Essence precedes existence?

[Detales]

The first sentence, o_mlly, pertains to the category of error that contains your statement about existence. The second, which you asked concerning, says Being IS and needs no manifestation and is equatable to God. Existence depends on Being while it is not separate from it. Existence, in other words, is an unnecessary but experiencible modification of Being. That modification is circumscribed by awareness and its contents sensed as a subject/object relationship with the world as it is thought to be.

Thanks for asking.

 

[o_mlly]

The first sentence, o_mlly, pertains to the category of error that contains your statement about existence. The second, which you asked concerning, says Being IS and needs no manifestation and is equatable to God. Existence depends on Being while it is not separate from it. Existence, in other words, is an unnecessary but experiencible modification of Being. That modification is circumscribed by awareness and its contents sensed as a subject/object relationship with the world as it is thought to be.

Thanks for asking.

You’re welcome.

Let me be sure I understand your comment by re-phrasing.

You say “existence” is contingent upon “being” and simultaneously inseparable from “being.”

Is that correct?

 

[Detales]

Yes, “ex-” means “out from,” as in existence is a projection of Being. “In the beginning was the Word/Sound/Vibration, and the Word was with (as in containing, as “with child”) God, and the Word was (ought to read IS) God.” At least John starts out true to fact, an suffers, as do the others, mistranslation and misunderstanding at the hands of English scholars not versed in the non-English subtleties pertinent to the word “I,” eg.

 

[Areopagite]

Prior to the discover of the atom…

First of all, the idea of atoms is not a new idea. In fact they were believed in prior to Socrates by the Greek philosopher Leucippus, and then Democritus, and then the Epicurean philosophers. In fact, Aristotle (and Plato, I believe) never objected the idea of atoms, and in fact it doesn’t contradict either of the philosophies regarding essence. However, believing in atoms to the point of rejecting the idea of essence (which is what Leucippus and Democritus pretty much did) is called Atomism. But not all atom-believing philosophies are atomist philosophies.

So, expand that to christianity and it’s rituals and You took the escense of the cracker(which was christ) into your body, but you ate it’s physical presence. The essence changed to christ(very important) and became the physical.

This only worked pre-atom. Becuase we now know, there is no essence. There are particles reacting to each other, in a very uniform way. There is a reason religious leaders tried to deny the truth of the atom and fought against it and what it would mean to people’s faith. They actually believed the 'cracker" became the flesh of christ. it cannot. It’s not physically possible and it has been shown through studies, that the cracker remains a cracker in the stomach.

Actually, if you’re right that things don’t have essences, then, besides the “cracker” not being the flesh of Christ, I would not even say the “cracker” is even a “cracker” because in order for something to be what it is, it needs to have an essence. You can’t say anything is anything. It’s not even in the stomach, because for a stomach to be a stomach it has to have the essence of a stomach. The metaphysical devastation caused by the denial of essence proceeds beyond transubstantiation but into EVERYTHING. No thing is a thing anymore.

There is no such thing as essence or existance.

No such thing as existence either, eh? That’s pretty intense.

[Darwin] wrote about the process of speciation or diversification rather than about species as unchanging eternal categories with permanent natures.

“Speciation” (according to my dictionary) is the “formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.” My point is that Darwin believed in the idea of species, and because he talked about speciation is a proof that he believed in species. You can’t have speciation without species.

Now, it is true, of course, that species can die out. But, at least depending on what you mean, species don’t change. For example, a deer can’t change into something else that isn’t a deer and still remain a deer. If a fish becomes a reptile, it’s no longer a fish, but a reptile. That doesn’t mean the essence of fish has changed, but merely that some biological matter has dropped the essence of fish and picked up the essence of reptile. The essences considered in themselves do not change, however.

I could go into this more, but I’ll just say that for now to see what you say first.

We make such generalizations as a matter of convenience, but the boundaries are always funny.

What do you mean by convenience? Convenience is obviously not an end in itself. So why does talking about species give us convenience? What is the goal that is more easily attained when employing the concept of species?

For example, when does your cigar become a cigarillo or a cigarette?

“Cigar”, “cigarillo”, and “cigarette” like all words are symbols. Symbols are human inventions that are nonetheless employed to refer to objective concepts (to refer to essences, in fact). Symbols can have their meanings changed, that is, they do not always have to point to the same concept or essence. So, depending on what definitions “cigars”, “cigarillo”, or “cigarette” has (and that may differ from person to person), different kinds of smoked tobacco products can be predicated of them. But whatever concept a symbol happens to point to at the time, the concepts themselves remain eternal and unchanging, though the symbol that has been imposed on it may change.

