What is meaning?

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, PurpleTree said:

I remember when i was a child.

I always wanted these action figures like robocop, turtles but especially batman.

I would attach so much meaning to these dumb figures like my life would get much better if i had them. And if i didn’t have them i couldn’t be happy. And i would try to guilt trip my mother into buying them. 

Whats wrong with that.   That continues today- with other things that mean more to your direct survival.   Are you beginning to see the picture now?  You can choose how its painted.   That's meaning.  

[gettoefl]

Stuff in the world is incomprehensible. Science should know this but doesn't want to give up its day job and the perks therein. Until I understand that materialism cannot give answers, I will assert meaning. Meaning could be the number of hours I devote to mastery of or ownership of said thing. Yet it is rubbish. It is rank. It in going the way of the dodo.

Thus I see that anything outside hasn't meaning. Spiritual work is, does the one asking have meaning? And it indeed answers affirmatively. 

I now reframe the outside as having one meaning: everything is a lesson or a mirror or tool for me to know me.

My meaning is to get out of dodge since there's gold in them hills.

[UnbornTao]

So, we might have gotten depressed or something.

[Eskilon]

On 13/07/2025 at 11:10 AM, PurpleTree said:

I remember when i was a child.

I always wanted these action figures like robocop, turtles but especially batman.

I would attach so much meaning to these dumb figures like my life would get much better if i had them. And if i didn’t have them i couldn’t be happy. And i would try to guilt trip my mother into buying them. 

You probably attach meaning to some dumb shit today too, no better than those figures. The structure its the same, only the content change.

Whatever your attachments are, thats your meaning. 

[Eskilon]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

So, we might have gotten depressed or something.

It's a circular and highly subjective question with no end in sight. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[UnbornTao]

40 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

It's a circular and highly subjective question with no end in sight. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Is it? 

Also, undermining one's enjoyment and feeling hopeless, etc., as a result of this inquiry is a trap and not the point. Just wanted to put that out there as a reminder. 

[Eskilon]

39 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Is it? 

Yes.

 

39 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Also, undermining one's enjoyment and feeling hopeless, etc., as a result of this inquiry is a trap and not the point.

I am not undermining anything lol. Just pointing out that you can inquiry into this forever and not come to any definitive conclusion. This does not make it pointless in anyway. You just need to be aware of your arbitrary distinctions and realize theres no true answer here.

Edited Thursday at 01:52 AM by Eskilon

[UnbornTao]

@Eskilon Wrote this regarding purpose on another thread:

Quote

Don't we generally tend to take statements like that rather trivially? It might be the case that it is a concept - yet there could be more to the story. We might hear such a claim as "it's just a thought, a trivial and superficial activity that has little to no influence on my experience," but it can actually be a very powerful one. And even if it is made up, that doesn't have to mean that purpose is bad, negative, or wrong. In fact, reacting negatively to such statements can be a red flag, as they're likely being misunderstood. 

We hear words like "invented" or "generated" and suddenly begin to lose "faith" in the value of the invention - as if recognizing its nature somehow diminished its power. But this is a mistake on our part.

Undermine might not be the right word here. I'm pointing to the tendency we have to invalidate, in our own minds, anything we consider to be 'invented.' Right from the start, we often have a negative relationship to the idea that something useful, familiar, and lived from may be constructed - as if that automatically makes it fake or wrong. But that misses the point of inquiring into these things. If something like meaning is invented, that doesn't imply you should feel bad or hopeless about it, or stop pursuing entertainment, learning, money, or any other healthy and functional activity - whatever it is you do, really. It just shines light on its nature. So, why not enjoy our action figures?

As for it being subjective and circular - it really isn't. Where is meaning found? The particular meaning we assign to things might be subjective, but the fact that it is assigned is a claim about its nature. If no meaning is assigned, then no meaning can be encountered. 

Quote

Life is empty and meaningless, and it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.

- Werner Erhard

Edited yesterday at 01:38 PM by UnbornTao

[zazen]

On 11/07/2025 at 1:50 PM, theleelajoker said:

Yeah reflecting on it now, I aim to be as practical as I can be about what one might call spirituality or "enlightenment". So you are awake, now what? What's next? Whatcha gonna do? It's all about action here in this plane of existence, experiencing. 

There was an old trip report, basically saying "life is about feeling good".  You could rephrase that to living a "fulfilled life", knowing eg that all emotions are part of it, embracing sadness instead for only aiming for happiness. Which then transforms sadness into someone desirable, which makes you feel good

Transcending material stuff did not give me fulfillment. Going deep into the material world did not do that for me either. So let's do both. Interacting here was much as possible, respecting my physical form while nurturing my connection to...well, I don't know what but whatever "it" is.

Yeah, I understand why from a spiritual POV we de-construct everything to get to that which is beyond all construct - to ''Truth'' or God. Spiritual teachers get there via negation - negating all that is ''maya, illusion, or form'' - but then what? Intellectually it can be explained to someone within a few hours - okay fine, everything is a construct, what do you want me to do with that now? I am still a construct, just like you and all of us here, in bodies, using internet and mobiles to communicate to each other in words which are yet again constructs.

