Talk:Biodata

Ixihtec

Do we want to conflate these things? Burton has said that he coined the term to mean roughly "platonic form" for his book, but it's occasionally used in ways that suggest it might belong on this page. Najawin ☎ 08:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think ixihtec is a better match for quintessence, based on how Burton uses it. The connection with biodata can definitely be mentioned, though. – n8 (☎) 17:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The BotW version of quintessence, or Burton's? Because I'm not really seeing either. (Maaaayyyyyybbeeeee Burton's? But vaguely.) Najawin ☎ 18:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, Burton repeatedly calls it a person or object's "intangible essence", which reminds me quite strongly of quintessence, "the most fundamental level of being". It's certainly more broad a concept than biodata, since it also applies to objects and ideas. But the fact that this is in dispute at all probably means it deserves its own page. – n8 (☎) 18:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the text more supports the quintessence being a level of reality, eg, 5.3

the nearest point where the quintessence actually supported a structure to be unravelled

But you're right, probably its own page. (Arguably it ties in to an animistic notion of minds being everywhere in native culture, as it's minds that are relevant for biodata rather than biology. But the concepts still aren't 1:1) Najawin ☎ 18:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)