The Search for Meaning

[Belinda]

People you are looking for an 'objective truth', in opinions of others', and not your own adequacy of beliefs. Self-knowledge is never to re-asses a cognition once made. Justification amounts to knowledge, or it is mere opinion. Academically cannot be apprehended. Pyrrho answer to the 'normative question was not to hold 'opinions', and suspend 'judgment', the outcome will be tranquility (ataraxia.) Having, happiness is the meaning of life. We do not come to happiness through the hypothetical question, according to Pyrrho. Somehow is the 'theoretical' being rationally consistent, for action, which is subjective feeling (not understood.) Because emotion or external pressures, Pyrrho wants us to use reason to come to meaning, which is self-evident and not chance, and no further proof or justification. This is why I am a Sceptic, and try to apprehend concepts and ideas. But I am still investigating, in analytics and formal logic of concepts through analysis. "Don't worry just be happy," by Bobby McFerrin.

Happiness depends on soul. Soul is strongest when conscience, led by reason and ordinary human sympathy, is active.

Happiness, meaning, depends on gratitude. Which is hard to remember in distraction.

I am trying to picture a freefloating, intransitive, unqualified gratitude except as physiologically- engendered gratitude after satisfaction of basic desires.

Easy to know to whom one is or ought to be grateful.

Counting one's blessings may lead to grasping for more blessings, and is in any case insufficient.

Gratitude towards God, yes, except for the problem of evil.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Happiness depends on soul. Soul is strongest when conscience, led by reason and ordinary human sympathy, is active.

Happiness, meaning, depends on gratitude. Which is hard to remember in distraction.

I am trying to picture a freefloating, intransitive, unqualified gratitude except as physiologically- engendered gratitude after satisfaction of basic desires.

Easy to know to whom one is or ought to be grateful.

Counting one's blessings may lead to grasping for more blessings, and is in any case insufficient.

Gratitude towards God, yes, except for the problem of evil.

I don't need God, to be grateful. No one does. In fact it's a distraction from authentic gratitude, for what one has. Even in extremis, there can be possibility. And, tangentially, even if God were the ground of being, AND if God were Love, we'd need no gratitude to Jesus. As his prospectus would be false. He did not die for our sins, Love or no. We don't need salvation, grace, forgiveness, faith. Except to and from each other. All we'd need is to know that God is Love (not mere projected, Bronze-Iron age love, barely transcended of culture in Jesus, who in that milieu could ONLY die for our sins, and floundering theism since). And we don't. His, Their call. Not ours. We know no such thing. And so we must will gratitude. And seek philosophical, psychological and pharmacological assistance in that.

I envy the simplicity of faith. The rest of us have to work it. At authentic gratitude. Even with faith I see and have had the immense struggle, the failure. Through no fault. Made worse by faith. The ultimate gift is then that of gratitude. Facilitating gratitude in others.

[Lacewing]

I don't need God, to be grateful. No one does. In fact it's a distraction from authentic gratitude, for what one has. Even in extremis, there can be possibility. And, tangentially, even if God were the ground of being, AND if God were Love, we'd need no gratitude to Jesus. As his prospectus would be false. He did not die for our sins, Love or no. We don't need salvation, grace, forgiveness, faith. Except to and from each other. All we'd need is to know that God is Love (not mere projected, Bronze-Iron age love, barely transcended of culture in Jesus, who in that milieu could ONLY die for our sins, and floundering theism since). And we don't. His, Their call. Not ours. We know no such thing. And so we must will gratitude. And seek philosophical, psychological and pharmacological assistance in that.

Agreed!

I envy the simplicity of faith. The rest of us have to work it. At authentic gratitude. Even with faith I see and have had the immense struggle, the failure. Through no fault. Made worse by faith. The ultimate gift is then that of gratitude. Facilitating gratitude in others.

I think it can be like a valve that is shut off... yet, when that channel is open, it can flow naturally and freely for no particular reason or authority. I think the concept of God being man's creation, the technical manual for how that all works is really convoluted. Natural systems don't need technical manuals. Natural beings just tap in... and channel and flow.

Of course, there are instances when it's hard (for we struggling humans) to see/feel gratitude... but I think the more we can keep that channel open regardless of the horrors of man, the more divine the experience can naturally and consistently be felt/realized... even in agony. It's our manufactured attitudes that we pull in that can clog up the system and make it worse.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I don't need God, to be grateful. No one does. In fact it's a distraction from authentic gratitude, for what one has. Even in extremis, there can be possibility. And, tangentially, even if God were the ground of being, AND if God were Love, we'd need no gratitude to Jesus. As his prospectus would be false. He did not die for our sins, Love or no. We don't need salvation, grace, forgiveness, faith. Except to and from each other. All we'd need is to know that God is Love (not mere projected, Bronze-Iron age love, barely transcended of culture in Jesus, who in that milieu could ONLY die for our sins, and floundering theism since). And we don't. His, Their call. Not ours. We know no such thing. And so we must will gratitude. And seek philosophical, psychological and pharmacological assistance in that.