Also, physical things themselves, though they may be constantly changing on an atomic level (and whatnot), if they retain a form that corresponds to a concept you have … then that concept and that physical thing can be associated together. For example, even if a television is constantly changing with its moving parts, as long as it conforms to your concept of a television, then you can call it a television. Your concept of a television does not include every single detail a television could possibly have, but just what is essential to it. If one denies that this is possible, you can never call anything a television, or anything anything. Everything is meaningless. You can’t even becomes anything, because that would imply that you gain an essence … but if essences don’t exist, then you can’t become anything. And that would be a big problem for existentialism. You see what I’m saying?

 

[Detales]

Areo~No thing is a thing anymore. This is essentially correct. Things as we think them are namable “things” only at our particular level of perception. At the sub-atomic level where things are just particles flashing in and out of existance, which must be their fundamental physucal relaity, they don’t even really exist as matter as we percieve or believe it to be. You have to look somewhere else for your idea of essence. It is, as far as I can tell, but it is not where you are looking in form.

 

[Areopagite]

Areo~No thing is a thing anymore. This is essentially correct. Things as we think them are namable “things” only at our particular level of perception. At the sub-atomic level where things are just particles flashing in and out of existance, which must be their fundamental physucal relaity, they don’t even really exist as matter as we percieve or believe it to be. You have to look somewhere else for your idea of essence. It is, as far as I can tell, but it is not where you are looking in form.

I have a few theories about what you’re talking about (some of which I do not object to … too much), but instead of guessing … could I ask some specifics about what you’re talking about?

You mentioned a good point though about atoms … for the atomist who denies essence, he must also deny atoms too. Atoms fall victim to the same metaphysical problem that any chunk of matter has … because atoms are made up smaller parts … just as a tree is made up smaller parts. Denying essence doesn’t really leave room for believing anything whatsoever.

However, just because a thing is made up of smaller parts doesn’t render the thing no longer a thing anymore. If someone would like to disprove this, I would invite them to do so. The only condition I put on them is that they do not contradict themselves in every possible way. I assure you, it cannot be done.

 

[Detales]

First, I experientially know that Essence IS. But it has no attributes, nor form, nor duration, only Being. So I’m not clear where you got the idea that I was denying essence.

Second, I have no clue save from your quick definition of what atomism might be. I’m taking an educated guess, though that that word doesn’t describe my stance.

My question to you about “smaller parts” is, if everything is made of them and they are indistinguishable even to location, and are constantly flitting in and out of existence, where is the essence? I’m neither denying that we can point at something and call it a “tree.” As Albert Einstein said to the lad quizzing him about the sunbeam, “We have to assume something.” But that assumption, as I said, is made mentally at the level and in the range of the frequency bands accessible to human experience. Have you seen Mind Walk, *Down the Rabbit Hole *or considered any of the many science programs that describe the nature of matter, and the relative size of particles? Hmmmm?

Areo~*However, just because a thing is made up of smaller parts doesn’t render the thing no longer a thing anymore. If someone would like to disprove this, I would invite them to do so. The only condition I put on them is that they do not contradict themselves in every possible way. I assure you, it cannot be done. * Yes, but you are making a dmnd fine effort, lol!

 

[Areopagite]

First, I experientially know that Essence IS. But it has no attributes, nor form, nor duration, only Being. So I’m not clear where you got the idea that I was denying essence.

I’m sorry, I wasn’t assuming that of you. I was very unclear though. I was speaking in general to the essence-deniers.

Second, I have no clue save from your quick definition of what atomism might be. I’m taking an educated guess, though that that word doesn’t describe my stance.

Once again, I wasn’t addressing you. I was actually a little unsure what you were talking about.

My question to you about “smaller parts” is, if everything is made of them and they are indistinguishable even to location, and are constantly flitting in and out of existence, where is the essence? I’m neither denying that we can point at something and call it a “tree.” As Albert Einstein said to the lad quizzing him about the sunbeam, “We have to assume something.” But that assumption, as I said, is made mentally at the level and in the range of the frequency bands accessible to human experience. Have you seen Mind Walk, *Down the Rabbit Hole *or considered any of the many science programs that describe the nature of matter, and the relative size of particles? Hmmmm?

I suppose this is where I bring in Matter and Form.

