~ The Meaning of Life ~

[Arising_uk]

Hey Bill, the book I am writing is precisely about the emotions-electromagnetism connection and hope do Walter Russell justice. But glad to see that you know him too. ...

He doesn't know him he just wikkies and then cuts and pastes.

[Arising_uk]

Arising, you know that I've respected you in a lot of ways, I may not say it very often, but on many occasions I've supported you fully. The reason I've picked at that particular baby, (phrase), of yours, is because in and of itself it comes off both arrogant, and obviously false. ...

No it's not.

In FACT, ones response does not necessarily have anything to do with another's MEANING!!

Now you're getting it.

If you had formulated that particular phrases 'meaning,' using the word, 'words' instead of the word, 'meaning,' then you would have been much closer to being correct. ...

No the way I formulated it is correct although what I could add for clarity is that the meaning of one's words to another is the response they get.

But even still, your phrase would, in and of itself, convey your assumption that your understanding of the meaning of words is necessarily superior to others, and this a direct contradiction to your other belief that dictionaries do not contain meaning, ...

Well it might be if I actually thought this but I don't, this is just your psycho-babble getting in the way.

that meaning is born of peoples minds, such that it leaves no room for anyone to formulate any sentence that another may understand. ...

No and yes, meaning is born in one's thoughts but it can be conveyed by language but due to how language works it can be a difficult process. Put it this way, I make a distinction between 'thoughts' and 'thinks', 'thoughts' are what one does in one's 'head' without language and 'thinks' are what one does in one's head with thoughts and language, that is, when one uses language to think about one's thoughts, that is, when one talks to oneself. Now I think many people do this and I think it's comes so naturally that a problem can arise when then using language to communicate one's thoughts, or thinks if you like, to others. So one comes up with a thought and then thinks about it with words, or even just starts with the thinks and makes them back into thoughts, and because language is essentially a process that necessarily involves an other what one is actually doing is being two people in one's head but since both are actually the same there appears an accurate correspondence between the meaning of the words and the meaning of one's thoughts, i.e. the thinks and the thoughts are understood as the same, and they are because there aren't actually two people. The problem arises when one then tries to communicate these thoughts or thinks to another user of the same language, one uses the words that have accurately, to themselves, conveyed the meaning of one's thoughts but language is not so simple as the other may have a different meaning attached to the words that are being used. Hence if you truly wish to communicate a thought to another then one has to pay close attention to the response you get from the other upon hearing your words, as it may well be, and often is, that the other has reconstructed the words into a meaning that is not the one that one wished to convey and as such one needs to listen to the discrepancies and understand how the other is making their meaning and adjust one's next communication to reflect that fact. This is an experience fairly well understood by fine artists as they use mediums that by and large are not linguistic so they create an object that expresses their thoughts but understand that the viewer is also involved in the creation of any meaning obtained from that object, if the reaction of the viewer appears close to what they wanted to express then job well done, if their intention was to communicate that is as it may well be that they are just creating it to express themselves and nothing more. It's why many artists like to discuss their work as others sometimes give them insights into their works that they themselves did not 'see'.

Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, in FACT, a dictionary that 'everyone' refers to, is the "ONLY" way one can insure that their words are capable of conveying the meaning that is inside their heads. So it is the job of anyone that wishes to convey the proper meaning that is contained in their minds, to adjust the words they use to meet those in a dictionary or else they fail to formulate sentences that another can find common reference so as to fully understand. ...

This understanding is just about the worst way to think about how to communicate with language.

WE CANNOT CRAWL UNTO EACH OTHERS MINDS TO FIND TRUE MEANING. ...

There is no 'true' meaning but there is exactly a way to understand how to communicate the meaning in one's 'mind' and it's called language and involves listening and understanding how language works and especially how it works when being used to think and communicate.

Unfortunately we must rely on REFERENCE books as a source of COMMON meaning so as to understand one another.

