What is meaning?

[Breakingthewall]

34 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

In support of your statement:

http://www.cosmicegg.org/intervista lilly1.pdf

Not saying everything he says is necessary true... but re descriptions and explanations of reality it seems to me he did invest a fair amount of time and energy to look for answers...only to realize it's best to stop looking.

He's wrong, the reality is understandable, but since that guy was operating from a position of limitation, he came to the conclusion that it's impossible to understand it because he equates understanding with knowledge. Too basic.

[theleelajoker]

7 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

He's wrong, the reality is understandable, but since that guy was operating from a position of limitation, he came to the conclusion that it's impossible to understand it because he equates understanding with knowledge. Too basic.

How is it possible to understand sth that is changing every single moment?

Your understanding will always be one of the past, won't it? The moment you "get it" it will already have moved on, and because you understand, this understanding already changed what is, reflecting your understanding, opening the next, and the next door to change, and so on...

 

 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, theleelajoker said:

How is it possible to understand sth that is changing every single moment?

Your understanding will always be one of the past, won't it? The moment you "get it" it will already have moved on, and because you understand, this understanding already changed what is, reflecting your understanding, opening the next, and the next door to change, and so on...

 

 

You can understand that the nature of anything is unlimited potential manifesting, and understand what that potential is and why it manifests. That potential is limitlessness and manifestation happens because it's inevitable. It's a direct, non-conceptual understanding, then you realize that you are that. Conceptually seems nothing, meaningless, but if you see it it's everything 

Edited July 7 by Breakingthewall

[theleelajoker]

52 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

You can understand that the nature of anything is unlimited potential manifesting, and understand what that potential is and why it manifests. That potential is limitlessness and manifestation happens because it's inevitable. It's a direct, non-conceptual understanding, then you realize that you are that. Conceptually seems nothing, meaningless, but if you see it it's everything 

OK thanks will observe. 

[PurpleTree]

There is no meaning, there’s no purpose, there’s no logic, there’s no you.

Deal with it it 😎 

[UnbornTao]

@Breakingthewall A perspective is itself a limit. You keep talking of limitation as if it were bad or wrong, but it is precisely what allows for potential to be actualized. For something to exist in the first place, it must be limited. Potential and limitation are two sides of the same coin.

I'm derailing the thread.

Edited July 7 by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

9 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

There is no meaning, there’s no purpose, there’s no logic, there’s no you.

Deal with it it 😎 

But does God have a flan for me? Seriously though, the above assertion is probably a conclusion of yours. It might be true or not, but that's what we're exploring. Those claims are also likely to be misunderstood. Purpose itself might not be a fact of the universe, but it still operates on our lives. It may be invented as an activity. Besides, taking meaningless as a negative thing is still a meaningful assessment, although a negative one. That would be coming from the same paradigm of meaning. In truth, it wouldn't be negative nor positive.

What are those things? In this case, we're trying to tackle meaning, so what is it?

Edited July 7 by UnbornTao

[saif2]

On 6/29/2025 at 2:38 PM, UnbornTao said:

Thanks for the input.

In relation to the following picture, see if you can recognize, or pull apart, the component of meaning - as it occurs in your experience:

What does the gesture mean? What's your reaction upon seeing it? Is it offensive? How so? Can you perceive it before, or without, interpreting it?

Meaning is generated from a limited perspective, it is a suppression of cognition and a lack of understanding. When the boundary between the perceiver and the perceived is blurred, meaning disappears.

[PurpleTree]

5 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

But does God have a flan for me?

That assertion is likely a conclusion of yours. Then again, it might be true or not, but that's what we're exploring. It is also likely to be misunderstood. Purpose itself might not be a fact of the universe, but it still operates on our lives. It may be invented as an activity. Besides, taking meaningless as a negative thing is still a meaningful assessment, although a negative one. That would be coming from the same paradigm of meaning. In truth, it wouldn't be negative nor positive.

What are those things? In this case, we're trying to tackle meaning, so what is it?

It’s an illusion.

[UnbornTao]

On 7/3/2025 at 5:37 PM, Jordan said:

Meaning is just something your mind assigns objects in your model of reality. It relates to how the object effects your survival. What else do you want to know about meaning?