If you compare a chair and an apple, one may ask, what makes them different? One may reply, “Well, they are made up of different stuff.” The chair may be made of wood, and the apple of organic cells. This is true. But on another level, they are both made up of atoms. In that sense, they are made up of the same stuff … and hence there is no difference between the chair and the apple? Well, another thing that can distinguish them is their form. The matter is formed in different ways and hence gives them different identities.

A very basic definition of matter is “the stuff something is made out of.” And likewise a definition of form could be “that which organizes stuff in a certain way.” (this technically, of course, only pertain to material forms … and not immaterial forms like angels and whatnot).

Now, just because something can be a form, it can also act as matter to, depending on what is being considered. For example, the chair has the form of a chair, and the wood can be considered its matter. However, wood itself has form. Molecules must be formed in a certain way to attain the identity of wood. The molecules can thus be considered the matter being organized by the form of wood. We could also have said that the molecules are the matter that the form of chair has shaped. Molecules would be more the remote matter in that case, compared to the wood, which would be a more proximate matter (and one could additionally could consider other levels of matter between these). A molecule, likewise, has the form of molecule, while its matter would be atoms. And then there is a form of atom with matter being sub-atomic particles. And then there are Quarks and maybe more.

continued…

 

[Areopagite]

Form does not necessarily have to do with mere physical shape … but anything that gives something a definite kind of being. Aristotle distinguished 10 kinds of forms: Substance, Quantity, Quality, Relation, Action, Reception, Time, Place, Posture, and Habiliment.

Substance is any form that exists in itself … like a chair, human, rock, etc. And the rest of the forms in that list are “accidents” or “attributes”, which are forms that must exist in a substance … like color, brotherhood, rough, running, etc.

By the way, essence is synonymous with form. Sometimes, however, essence is has the more particular connotation of substantial form … but not always. The distinction is not very important in this discussion though.

Now material substances can be subdivided into smaller substances. For example, the substance of a rock can be subdivided into the substances of atoms. This is the nature of matter.

Nonetheless, a composite of substances can compose a unified substance. For example, a composite of sub-atomic particles can compose an atom. An atom is a substance, despite it being composed of smaller substances. This is because the sub-atomic particles are FORMED together in a particular FORM. And hence this form that they are arranged in results in another overall substance. And since form is equivalent to essence, the atom has an essence, while at the same time sub-atomic particles have their own essences as well. This of course works on a macro level the same way.

Now, just because a substance may undergo accidental changes, does not (necessarily) result in the destruction of the substance or at least the changing of the substance itself.
Now I’m about to talk about concepts and symbols again, but I don’t want to rewrite everything, so I’ll just cut and paste from my previous post:

“Cigar”, “cigarillo”, and “cigarette” like all words are symbols. Symbols are human inventions that are nonetheless employed to refer to objective concepts (to refer to essences, in fact). Symbols can have their meanings changed, that is, they do not always have to point to the same concept or essence. So, depending on what definitions “cigars”, “cigarillo”, or “cigarette” has (and that may differ from person to person), different kinds of smoked tobacco products can be predicated of them. But whatever concept a symbol happens to point to at the time, the concepts themselves remain eternal and unchanging, though the symbol that has been imposed on it may change.

Also, physical things themselves, though they may be constantly changing on an atomic level (and whatnot), if they retain a form that corresponds to a concept you have … then that concept and that physical thing can be associated together. For example, even if a television is constantly changing with its moving parts, as long as it conforms to your concept of a television, then you can call it a television. Your concept of a television does not include every single detail a television could possibly have, but just what is essential to it. If one denies that this is possible, you can never call anything a television, or anything anything. Everything is meaningless.

Now I could go on to talk about how some forms, like human souls, are not purely material forms (i.e. they merely do not shape matter), but have immaterial powers that enable humans to do things that merely composite pieces of matter cannot. But do you see what I’m saying so far?

But to directly answer you question(s) finally, essence (particularly material essences) pertains to how matter (whether particles or whatever) are arranged. For an arrangement to be a valid arrangement, there does not necessarily have to demand a very detailed individual arrangement of the parts but correspond to merely the essential arrangement of the matter. Humans do not need to have a one specific number of atoms to be human. Even a molecule does not need a one specific amount of atoms to be an molecule (because there are different kinds of molecules and yet they are all molecules). But for a chair (for example), it can lose molecules all over the place and still retain its rockness because it can still fit the essential requirements of being a rock and yet not have one constant number of atoms. So atoms can go in and out of existence, but that doesn’t mean it changes the composite essence of what they may make up at the time.