Then you'd have to explain how common meaning was obtained before writing and how it held before dictionaries?

IT CAN BE NO OTHER WAY! ...

Not sure it's even a way.

If you don't understand my point then you had better rethink your belief system. ...

No, I don't think so. As I think you misunderstand how language works and it's relation to meaning and communicating such things.

Because on this topic, my logic is flawless!

I have no doubt it is but the problem is your premises are wrong.

No, I'm an idiot!! I'M NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE!! WE ARE ALL BORN OF EQUAL POTENTIAL. Unless we are born physically flawed, or are subsequently mentally corrupted!

Dippy nonsense. What should be asserted is that everyone has the right to equality of opportunity to achieve their full potential.

So, what I'm saying to you is to "give people the benefit of doubt" because that can ONLY serve both you and them, when it comes to the sharing of meaning contained in each of our minds. ...

I pretty much never do anything else.

NO ONE EITHER DESERVES OR SHOULD INSIST ON CARTE BLANCHE IN TERMS OF MEANING CONVEYANCE, BEING SHARED AMONGST EVER DIFFERING PEOPLES, SUCH THAT THEY STOMP ON ANOTHER'S WORD USAGE AS IF THEY ARE SUPERIOR. As it's just an illusion or their delusion, the former born of ignorance, the latter, a self stroking mechanism. Take your pick!

I pick that this is just all a product of your pet psycho-babble.

And despite your belief in them, or the date being in dispute, I wish you and yours happy holidays! May it find you and yours, healthy, happy and wise!

No idea why you don't just say Merry Christmas?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I hate to be trivially semantic. But it is important. The thread should be called "the purpose of life" not "the meaning of life".
The meaning of "dog" is not "to serve humans". That is a culturally determined understanding. It is contingent. Meaning is definitional, not contingent.

Dear oh dear - you are a confused little puppy aren't you?

Both questions are perfectly acceptable and meaningful. Dogs are not relevant.
It's like your confusion with ontology and epistemology; both questions are linked and relevant. If you try to put things in boxes too much you loose all nuance.

Life can have meaning without any specific set of purposes. "Meaning" is far more wide than the simple definitional meaning. It means more than "means".

[SpheresOfBalance]

Arising, you know that I've respected you in a lot of ways, I may not say it very often, but on many occasions I've supported you fully. The reason I've picked at that particular baby, (phrase), of yours, is because in and of itself it comes off both arrogant, and obviously false. ...

No it's not.
As you originally stated it, YES IT IS! Unless of course it was actually your failed attempt at cryptography!

Because there is no way that your supposedly cute little phrase, in any way, exemplified that which you explained at length then, when this argument first started or below. 'One's meaning is the response they get,' is false. Their meaning is only ever in their minds, that their words may convey. That short and sweet little version, just said so much about your once over the top regard for yourself, at the expense of others, so you could believe it. As did your treatment of Godfree! Though I do sense that you've changed for the better. Kudo's are in order. I too have become milder, though still far too strong for some.

In FACT, ones response does not necessarily have anything to do with another's MEANING!!

Now you're getting it.

If you had formulated that particular phrases 'meaning,' using the word, 'words' instead of the word, 'meaning,' then you would have been much closer to being correct. ...

No the way I formulated it is correct although what I could add for clarity is that the meaning of one's words to another is the response they get.
And so either this new revision of yours or mine would in fact say much more than your original. Finally you admit that your original was unclear. Thank you! Remember that WE AGREED when you imparted the longer version, even back then. I've only ever had problems with your short version that was supposed to represent the longer one faithfully, which it never did.

All the rest below as to my understanding of psychology and your denial through ridicule, is simply that, your denial. To be expected of someone such as yourself, that has used knowledge as a weapon instead of its true purpose, which is, "to enlighten."

But then hopefully we all learn and grow, don't we?

But even still, your phrase would, in and of itself, convey your assumption that your understanding of the meaning of words is necessarily superior to others, and this a direct contradiction to your other belief that dictionaries do not contain meaning, ...