Insight is the goal. The topic is not simplistic at all. For example: What is your experience of meaning? Do you see it differently now? Isn't it the case that meaning is not limited to objects? Can you see that it is not merely a model but rather that your day-to-day experience is imbued with meaning? Do we pay any attention at all to things outside of this self-referential relationship ("what does it mean to me")? How come it is quite an important (see, meaning again) aspect of life? 

Edited July 8 by UnbornTao

[PurpleTree]

26 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

What is your experience of meaning? Do you see it differently now? Isn't it the case that meaning is not limited to objects? Can you see that it is not merely a model but rather that your day-to-day experience is imbued with meaning? Do we pay any attention at all to things outside of this self-referential relationship ("what does it mean to me")? How come it is quite an important (see, meaning again) aspect of life? 

Who is asking that? All of that is illusory.

[saif2]

Meaning is illusory within myself, and within other people, also structures are meaningless such as atoms, molecules and so on... After deconstructing these what remains?

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

@Breakingthewall A perspective is itself a limit. You keep talking of limitation as if it were bad or wrong, but it is precisely what allows for potential to be actualized. For something to exist in the first place, it must be limited. Potential and limitation are two sides of the same coin.

I'm derailing the thread.

You don't understand, I never talk about limitation as if we're bad, I'm saying that you can place yourself in an unlimited perspective, and by default you're in a limited perspective. What's confusing is mixing both.

Unlimited perspective is not a limit, is precisely absence of limits. You can place yourself in that perspective because ultimately you are that. That doesn't mean that limited perspective is false or illusion, it's absolutely real, as a limited perspective 

Edited July 7 by Breakingthewall

[UnbornTao]

On 7/7/2025 at 5:25 PM, Breakingthewall said:

You don't understand, I never talk about limitation as if we're bad, I'm saying that you can place yourself in an unlimited perspective, and by default you're in a limited perspective. What's confusing is mixing both.

Unlimited perspective is not a limit, is precisely absence of limits. That doesn't mean that limited perspective is false or illusion, it's absolutely real

Again, the only way a perspective can come to exist is as a limitation. That's what a perspective is. 

Where would you put yourself on something that is allegedly unlimited? If it is some place, as you seem to assume, then it must be located somewhere, and thus be limited. Besides, what is the "yourself" you're taking about? If it is separate from the thing it needs to reach, then isn't that also relative? Also, I suspect the nature of that entity isn't clear either, which is fine - we do not know.

An absence of limits, we can imagine, doesn't look like anything, and there's nothing that can be "done" within it, so to speak. It wouldn't be some thing, and you mention lots of something's.

Edited July 9 by UnbornTao

[Kuba Powiertowski]

Meaning vs Nature
„Meaning is something that is ascribed. 
Nature is an objective reality.”

That what IS vs what you want to see.

That what IS vs our subjective stories about it.

 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Again, the only way a perspective can come to exist is as a limitation. That's what a perspective is. 

Besides, where would you put yourself on something that is allegedly unlimited? If it is some place then it must be located somewhere, and thus be limited. Also, what is the "yourself" you're taking about? That itself is limited too, as you seem to have taken it to be separate from the place it needs to go. And I suspect the nature of that entity isn't clear either, which is fine - we do not know. An absence of limits, we can imagine, doesn't look like anything, and there's nothing that can be "done" within it, so to speak. It wouldn't be some thing, and you mention lots of something's.

What is a perspective? What is limitation? (These are rhetorical questions!).

Seems that your goal is to appear smart,  and it's ok if it is what you need now, but perhaps some people aim for true openness. So, unlimited perspective is the perception of your unlimited nature from this concrete form. Without form, there is no perception; if there is perception, it's because there is form. Form perceives forms, but it can also perceive itself as its essential nature. This is what mystics talk about, but they usually do so in a confusing way, mixing unlimited perspective with limited perspective. Unlimited perspective is perceiving what you are, and what you are is limitlessness, which is absolute potential. If you locate yourself in the unlimited perspective, you are out of time and form, in part. That's , you are still a form that operates in time, breathing and that, but same time you open your perception to the unlimited, you understand what you are absolutely, despite the form, you totally forget the form for a while, as it doesn't exist, no time, no meaning, just unlimited. Then you recognize yourself as unlimited reality that is absolute potential, that's the step 1 in true spirituality 

Edited July 7 by Breakingthewall

[Carl-Richard]

On 2.7.2025 at 4:34 PM, Nilsi said:

The argument is that there is no “amoeba chasing a bacterium” prior to a particular scientific discourse that, a priori, commits itself to the discovery - or should we say the production - of certain truths.