Well, I think I might have answered some of your questions, but maybe not others. Let me know … if you want.

Yes, but you are making a dmnd fine effort, lol!

Wha?

 

[Detales]

Hi Areo, don’t know if I can get to all your thoughts this evening; got a busy few days ahead, but here’s a start:

~A very basic definition of matter is “the stuff something is made out of.” And likewise a definition of form could be “that which organizes stuff in a certain way.” (this technically, of course, only pertain to material forms … and not immaterial forms like angels and whatnot). The stuff something is made of is originally described as vibration. See John 1:1, ff. Given the nature o string and 'brane theory, we can say that with some surety, and add to it the perception that vibration is the magnitude, quantification, and modification of the movement from nothingness to somethingness and back again from 0 to infinity. both ends of that equatable to ALL. Form is a perceived result of that, not a cause. “That which organizes stuff in a certain way” is properly called Mind/mind. "Immaterial forms are simply material forms at a different rate of vibration and not separate from Totality in Essence.

~Now, just because something can be a form, it can also act as matter to, depending on what is being considered. Form is the shape that matter is organized into by means of perception or manipulation according to an idea in M/mind. Thus each level of organization includes yet transcends the previous.

~molecules can thus be considered the matter being organized by the form of wood It might be more accurate to say "…the idea of wood, as wood has forms from pithy to hard, fading at both ends into other forms. Bark is modified wood, and so are twigs and leaves, but organized by the idea “tree.” which is in turn part of the idea “vascular plant,” etc. “Remote” and “proximate” refer more precisely to levels of organization.

~Form does not necessarily have to do with mere physical shape … but anything that gives something a definite kind of being. Aristotle distinguished 10 kinds of forms: Substance, Quantity, Quality, Relation, Action, Reception, Time, Place, Posture, and Habiliment. Neat. I didn’t know about those. Had to look up “habiliment,” but I was close. All those seem to me to be criteria of discernment in the quale of the continuum of subject/object perception. Those are valid, but not complete, as they are yet in the lower echelon of perception of objectification. Too big a subject to tackle right now. You might read Merrell-Wollf’s *The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object *if you are truly interested.

~By the way, essence is synonymous with form. Sometimes, however, essence is has the more particular connotation of substantial form … but not always. The distinction is not very important in this discussion though. Actually that distinction is crucial because I now see that we are not working from the same definitions. If you, and if, God save us, the Church, are still working from those definitions, no wonder we are in such a tragedy of a mess. If so, it is another form of the spiritual prophylaxis of Church teaching. I surely hope I am mistaken.

Got to go right now; maybe more later.

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[Areopagite]

The stuff something is made of is originally described as vibration. See John 1:1, ff. Given the nature o string and 'brane theory, we can say that with some surety, …

So far, you may be right. I have no immediate objection to this yet. It’s actually a very interesting idea.

… and add to it the perception that vibration is the magnitude, quantification, and modification of the movement from nothingness to somethingness and back again from 0 to infinity. both ends of that equatable to ALL.

Form is a perceived result of that, not a cause. “That which organizes stuff in a certain way” is properly called Mind/mind. "Immaterial forms are simply material forms at a different rate of vibration and not separate from Totality in Essence.

Form is the shape that matter is organized into by means of perception or manipulation according to an idea in M/mind. Thus each level of organization includes yet transcends the previous.

It might be more accurate to say "…the idea of wood, as wood has forms from pithy to hard, fading at both ends into other forms. Bark is modified wood, and so are twigs and leaves, but organized by the idea “tree.” which is in turn part of the idea “vascular plant,” etc. “Remote” and “proximate” refer more precisely to levels of organization.

You may be right, but I have very little idea of what you mean here. This sounds rather Kantian, but perhaps not. Are you saying that our mind imposes meaning on reality, rather than our mind perceiving the meaning that is outside our mind and in reality? Is reality intrinsically meaningless and formless?

Also, when you say “Mind” with a capital M are you referring to the Mind of God, and with a small m referring to human minds?

~Form does not necessarily have to do with mere physical shape … but anything that gives something a definite kind of being. Aristotle distinguished 10 kinds of forms: Substance, Quantity, Quality, Relation, Action, Reception, Time, Place, Posture, and Habiliment. Neat. I didn’t know about those. Had to look up “habiliment,” but I was close. All those seem to me to be criteria of discernment in the quale of the continuum of subject/object perception. Those are valid, but not complete, as they are yet in the lower echelon of perception of objectification.