Agreed!

I envy the simplicity of faith. The rest of us have to work it. At authentic gratitude. Even with faith I see and have had the immense struggle, the failure. Through no fault. Made worse by faith. The ultimate gift is then that of gratitude. Facilitating gratitude in others.

I think it can be like a valve that is shut off... yet, when that channel is open, it can flow naturally and freely for no particular reason or authority. I think the concept of God being man's creation, the technical manual for how that all works is really convoluted. Natural systems don't need technical manuals. Natural beings just tap in... and channel and flow.

Of course, there are instances when it's hard (for we struggling humans) to see/feel gratitude... but I think the more we can keep that channel open regardless of the horrors of man, the more divine the experience can naturally and consistently be felt/realized... even in agony. It's our manufactured attitudes that we pull in that can clog up the system and make it worse.

'strewth! Harmonic convergence! What's going on?!

[Belinda]

I don't need God, to be grateful. No one does. In fact it's a distraction from authentic gratitude, for what one has. Even in extremis, there can be possibility. And, tangentially, even if God were the ground of being, AND if God were Love, we'd need no gratitude to Jesus. As his prospectus would be false. He did not die for our sins, Love or no. We don't need salvation, grace, forgiveness, faith. Except to and from each other. All we'd need is to know that God is Love (not mere projected, Bronze-Iron age love, barely transcended of culture in Jesus, who in that milieu could ONLY die for our sins, and floundering theism since). And we don't. His, Their call. Not ours. We know no such thing. And so we must will gratitude. And seek philosophical, psychological and pharmacological assistance in that.

Agreed!

I envy the simplicity of faith. The rest of us have to work it. At authentic gratitude. Even with faith I see and have had the immense struggle, the failure. Through no fault. Made worse by faith. The ultimate gift is then that of gratitude. Facilitating gratitude in others.

I think it can be like a valve that is shut off... yet, when that channel is open, it can flow naturally and freely for no particular reason or authority. I think the concept of God being man's creation, the technical manual for how that all works is really convoluted. Natural systems don't need technical manuals. Natural beings just tap in... and channel and flow.

Of course, there are instances when it's hard (for we struggling humans) to see/feel gratitude... but I think the more we can keep that channel open regardless of the horrors of man, the more divine the experience can naturally and consistently be felt/realized... even in agony. It's our manufactured attitudes that we pull in that can clog up the system and make it worse.

'strewth! Harmonic convergence! What's going on?!

It's human nature to enjoy harmony.

But "manufactured attitudes" are accultured attitudes and like it or not we have the responsibility to sort though these and choose the best.

So far nobody, not even Lacewing nor Martin , has defined 'gratitude ' so that it amounts to an identifiable human behaviour. My docile dog is reliably grateful !
Gratitude is the feeling a political dictator likes to evince from his followers, because enforcing obedience is expensive!

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Agreed!


I think it can be like a valve that is shut off... yet, when that channel is open, it can flow naturally and freely for no particular reason or authority. I think the concept of God being man's creation, the technical manual for how that all works is really convoluted. Natural systems don't need technical manuals. Natural beings just tap in... and channel and flow.

Of course, there are instances when it's hard (for we struggling humans) to see/feel gratitude... but I think the more we can keep that channel open regardless of the horrors of man, the more divine the experience can naturally and consistently be felt/realized... even in agony. It's our manufactured attitudes that we pull in that can clog up the system and make it worse.

'strewth! Harmonic convergence! What's going on?!

It's human nature to enjoy harmony.

But "manufactured attitudes" are accultured attitudes and like it or not we have the responsibility to sort though these and choose the best.

So far nobody, not even Lacewing nor Martin , has defined 'gratitude ' so that it amounts to an identifiable human behaviour. My docile dog is reliably grateful !
Gratitude is the feeling a political dictator likes to evince from his followers, because enforcing obedience is expensive!

Saying 'Thank you' out loud, alone; by itself and oneself, and also for specifics. And to people. Like life expectancy as an initial a measure of the good life, it's a start. Telling a plant, a tree, a sunset that it's beautiful. Thanking it for existing. For being able to appreciate it. Just saying thank you, out loud, when you feel joy at nature, at people being kind in the media. I hope to die grateful. Also, revel in the minutiae of walking down the street, at street plants, trees, architecture, even people. I remember nearly 40 years ago, walking up to Northampton market square one summer afternoon, free of grim cultic religion at last, feeling an endorphin rush of goodwill to everyone in the river of humanity around me. I'm grateful for that.