There is no amoeba in your meditation practice. There is no nirvana in a microscope. There is only the libidinal band, a Möbius strip of flows where the subject unfurls its theatre of mastery - weaving diagrams and luminous fictions onto the same continuous surface of desire.

Yes, I agree you need to assume language, reason and observation to conclude that meaning is natural. But I'm not particularly worried about that.

[UnbornTao]

23 hours ago, saif2 said:

Meaning is generated from a limited perspective, it is a suppression of cognition and a lack of understanding. When the boundary between the perceiver and the perceived is blurred, meaning disappears.

Thank you. Wouldn't taking meaning to be a bad thing also be an assessment of meaning? The way you talked about it gave me the impression that you might be viewing it that way. 

I agree with your second sentence. But notice how messy it can get: it seems as though we perceive (experience) meaning. But perceiving something precludes meaning, since what this process provides us with is meaningless sensory data. An additional activity (or activities) has to take place for meaning to be experienced.

Quote

Meaning is illusory within myself, and within other people, also structures are meaningless such as atoms, molecules and so on... After deconstructing these what remains?

Without meaning, what is there? I'd say whatever is experienced, but without the context of meaning - objects, perception, a body, relationship, movement. I'd like to know your thoughts on this. 

23 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

It’s an illusion.

22 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Who is asking that? All of that is illusory.

Making these kinds of assertions doesn't help much, does it? (Unless you know what you're talking about.) They tend to shut down investigation before it even begins. We could claim that everything is an illusion, that nothing is, or that everything is real. Yet regardless of which position we take, we continue to recognize something we call meaning. We take it very seriously; in fact, we structure our lives around it. So, it isn't necessarily a simplistic matter. 

I'm trying to push us into our experience. 

Edited July 8 by UnbornTao

[Breakingthewall]

17 hours ago, Kuba Powiertowski said:

That what IS vs our subjective stories about it.

Great to see you again. Meaning is objetive. If I pour gasoline on myself and then light a match, it means I'm going to burn. This isn't a subjective meaning; it's an objective reality. The meaning is real. It's the relationship between cause and effect. Existence is composed of infinite cause-effect relationships synchronized in infinite dimensions.

An electromagnetic wave is an effect created by a cause that in turn causes another effect. Its cause is the vibration of a field of reality due charged particle whose velocity changes over time. This particle, in turn, is caused, and if you could follow cause-and-effect relationships to the end, you would see that there is no end, no limits. The final cause of existence is the absence of limits, which is not something, but the absence of something.

Meaning is infinite. This implies that from a total perspective, there is no meaning, because there is no limit; there cannot be one. But from a local perspective, everything has meaning in all its dimensions.

[Guest Nilsi]

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yes, I agree you need to assume language, reason and observation to conclude that meaning is natural. But I'm not particularly worried about that.

My point is not merely that we “assume” language and reason as tools. My point is that what you call the amoeba emerges as a diagram of desire within a historically contingent field of discourse. There is no pure substrate that precedes this production. If you are “not worried” about that, are you asserting that there is a realm of “natural meaning” that fully pre-exists all discursive production? If so, on what grounds?

And to be clear, I am not denying that your references to biology, physiology, or evolutionary environments can be pragmatically effective and scientifically generative. But you have to acknowledge that when you anchor your argument in those frameworks - when you invoke our “ancestral environment,” tribal societies, or a more “natural” baseline of meaning before modern technologies and pathologies - you are already producing a particular fantasy. It is a contingent narrative that establishes its own symbolic order in advance, deciding what counts as “healthy,” “unnatural,” or “dysfunctional” according to a set of preselected coordinates. It has no more inherent authority than any other story we might tell about human life; it simply offers one diagram of sense-making among others, with its own normative commitments, advantages, and blind spots.