You may be right. I believe Aristotle himself said there may be more. I also heard that Pope John Paul II suggested an 11th category … I think it was “experience” … but don’t quote me on any of that because I heard it second hand. It may be a lie.

~By the way, essence is synonymous with form. Sometimes, however, essence is has the more particular connotation of substantial form … but not always. The distinction is not very important in this discussion though. Actually that distinction is crucial because I now see that we are not working from the same definitions. If you, and if, God save us, the Church, are still working from those definitions, no wonder we are in such a tragedy of a mess. If so, it is another form of the spiritual prophylaxis of Church teaching. I surely hope I am mistaken.

Oh my. Well, for what it’s worth, the Church didn’t make it up. It came from Aristotle. All I’m saying is that the word has been used in two different ways (in the Aristotelian tradition). One in a broader way (i.e. form), and in another more narrow way (i.e. substantial form). There are a lot of philosophical words that unfortunately are ambiguous sometimes. I know that the Greek word “physis” meant “nature” in Greece, but in Alexandria it meant “person” which led to confusion in Early Church Christology with the Monophysite heresy. But don’t worry, they figured it out.

Got to go right now; maybe more later.

See ya.

 

[Thing]

Areopagite:

No such thing as existence either, eh? That’s pretty intense.

Durn it!, prove you exist. Cannot be done => no such thing.

 

[Areopagite]

Durn it!, prove you exist. Cannot be done => no such thing.

I think, therefore I am. Eek! You made me say it.

In any case, I may ultimately agree that you can’t prove that existence … exists … or something like that. But just because you can’t prove something doesn’t mean it’s not true or that you shouldn’t believe it. Existence can’t really even be defined. It’s so basic that it is simply intuited and cannot ultimately be explained. But that is no reason to dismiss it. Why would you dismiss it?

Are you serious, by the way?

 

[Thing]

I think, therefore I am. Eek! You made me say it.

In any case, I may ultimately agree that you can’t prove that existence … exists … or something like that. But just because you can’t prove something doesn’t mean it’s not true or that you shouldn’t believe it. Existence can’t really even be defined. It’s so basic that it is simply intuited and cannot ultimately be explained. But that is no reason to dismiss it. Why would you dismiss it?

Are you serious, by the way?

No, I’m not serious. But the next atheist just better watch out, they cannot prove their existance to me either. They cannot even prove existance exists.

 

[o_mlly]

You’re welcome.

Let me be sure I understand your comment by re-phrasing.

You say “existence” is contingent upon “being” and simultaneously inseparable from “being.”

Is that correct?

Yes, “ex-” means “out from,” as in existence is a projection of Being. …

Let’s agree to try to stay focused as I think progress more likely to occur rather than digress on this thread’s main issue.

You say:
“Existence” is a contingency.

All contingencies are unnecessary.
All contingencies (potential or actual) are effects requiring a cause.

You say:
"Existence is contingent on “being.”

All contingencies (potential or actual) are effects requiring a preceding cause.
Therefore, being causes and precedes existence.

However, you say:
“Existence” and “being” are inseparable.

Being is a cause.
Existence is an effect.
But, an effect may not be its own cause.
Therefore, existence and being are identities. One is neither contingent upon the other.

Essence, as I previously submitted, is a notion separate from “existence” or its synonym “being.”

Restated: Existence (or being) precedes essence.

 

[Leela]

Durn it!, prove you exist. Cannot be done => no such thing.

You are asking someone to prove something that you have given us no reason to doubt. I’m sorry, but the burden of proof is on you here.

 

[Detales]

~o_millyAll contingencies (potential or actual) are effects requiring a cause. No. The contingency of existence is one with Being and is its manifest aspect. Cause is a desired and convenient explanation due to the mind’s predilection for perception that includes a temporal axis of experience, or the subject/object mode of perception that tends to go with it.

~Therefore, existence and being are identities. One is neither contingent upon the other. Existence and Being are the polarities of vibration called The Word and are not “identities,” but aspects of Identitiy.

~Essence, as I previously submitted, is a notion separate from “existence” or its synonym “being.” In educational terms, until there is realization, it may be temporarily stated that way to hold the attention. So they are synonymous, but not in the sense you postulate, as they are not separate.