Well it might be if I actually thought this but I don't, this is just your psycho-babble getting in the way.

that meaning is born of peoples minds, such that it leaves no room for anyone to formulate any sentence that another may understand. ...

No and yes, meaning is born in one's thoughts but it can be conveyed by language but due to how language works it can be a difficult process. Put it this way, I make a distinction between 'thoughts' and 'thinks', 'thoughts' are what one does in one's 'head' without language and 'thinks' are what one does in one's head with thoughts and language, that is, when one uses language to think about one's thoughts, that is, when one talks to oneself. Now I think many people do this and I think it's comes so naturally that a problem can arise when then using language to communicate one's thoughts, or thinks if you like, to others. So one comes up with a thought and then thinks about it with words, or even just starts with the thinks and makes them back into thoughts, and because language is essentially a process that necessarily involves an other what one is actually doing is being two people in one's head but since both are actually the same there appears an accurate correspondence between the meaning of the words and the meaning of one's thoughts, i.e. the thinks and the thoughts are understood as the same, and they are because there aren't actually two people. The problem arises when one then tries to communicate these thoughts or thinks to another user of the same language, one uses the words that have accurately, to themselves, conveyed the meaning of one's thoughts but language is not so simple as the other may have a different meaning attached to the words that are being used. Hence if you truly wish to communicate a thought to another then one has to pay close attention to the response you get from the other upon hearing your words, as it may well be, and often is, that the other has reconstructed the words into a meaning that is not the one that one wished to convey and as such one needs to listen to the discrepancies and understand how the other is making their meaning and adjust one's next communication to reflect that fact. This is an experience fairly well understood by fine artists as they use mediums that by and large are not linguistic so they create an object that expresses their thoughts but understand that the viewer is also involved in the creation of any meaning obtained from that object, if the reaction of the viewer appears close to what they wanted to express then job well done, if their intention was to communicate that is as it may well be that they are just creating it to express themselves and nothing more. It's why many artists like to discuss their work as others sometimes give them insights into their works that they themselves did not 'see'.

Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, in FACT, a dictionary that 'everyone' refers to, is the "ONLY" way one can insure that their words are capable of conveying the meaning that is inside their heads. So it is the job of anyone that wishes to convey the proper meaning that is contained in their minds, to adjust the words they use to meet those in a dictionary or else they fail to formulate sentences that another can find common reference so as to fully understand. ...

This understanding is just about the worst way to think about how to communicate with language.

WE CANNOT CRAWL UNTO EACH OTHERS MINDS TO FIND TRUE MEANING. ...

There is no 'true' meaning but there is exactly a way to understand how to communicate the meaning in one's 'mind' and it's called language and involves listening and understanding how language works and especially how it works when being used to think and communicate.

Unfortunately we must rely on REFERENCE books as a source of COMMON meaning so as to understand one another.

Then you'd have to explain how common meaning was obtained before writing and how it held before dictionaries?

IT CAN BE NO OTHER WAY! ...

Not sure it's even a way.

If you don't understand my point then you had better rethink your belief system. ...

No, I don't think so. As I think you misunderstand how language works and it's relation to meaning and communicating such things.

Because on this topic, my logic is flawless!

I have no doubt it is but the problem is your premises are wrong.

No, I'm an idiot!! I'M NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE!! WE ARE ALL BORN OF EQUAL POTENTIAL. Unless we are born physically flawed, or are subsequently mentally corrupted!

Dippy nonsense. What should be asserted is that everyone has the right to equality of opportunity to achieve their full potential.

So, what I'm saying to you is to "give people the benefit of doubt" because that can ONLY serve both you and them, when it comes to the sharing of meaning contained in each of our minds. ...

I pretty much never do anything else.