[Belinda]

'strewth! Harmonic convergence! What's going on?!

It's human nature to enjoy harmony.

But "manufactured attitudes" are accultured attitudes and like it or not we have the responsibility to sort though these and choose the best.

So far nobody, not even Lacewing nor Martin , has defined 'gratitude ' so that it amounts to an identifiable human behaviour. My docile dog is reliably grateful !
Gratitude is the feeling a political dictator likes to evince from his followers, because enforcing obedience is expensive!

Saying 'Thank you' out loud, alone; by itself and oneself, and also for specifics. And to people. Like life expectancy as an initial a measure of the good life, it's a start. Telling a plant, a tree, a sunset that it's beautiful. Thanking it for existing. For being able to appreciate it. Just saying thank you, out loud, when you feel joy at nature, at people being kind in the media. I hope to die grateful. Also, revel in the minutiae of walking down the street, at street plants, trees, architecture, even people. I remember nearly 40 years ago, walking up to Northampton market square one summer afternoon, free of grim cultic religion at last, feeling an endorphin rush of goodwill to everyone in the river of humanity around me. I'm grateful for that.

Now I understand better. I have done some of those too, although I did not have to release myself from any cultish religion. Why do I not want you to be a Polyanna?

Is there a man with soul so dead whose consciousnesses never awakened to the good, the true, or the beautiful ? (I put a ? mark as it's not a hypothetical question)

Googling 'Pollyanna' I found this, which I like, in Wiki

The celebrated American science fiction writer Ray Bradbury described himself as "Janus, the two-faced god who is half Pollyanna and half Cassandra, warning of the future and perhaps living too much in the past—a combination of both".[13]

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Love Bradbury. Aye, we're hard wired for the softly numinous.

[Belinda]

Love Bradbury. Aye, we're hard wired for the softl numinous.

It's not my business, but I wish you would be more Cassandra.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Love Bradbury. Aye, we're hard wired for the softl numinous.

It's not my business, but I wish you would be more Cassandra.

Why? What's the point of exercising that negative disposition? I'm an optimistic pessimist as it is.

[Belinda]

Love Bradbury. Aye, we're hard wired for the softl numinous.

It's not my business, but I wish you would be more Cassandra.

Why? What's the point of exercising that negative disposition? I'm an optimistic pessimist as it is.

Surely if you vote Labour you are pessimistic enough to see that a lot needs to be changed.

Sure, hug trees and pray "to whom it may concern " to express gratitude, or even repeat "Blessed Day" , but only pessimists actually get stuff changed for the better.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

It's not my business, but I wish you would be more Cassandra.

Why? What's the point of exercising that negative disposition? I'm an optimistic pessimist as it is.

Surely if you vote Labour you are pessimistic enough to see that a lot needs to be changed.

Sure, hug trees and pray "to whom it may concern " to express gratitude, or even repeat "Blessed Day" , but only pessimists actually get stuff changed for the better.

Progress is dead except through economic growth. As always. What are you getting done? Labour will never address social inequality at source. It's politically impossible in democracy. I have enough going on in my little life to struggle to be stoical about. You?

[iambiguous]

The Question of the Meaning of Life: Answerable or Unanswerable?
Jeffrey Gordon wonders what it would mean to have meaning.

Difficulties of the Question

“Does human life have a meaning?” It seems reasonable to assume that a meaningful question points in the direction of a promising line of inquiry. But it is far from clear what promising line of inquiry this question can initiate.

Actually, what seems quite clear to some of us is this...that there are lots and lots of people who not only believe that human existence does have a meaning, but that they have in fact already found it. And trust me: they will invariably insist that it is unequivocally their own meaning and not yours.   

It may be suggested that what I want to know in raising the question of life is whether there is some larger scheme of which human life is an essential part.

In other words, God or No God, is there an essential meaning such that one way or another it encompasses all of us? Yes, I think there might be. But what are the odds that it's yours? Still, those of my ilk are certainly willing to explore the arguments of those who believe that their own One True Path does embody it.

All I ask is that they bring their technical arguments down out of the theoretical clouds and note how, given their own interactions with others pertaining to conflicting goods, they are able to demonstrate why their own value judgments reflect the optimal meaning and morality.

This may be called the religious conception of the question, since arguably one of the greatest psychological assets of the theistic tradition is to provide exactly this grand schema, with the apparent intention of assuring us that our lives do indeed have meaning.

From my frame of mind, nothing even comes close to religion in regard to this. With most religions, you not only get moral commandments, but in following them religiously you acquire immortality and salvation. Can any of the secular objectivists say this?