Restated: Existence is congruent with Being as an expression of Identity. Therein lies the secret of a misdirection of one of the Church’s fundamental teachings.

 

[Areopagite]

This is what Aristotle said about Being:

Being: that which can exist (which includes things that do exist and those which do not but could exist)

*Being can be co-divided in various ways. One way is this:*Real Being: that which can exist in reality (outside the mind)

Ideal Being: that which exists inside the mind as perceiving reality

Logical Being: that which can only exist in the mind as a concept and not in reality

*Real being can be divided this way:*Actual Being: that which actually exists in reality

Possible Being: that which can exist in reality (but does not necessarily exist in actuality)

*Ideal Being can be divided this way:*Subjective Being: that which exists in the mind as a mental image (or phantasm … this pertains to qualia)

Objective Being: that which exists in the mind as a concept (but can also exist in possible reality)

Logical Being can be divided this way:
Without a foundation in reality: that which exists as a purely mental concept that contains a contradiction in its essence (e.g. a square circle)

With a foundation in reality: that which exists as a purely mental concept that nonetheless can reflect something true about something in reality … and this is subdivided thus:

Relational Being: a purely mental relation that connects two beings in the mind (e.g. relations put on words to their meanings)

Negative Being: a purely mental concept that recognizes the absence of a certain kind of being in a thing … and this s subdivided thus:

Purely Negative Being: negative being that recognizes the mere absence of certain kind of being which is not necessarily fitting for its nature (e.g. the winglessness of humans)

Privative Being: negative being that recognizes the lack of a certain kind of being which should have been there according to its nature (e.g. the armlessness of a man)

​

I think maybe that everyone here may agree more than they think, but are not being clear with what certain kinds of beings and kinds of existences they are talking about.

1. Those who claim that essence comes before existence is correct if they (for example) equate essence with possible and objective being and imply here that existence specifically means actual existence.
2. Those who claim that essence is simultaneous with existence is correct if they (for example) equate essence with with any being and imply here that existence means any existence that makes the essence exist (real existence for real being, ideal existence for ideal being, and logical existence as logical being).
3. Those who claim that essence comes after existence is correct if they (for example) equate essence with actual being and imply here that** existence specifically means possible existence**.

In my opinion, the word “existence” most often refers specifically to actual existence. If that indeed is the case, then #1 would be best. That is, essence comes before existence.

#2 might be meaningful to some people, but I don’t think it’s particularly useful for most people. Hence, the statement that essence is simultaneous with existence is not correct with the common understanding of the terms.

#3 is just weird. I don’t know if anyone defines essence and existence in this unconventional way. Hence, the statement existence comes before essence is incorrect.

Essence comes before existence. This makes the most sense. But if you have different definitions of essence, existence, and being, then perhaps not. What do you guys think?

 

[Areopagite]

Aristotle also said Being could be divided this way:

Act: (or Actuality) that which perfects a thing in its being

Potency: the capacity or aptitude of a thing for something

Act can be divided this way:

Act of Essence: (also called Formal Act or Actuality of Essence) that which makes something what it is

**Act of Existence: ** (also called Existential or Entitative Act) that which makes an act of essence actually exist

Potency can be divided this way:

Objective Potency: (also called Possibility) the capacity of a non-existent thing for existence

Subjective Potency: the capacity for an already existing thing for another act of perfection

This, in my opinion is kind of confusing, but it makes sense, I think.

Here, essence and existence are two kinds of Act. Objective Potency applies to things that do not exist (in actuality), and subjective potency applies to things that already exist.

Acts of existence can only happen if there is something to give existence to an act of essence. It would seem then, that essence comes before existence.

I do not know how to justify in this model essence coming after existence or being simultaneous with it.

Hence, I hold that it makes the most sense to say that essence comes before existence.

 

[Detales]

Wow. That is a lot of stuff and categorization. The mind loves to do that. It is its job: to divide and make distinctions. None of the categories of “being” listed treated of the reflexive ability of awareness, or of Consciousness, per se. IN that regard, though it seems lofty in some respects, these categories are essentially materialistic and oriented only to the subject/object quale of experience. So they treat of existence, not of Being. The therefor leave out the foundation of it all. That is why while your conclusion seems correct, it might be better stated perhaps as “Essence is the medium of existence.”

All those divisions may be a good mental exercise. But in fact, there is only one such exercises that is fundamentally useful. That is the constant attempt to distinguish what is Real from what is not. Such is the door to discovery.