NO ONE EITHER DESERVES OR SHOULD INSIST ON CARTE BLANCHE IN TERMS OF MEANING CONVEYANCE, BEING SHARED AMONGST EVER DIFFERING PEOPLES, SUCH THAT THEY STOMP ON ANOTHER'S WORD USAGE AS IF THEY ARE SUPERIOR. As it's just an illusion or their delusion, the former born of ignorance, the latter, a self stroking mechanism. Take your pick!

I pick that this is just all a product of your pet psycho-babble.

And despite your belief in them, or the date being in dispute, I wish you and yours happy holidays! May it find you and yours, healthy, happy and wise!

No idea why you don't just say Merry Christmas?
Simply to cover all the bases, that you and others have whined about in the past.

"Psycho-babble," in a forum of debate, a contrived term, often used by either the ignorant, or those in denial. Case in point!

[Arising_uk]

As you originally stated it, YES IT IS! Unless of course it was actually your failed attempt at cryptography!

No it's not, here is my response to your bringing this matter up yet again,

... 'The meaning of one's words lies in the response they get' ...

Because there is no way that your supposedly cute little phrase, in any way, exemplified that which you explained at length then, when this argument first started or below. 'One's meaning is the response they get,' is false. ...

See above.

Their meaning is only ever in their minds, that their words may convey. ...

Who is this 'they'? As 'they' can hear one's words and 'they' won't necessarily mean to them what you think they do, it's the nature of how language works in communication.

That short and sweet little version, just said so much about your once over the top regard for yourself, at the expense of others, so you could believe it. As did your treatment of Godfree! ...

More of your psycho-babble.

Though I do sense that you've changed for the better. ...

Since your sense has had me female in the past I think very little of it.

Kudo's are in order. I too have become milder, though still far too strong for some.

I really don't give a toss.

And so either this new revision of yours or mine would in fact say much more than your original. Finally you admit that your original was unclear. Thank you!

No I don't as see above.

Remember that WE AGREED when you imparted the longer version, even back then. I've only ever had problems with your short version that was supposed to represent the longer one faithfully, which it never did.

Yes it does, it's just that you keep hearing it as an attack upon your thoughts and for some reason this disturbs you.

All the rest below as to my understanding of psychology and your denial through ridicule, is simply that, your denial. To be expected of someone such as yourself, that has used knowledge as a weapon instead of its true purpose, which is, "to enlighten."

You have very little understanding of psychology other than the pet-version you have cobbled together and which you apply in all cases.

But then hopefully we all learn and grow, don't we?

Do we?

Simply to cover all the bases, that you and others have whined about in the past.

You talk to made-up people as I have never whined about Christmas.

"Psycho-babble," in a forum of debate, a contrived term, often used by either the ignorant, or those in denial. Case in point!

'In denial' You make my case well.

[raw_thought]

I hate to be trivially semantic. But it is important. The thread should be called "the purpose of life" not "the meaning of life".
The meaning of "dog" is not "to serve humans". That is a culturally determined understanding. It is contingent. Meaning is definitional, not contingent.

Dear oh dear - you are a confused little puppy aren't you?

Both questions are perfectly acceptable and meaningful. Dogs are not relevant.
It's like your confusion with ontology and epistemology; both questions are linked and relevant. If you try to put things in boxes too much you loose all nuance.

Life can have meaning without any specific set of purposes. "Meaning" is far more wide than the simple definitional meaning. It means more than "means".

Perhaps in sloppy normal discourse. But in academic philosophy, "meaning" and "purpose" are two different things.
My mentioning "dogs" is relevant. It is called an "analogy".

[Hobbes' Choice]

I hate to be trivially semantic. But it is important. The thread should be called "the purpose of life" not "the meaning of life".
The meaning of "dog" is not "to serve humans". That is a culturally determined understanding. It is contingent. Meaning is definitional, not contingent.

Dear oh dear - you are a confused little puppy aren't you?

