UnbornTao

Whatever the self is attached to gives it meaning. But does it have to be attached to those particular things? Not necessarily - it can attach or identify itself with all kinds of things. Another perspective: at the end of the day, do we really care what the meaning of life is? We seem to simply go about the business of living, and the meaning appears to underlie the activities we engage in. From yet another view, we might say everyone's purpose is ego survival, and the meaning - perhaps - to be happy. People already seem to live their lives assigning to them the meaning they want, even though meaning isn't intrinsic.

I'd say assigned or added, but I like that! meaning: a charged interpretation made on top of or after the existence of some thing to orient the behavior of one's self and one's relationship to that thing, in a way that aids self-survival - is another definition that came to mind. Not sure if it is accurate or tells the whole story, but I felt cute.

@zurew It's all survival-based. To use an analogy, survival is the kernel of your operating system - your self. It's not an extraneous or trivial matter. Life is survival; we just prefer the nicer-sounding term. What use would "meaning" have otherwise? I've noticed we've been speaking about two related but distinct domains or applications: meaning as it's experienced in the course of living, and the meaning of life. "The monk" is just a label. She's a person who "finds" meaning in whatever resonates with her. As an individual, she can do - and identify with - all kinds of stuff - but none of it changes the fact that life and self are without inherent meaning. Still, within this context, she'll continue operating from a meaning paradigm. You can stop generating meaning in your life, but it's always temporary. For example, realizing this doesn't stop you from halting at a red light. You still interpret signs and signals; you still deeply care about your life. You still live and want to keep living - therefore, meaning will be operative. In that sense, it seems unavoidable to a certain extent. Historically, there have been enlightened Chinese warriors - men who fought and killed, yet also studied sutras, meditated, wrote poetry, wished to end all sentient beings' suffering, and what have you. Just an example. A better analogy might be a video game. Within the game, there are enemies, goals, obstacles, story-lines - and to progress, the character must act. You can imagine all sorts of characters and villains, each with their own backstory and behavior. Just like us, they assign meaning to situations based on survival and progression. Not everything goes. Actions have consequences. If someone throws rocks at you, it's likely going to be interpreted as bad and as something to be avoided because it threatens one's physical well-being. This gives rise to a kind of internal logic or "rules" of meaning within the game: "does this contribute to my self-survival or not?" Every character will answer that slightly differently. The player is free to assign meaning - but the game still has structure. It has rules and consequences. That design shapes how meaning unfolds within the game. Still, the game is the game. So what does it mean? What is it for? You can make the game mean anything: a path to evolve your skills, build community, pass the time, or get educated. You, as the player, are both independent of the game and embedded in it. So you're also bound by its rules - if you want to play it as it is. Existentially, it is without ultimate meaning - because meaning is not existential. The game just is. Its "meaning" is its being. The meaning of the game is that it exists. Or, to put it differently, "it is because it is." I've just realized: it's easy to conflate something having purpose with it being meaningful. It might be worth exploring that distinction more carefully. Maybe the real issue is that we haven't yet grasped what meaning is. Most of what we've been doing is exchanging ideas - engaging intellectually. That's useful, but it doesn't quite touch meaning itself. That's why it can be helpful to design practical exercises - to examine meaning in a more grounded, experiential way. In terms of life, what might be needed are a few enlightenments into its nature. But that may not arrive immediately, so… best to keep contemplating. And just for fun, a question I once heard (can't recall where): What's the meaning of a toaster floating around in outer space?

https://github.com/iWebbIO/obsidian-decentralized/ It isn't optimal, but it's worth a try.

I don't think it does.

Sensible excuse. Now, what is it accomplishing? I agree - the key is to stop imagining a negative future scenario. You could also conjure up a positive one and feel hopeful as a result. Also, it is useful to recognize that you can't possibly be depressed in relation to the now. You mentioned the lack of 'prospects for progress' as a likely cause of depression in your previous reply. But that, too, is something you're making up in your mind; it's not a function of circumstances. So, why would it have to cause depression? You can always set goals and move towards them every day without needing to conjure up a future scenario where all your needs are met or not. If you believe depression is caused by circumstances, then the only option becomes manipulating circumstances in an attempt to manage the emotion, without addressing its root. Notice the "resisted" aspect - you might be engaging in some of that, especially in your dissection of the roller coaster example. Stories and justifications aside, all it takes is recognizing, in your experience, that and where the negative future ideation is being generated - by you - for you to be able to drop it. We usually aren't aware of this fact, even though we understand it intellectually. But we can recognize it by paying close attention to what we're doing and 'thinking.'

@Carl-Richard It sounds like you assume that the only option available in this contemplative work is to believe in something - usually something handed down from the outside. But personally encountering whatever is true is possible. We understand this intellectually, but I feel like you might be holding it as not truly possible - in the background of your experience. Odd thing for me to say, but take it into account. I've personally encountered this 'sentiment' before, subtle as it might be. There's a difference between a follower and someone who questions by themselves.

Hmm, you tell me!

@Sugarcoat Not lasagna!

It's been a while since I last meditated or did nothing for more than an hour while sitting. I actually find it harder to do now than I used to - not that I feel guilty about it. I wanted to make a few excuses to justify it, for whatever that's worth. I see meditation as a healing exercise in which one learns to control his/her mind, become more aware, experience state shifts, have insight, and so on.