The point is to live in construct but consciously - or more so to find that there is more to life than just the dual material world of surface, that there is depth and a consciousness within construct, that consciousness encapsulates constructs itself. Form and constructs aren't the ultimate, essential - they are operational and instrumental.

In a sense spiritual teachers are correct when they say there is no absolute or fixed meaning - but we shouldn't stop there. There is no meaning, yet everything is absolutely meaningful. We can pick our individual purposes and means to their ends that we live through, but there is a deeper meaningfulness and purposefulness beyond and within all of it too. And that greater meaning and purpose is that the formless already chose that it wants to play through form - form is the love language of the formless. Form is the formality of the formless. 

We come into the world of duality and form lost, and asking why? Why life, why form? Then we go seeking for answers. We stumble upon the fact that there is that which is formless and non-dual - which is pointed to in various ways via spiritual community or religion (with all their flaws). The point then is to return to form - we are already in form anyway and can't escape it until we leave the body fully - so we return to it with that knowing, eyes and heart wide open.

We go from why, to why not?  After all, God - the formless, already chose form to exist as itself.

Unconscious man never asks why. Curious man asks why? God says why not? Why not form, to inform myself, of myself that is the Self, through multiples selves? Conscious man respond why lets..dance. We come all the way back to where we are meant to be.

It's a case of spiritual Stockholm syndrome - seekers and spiritualists become so attached to the idea that everything is illusion (maya), that they start emotionally bonding with nothingness and detachment as if those are the highest truths. Then people easily find them selves in  a sort of spiritual nihilism - if all is maya, then what meaning does this world of maya have?

I had a period of this too - the sense that I am nothing, all is nothing, all is void. That’s the so called “dark night of the soul” where we exist as astronauts cut from the cord - de-constructed everything, found something, but haven’t had a homecoming with that something. We need to BEcome, or come to BE.

I came to realise it’s not void and nothing in the ordinary sense, it's everything , there is a presence there. And I am everything - just wearing this particular face today. I am just you, but over here *waving* hello at you. We are just God eating mangoes. Then I came to rest in being human.

I think many teachers saying ''there is no meaning'' stop short. They aren't false, they just need to complete that line of thought by adding that ''yet everything is meaningful''. It reminds me of the Last Samurai movie where the Emperor says ''Tell me how he died'' and Tom Cruise replies ''I will tell you... how he lived.''

The Emporer, just like spiritual egotists and misguided seekers get hung up on the death part - the de-construction part, the death of the self, of ego and form - to a final destination of' ''Enlightenment''. But maybe its not about a destination but a participation in form, along side the formless. In this way, we aren't ''above'' the world, we are with it more fully and awake.

What if we get to this destination of God, then God says what the hell are you doing here, go back and participate in form. As the saying goes, before enlightenment, chop wood carry water, after enlightenment, chop wood carry water.

Tell me how he died = “Did he reach the formless?”

Tell me how he lived = “Did he return and play in form?”

Edited Thursday at 02:36 PM by zazen

[Eskilon]

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Where is meaning found? The particular meaning we assign to things might be subjective, but the fact that it is assigned is a claim about its nature.

It is not found. It is created. it's in your head. A result of your level of intelligence.

One could also claim that it is already here and you found it. And there are more possibilities, so which one is its true nature? See how it goes？

[UnbornTao]

21 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

It is not found. It is created. it's in your head. A result of your level of intelligence.

One could also claim that it is already here and you found it. And there are more possibilities, so which one is its true nature? See how it goes？

Well, we live with meaning as a necessary aspect of our lives. But if you're trying to find out and assume that it exists objectively, where would you even begin to look? You yourself said that meaning is created - the point here is to realize its nature. Thinking about it isn't enough, and neither is believing an assertion, no matter the source. Getting it for real would likely change how you relate to it.

It doesn't seem to be an object, does it? 

Sorry if I'm being a pain in the ass; I like exploring these things.

Edited Thursday at 09:18 PM by UnbornTao

[Eskilon]

14 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

 the point here is to realize its nature. Thinking about it isn't enough, and neither is believing an assertion, no matter the source. Getting it for real would likely change how you relate to it.

My point is that you cant get quite it for real -- never. It's really a result of your intelligence and state. Where is your meaning and this kind of questions in your dreams at night? 

But that just my point, it's vunerable like every point somebody will make about this. Just my 2 cents

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Eskilon said:

My point is that you cant get quite it for real -- never. It's really a result of your intelligence and state. Where is your meaning and this kind of questions in your dreams at night? 

But that just my point, it's vunerable like every point somebody will make about this. Just my 2 cents

Is that a personal experience, or an extrapolation based on the failure to grasp it? Every adult human seems to have the capacity for meaning-making, so, strictly speaking, why would intelligence be an impediment here? It is pretty much an innate ability, as far as I can tell.

You can get it, but it takes work. And it's always different from what you thought it'd be.