Indeed, thinkers as philosophically far-flung as Kierkegaard, Tolstoy and William James have understood the quest for meaning in just this way. In this understanding of the problem of life, the question prompts exploration of a possible divine plan or some rational order immanent in the universe such as Hegel proposed, and the role of human life in that plan or order.

Some, of course, are able to convince themselves to take this "existential leap" to a God, the God. And, yeah, I wish that I was one of them. But, here and now, I'm not.

[Belinda]

The Question of the Meaning of Life: Answerable or Unanswerable?
Jeffrey Gordon wonders what it would mean to have meaning.

Difficulties of the Question

“Does human life have a meaning?” It seems reasonable to assume that a meaningful question points in the direction of a promising line of inquiry. But it is far from clear what promising line of inquiry this question can initiate.

Actually, what seems quite clear to some of us is this...that there are lots and lots of people who not only believe that human existence does have a meaning, but that they have in fact already found it. And trust me: they will invariably insist that it is unequivocally their own meaning and not yours.   

It may be suggested that what I want to know in raising the question of life is whether there is some larger scheme of which human life is an essential part.

In other words, God or No God, is there an essential meaning such that one way or another it encompasses all of us? Yes, I think there might be. But what are the odds that it's yours? Still, those of my ilk are certainly willing to explore the arguments of those who believe that their own One True Path does embody it.

All I ask is that they bring their technical arguments down out of the theoretical clouds and note how, given their own interactions with others pertaining to conflicting goods, they are able to demonstrate why their own value judgments reflect the optimal meaning and morality.

This may be called the religious conception of the question, since arguably one of the greatest psychological assets of the theistic tradition is to provide exactly this grand schema, with the apparent intention of assuring us that our lives do indeed have meaning.

From my frame of mind, nothing even comes close to religion in regard to this. With most religions, you not only get moral commandments, but in following them religiously you acquire immortality and salvation. Can any of the secular objectivists say this?

Indeed, thinkers as philosophically far-flung as Kierkegaard, Tolstoy and William James have understood the quest for meaning in just this way. In this understanding of the problem of life, the question prompts exploration of a possible divine plan or some rational order immanent in the universe such as Hegel proposed, and the role of human life in that plan or order.

Some, of course, are able to convince themselves to take this "existential leap" to a God, the God. And, yeah, I wish that I was one of them. But, here and now, I'm not.

Human life is an essential part of the widest possible meaning of meaning. Every event has been a necessary event: no exception. Note that that claim does not include any evaluation but is simply a fact of causal determinism.

What we are going to do about past necessity, our values, will alter the trajectory,

[iambiguous]

The Question of the Meaning of Life: Answerable or Unanswerable?
Jeffrey Gordon wonders what it would mean to have meaning.

However, even before we consider what this plan or order [from above] might be and how we could be certain of it, we can see that from a strictly logical standpoint such an answer would be self-stultifying: if human life can be meaningful only if it is part of a larger pattern of meaning, then by parity of reason, that larger pattern must derive its significance from its place in a still larger scheme, and so on to hopeless infinity.

Here, of course, all of us are more or less in the same metaphysical boat. There's how we have come to understand ourselves given the human condition historically, culturally and in regard to our own personal experiences. And here alone, over and again, conflicting goods sustain any number of "failures to communicate".

But that's just for starters. The human species itself must be grappled with as part of the evolution of biological life on planet Earth. Then grappling with how that fits into existence going back to the Big Bang. And how that fits into the explanation for the existence of existence itself. Why something instead of nothing? Why this something and not something else? Is there an overarching teleological component embedded in existence? In other words, "I" given the Gap, Rummy's Rule and the Benjamin Button Syndrome. 

Our search for the meaning of life would thus be eternally deferred. Even if we could know that another life awaited us in the hereafter, this knowledge could not resolve the problem, for the meaning of the afterlife would remain a mystery, which would have to be resolved before we could be certain of the ultimate meaning of this one.

On the other hand, which is more preferable... 

1] an afterlife, the meaning of which we may not be privy to or
2] the abyss, oblivion, nothingness.

Some may say that the infinite regress I am pointing out here is not nearly so damaging to the religious conception of the answer as I am claiming it is, for it does not follow from the fact that one can keep searching for a yet more comprehensive schema that one must do so in order to establish meaning: a religious believer may see no need to exceed the bounds of the hereafter in order to determine the meaningfulness of this earthly sojourn. Heavenly bliss may be meaningful enough.

Claim whatever you wish here...philosophically, theoretically, didactically.

On the other hand, what can you actually demonstrate about meaning and morality in the afterlife? The gap between "here and now" and "there and then". They are not called "leaps of faith" for nothing. It's just that some are considerably more sophisticated than others.