What do diet and lifestyle have to do with truth in the first place? By all means - if you want to go vegan, go for it. If you want to be healthy, do healthy things. But how you live your life and the truth are different domains - at least if we're talking about truth in the factual or existential sense. Consider this: Gautama Buddha ate meat. Why? Was he a hypocrite? Or is it that life circumstances are ultimately inconsequential to the search for truth? (There could be other possible reasons, too.) At the end of the day, what drives your choice of what to eat - or, say, what to wear? It seems to basically come down to preference or opinion - a subjective choice. In a way, it's like asking which outfit is best suited for questioning existence.

Getting the hang of Morrowind - heavily modded, by the way (over 500 mods using the Total Overhaul list). It's a slow game - sometimes excruciatingly so. Depends on the mood, but overall, it's been an enjoyable experience so far.

By a felt mental connection, you're referring to something relative, whereas direct consciousness points to the domain of absolutes. It's not a ‘thing’ that can be apprehended - at least not through conventional means. Even mentioning 'a means' misses the mark, since that too is indirect and step-based. This isn't to dismiss feeling states or the value of becoming more present or aware. We can understand the theory, but don't have a conscious experience of what it is pointing to yet - hence our dilemma. But again, it's perfectly fine not to know what direct consciousness is.

If the mind can envision a negative scenario, it can just as easily envision a positive one. In either case, it's imagined - so there's no real reason to favor one over the other. You might as well choose the positive future - or stop mentally producing a future altogether. It takes finding that - and where - you are generating it in your experience. May be difficult, especially at first, but it is doable. That's true - but it has to be heard for what it actually is. Properly understood, it's freeing.

Sure. I'd bet that pretty much everyone does feel like that (that life or one's self is worthless) from time to time, to a greater or lesser degree. developers developers developers!

Credit to Werner Erhard for the quote, by the way. Notice that grasping the reality of the assertion is very different from believing in it and drawing conclusions about it. The former is experiential and grounded - and would instantly change your relationship to this whole 'meaninglessness' business, as the 'dilemma' would be seen as insubstantial from the start. Those questions already presuppose that meaning and morality exist objectively. In my view, a better question to ask would be: What is meaning? Survival requires evaluating and categorizing every perception as 'good' or 'bad.' What is interpreted is related to your self and its agenda in such a way that it supports your survival - through the addition of significance. Its function is to help us recognize what to pursue and what to avoid - what is good and what is bad for us. So, we naturally resist meaninglessness. What we find meaningless, we usually don't even notice because it has already been estimated as worthless or insignificant - yet another assessment of meaning. If meaninglessness is taken as something negative, though, that is still an assessment of meaning! Positive, negative, boring, insignificant, relevant, valuable - all are essentially interpretations filtered through the same paradigm. Doing some of the exercises shared a few pages ago - like the ones with the 'victory' and 'middle finger' pictures - helps us get a better sense of this. The sign itself is instantly made sense of and reacted to with corresponding feelings. Thanks to this relationship, we're given valuable information on how to deal with circumstances and life in general. Without this, we'd have no way to relate to or deal with life, as everything perceived would appear 'equal' or neutral to us - and this would feel intolerable for us. We need the 'charged' interpretation of meaning to navigate life. You'll likely keep finding meaningful the things you already find meaningful - yet if you're conscious of what that activity is, you'll see it for what it is and will be free from it as an objective reality that 'happens' to you. You'll realize that you were always in the driver's seat of meaning. We often resist this, though. Maybe because it feels like too much responsibility. To put it differently: existence transcends meaning. Life itself is free of it - like a blank slate. As the result of a process, it is added after the fact; what something is comes prior to the assigned significance. This means we're free to create meaning for our lives, or to enjoy a life with no ultimate meaning assigned to it. A Zen monk living his mundane existence illustrates this well. No thrills or pretension - just presence. And no suffering from the meaninglessness of it all. Like a child playing with his toys, there's nothing missing.

@SOUL Damn we're @SOULmates. I do appreciate the 'keeping it real' spirit.

You once made the same spelling mistake about a year ago, and then I made this with AI: #toaistreligion

@Anton Rogachevski

Playing devil's advocate for fun. This applies to any tool misused or unfit for the task: In the domain of absolute consciousness, intellect doesn't truly reach. That's why enlightened people might see others as poor chess players in that realm - regardless of how sharp they may be intellectually. Being highly intellectual doesn't guarantee real intelligence either. It's worth asking what a tool is, what its purpose is, and what it actually accomplishes. In the case of intellect, how can we use it powerfully? Something to meditate on.

Appreciate it.

It means that it is factually occurring. You are perceiving and experiencing, are you not? Does it mean it is ultimately true? Not necessarily. Now, this is tricky. For example, one might automatically assume that, since they believe in something, then that means the belief is true because 'it is occurring.' This is a mistake. What's happening here is that the activity of believing is taking place - not that the content of the belief exists as being true. It exists as something that is imagined. Slippery distinction. I don't know. Actually, go over this dialogue: It could be put as what's present, has always been and will always be. Contrast that with activity and invention - the relative domain we live in. What is can only be now - something to contemplate. Depends on what we're talking about. You might recognize that you are angry, and this would be a fact - true in that regard. Yet, we might recognize anger as generated to serve a purpose. As a process, it can't be about what exists now - in this case, the emotion relates to a past imagination. Without the activity of generating anger, it does not exist.