poor phenomena no longer admit anything "that experience might render uncertain," and therefore their very abstraction guarantees their certainty, therefore objectification.

But this epistemological privilege inverts itself and becomes a radical phenomenological deficit — manifestation here does not give (itself), or only a little, since it conveys neither real nor individual intuition, nor the temporalization of an event, in short, no accomplished phenomenality.

In opposition to metaphysics' constant decision, we should conclude that the privilege of poor phenomena (abstract epistemological certainty), far from qualifying them, forbids establishing them as secure paradigm for phenomenality in general.