Both questions are perfectly acceptable and meaningful. Dogs are not relevant.
It's like your confusion with ontology and epistemology; both questions are linked and relevant. If you try to put things in boxes too much you loose all nuance.

Life can have meaning without any specific set of purposes. "Meaning" is far more wide than the simple definitional meaning. It means more than "means".

Perhaps in sloppy normal discourse. But in academic philosophy, "meaning" and "purpose" are two different things.
My mentioning "dogs" is relevant. It is called an "analogy".

My dog means a lot to me.
My dog has no purpose.

Perfectly reasonable statements of truth.
"Life" is purposeless; but has to have meaning for people other wise they are unhappy.


PS your analogy is a crock of shit. ALL meaning is contingent.

[raw_thought]

So if your dog bit you, he would still have a lot of meaning for you? I suspect that you would get rid of him. Why? Because he no longer serves your purposes ( to feel loved etc)
Anyway, I will side with all of academic philosophy and you can keep your intuitive definitions. This argument actually bores me as it is all about semantics and no substance. However, by your constant emotional outbursts, semantics is more important to you then substance.

[Hobbes' Choice]

So if your dog bit you, he would still have a lot of meaning for you? I suspect that you would get rid of him. Why? Because he no longer serves your purposes ( to feel loved etc)
Anyway, I will side with all of academic philosophy and you can keep your intuitive definitions. This argument actually bores me as it is all about semantics and no substance. However, by your constant emotional outbursts, semantics is more important to you then substance.

Oh yeah the "I'm too bored to argue with you" ploy when you know you've lost the argument.

This proves my point BTW "So if your dog bit you, he would still have a lot of meaning for you? "

[SpheresOfBalance]

There is no 'meaning of life,' except that which is in your mind for yours. It's a human construct often used to force ones opinions upon others. Ones meaning is theirs alone, only to be seriously considered by the one that 'creates' it.

There is no universal handbook, authored by the universe! As to our physical selves: "All we are is dust in the wind!" While our 'meaning' is 'even less;' the temporal electrochemical manifestation of our fears, hopes and dreams.

[Dubious]

Being implicitly meaningless, the Meaning of Life Variable will accept ANY meaning and the reason why there can never be a resolution.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Just finished reviewing the posts upon this thread that I began over one year ago -


I think I started this thread as a pretty desperate call.

And I'm still on that ledge.

Looking at 2016 with an emotional ache that seems to be rooted in meaninglessness, a strange loneliness that I can't explain or understand, and a constant feeling of estrangement from a deeper reality that I once knew...







From earlier within this thread:


I appreciate the attention.


More importantly I respect and appreciate both of you as veteran members to this, the greatest philosophy forum on the planet; the PhilosophyNow Forums.


I can't walk backwards.



I look back at my life and I see the happiest childhood into young adulthood.


Then drugs. A lot of drugs.

Followed by a level of depression that I cannot even imagine now.


But then I also found Ouspensky.


The writings of Ouspensky, what that did to me, at that time in my life, is worth any price that this world could throw at me.


Then the work portion of my life took over, where like most of us we concentrate upon our careers.


That's over. I am long past the ability to reach the meaning I found through the writings of Ouspensky.


I am empty. I am not complaining. But I am unable to plumb the fiber of my being now.



Somewhere along my journey I lost the "I" part of my consciousness.


I just am. An outward shell.



Where, out here, when death is close, do I find, The Meaning of Life?





.

[Dubious]

.




Somewhere along my journey I lost the "I" part of my consciousness.


.

Not really! That's the part that's giving you all the trouble. Had you lost some of that "I" more would have flowed in at least enough to keep you from starving.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




So true. So painfully true...




.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is no 'meaning of life,' except that which is in your mind for yours. It's a human construct often used to force ones opinions upon others. Ones meaning is theirs alone, only to be seriously considered by the one that 'creates' it.
)

At last you are learning. You have proven yourself capable of changing your mind and absorbing some ideas from the Forum.
Well done.