Edited Thursday at 11:33 PM by UnbornTao

[zurew]

10 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Quote

Life is empty and meaningless, and it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.

I think thats a good move to 1) object to the realist position about meaning and 2) point out the confusion that the sentence has to be interpreted in a negative way or that its objectively true that negative implications come from that sentence.

You point out well that there isn't any "true" conclusion that can be inferred from the sentence "Life is empty and meaningless" . The inference that one draws from that won't be based on any oughts (there isn't any fact of the matter what that sentence has to mean to you and there isn't any ought about how the sentence ought to be interpeted and what facts ought to be inferred from it)

 

But the meat of issue  with respect to negative meaning or the lack of meaning still remains:

1) Just because we go with the anti-realist position from that doesn't follow that one can freely change what one's relationship is to the "life is meaningless and empty" sentence (when it comes aesthetics and beauty , just because there isn't any fact of the matter about what is beautiful from that doesn't follow that you can change what you find  beautiful) - it can be the case (as others have already pointed out) that its  largely based on and explained by our biology and our biological structures (the idea is that biology largely defines what kind of meaning you will draw from certain truths and how it will make you feel).

2) Even if it is the case that one can change their relationship to that sentence (for example changing it from negative to positive), its unclear how hard it is to do it

 

 

So even though making your point ( clearing up the intellectual confusion about what kind of implications come from the anti-realist position) can be helpful with destroying some of the negativity and depression surrounding it , it only settles one slice of the issue.

The next part of the problem is basically diving deep into the patterns and facts about meaning-making - and it seems from your other reply that you are well aware that just because the anti-realist position is true from that doesnt follow that meaning making is arbitrary or that there arent any facts about how we create meaning ( or in other words  - just because there isn't any correct/right way to give meaning to things, there can still be facts and patterns about how we assign meaning to things). 

 

As a sidepoint:  even if there would be objective meaning to life (the realist position would be true), that wouldn't help with solving the issues that I pointed out - because it would still be about our meaning making and our relationship to truths and not about what the correct meaning is  - its irrelevant what the correct meaning is , if your meaning-making machinery attaches negative meaning to things. 

Edited Thursday at 11:56 PM by zurew

[SOUL]

Meaning is a trait of our psyche that evolved to guide us in survival. Significance is placed on something in experience so that we use it to survive. Since we are a story telling monkey, we apply significance to our stories and find meaning in them to guide us in life. 

*replied without reading any of the thread so this may have been said already.

Edited Thursday at 11:58 PM by SOUL

[zurew]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

As a sidepoint:  even if there would be objective meaning to life (the realist position would be true), that wouldn't help with solving the issues that I pointed out - because it would still be about our meaning making and our relationship to truths and not about what the correct meaning is  - its irrelevant what the correct meaning is , if your meaning-making machinery attaches negative meaning to things. 

I have an antirealist position on aesthetics,morality ,meaning  and I think the same line of thought applies to all of them. Even though there arent any objectively true/correct answers to what is beautiful, what is moral, whats the meaning of life  - our relationship to these questions isn't arbitrary - there are patterns and facts about our meaning-making, about what we find ugly and beautiful and about why we have the moral intuitions that we have.

[Kensho]

In my language, Greek, depending on the context, we have two different words to translate the word meaning.  

The first is, "νόημα" (noima), which comes from the root "νους" (pronounced noos, like the animal moose, not like mouse), which means 'mind'. In other words, it refers to what is produced by the mind, the result of the active process of the intellect. Το 'give meaning' is the mind’s attribution of qualities or properties to external stimuli; hence, meaning is the outcome of the mind’s engagement with reality. The outcome of the act of sensemaking.

The second one is the word 'σημασία'  (seemasia), which means significance. In English, “meaning” comes from the Old English mænan, meaning “to intend” or “to signify.” The word emphasises intention and what is being pointed to or implied, focusing less on the mind’s internal creation and more on outward signification and communication. 

In the context of this forum, I get that the word meaning is mostly used as the former.

To illustrate, in one of his last discourses, Krishnamurti told the audience, "Do you want to know what my secret is??" 

He paused, and everyone leaned in, expecting some grand revelation. Then he smiled and said:

"You see, I don’t mind what happens."              ('mind' -verb- as the act of sensemaking)

 

a simple sentence with a profound meaning (significance). He means (signifies), 'I don't engage in sensemaking, I don't project personal importance onto events, I am not acting as a meaning-making machine. I let things be as they are'

Edited yesterday at 09:42 AM by Kensho

[zazen]

13 hours ago, Kensho said:

In my language, Greek, depending on the context, we have two different words to translate the word meaning.  

The first is, "νόημα" (noima), which comes from the root "νους" (pronounced noos, like the animal moose, not like mouse), which means 'mind'. In other words, it refers to what is produced by the mind, the result of the active process of the intellect. Το 'give meaning' is the mind’s attribution of qualities or properties to external stimuli; hence, meaning is the outcome of the mind’s engagement with reality. The outcome of the act of sensemaking.

The second one is the word 'σημασία'  (seemasia), which means significance. In English, “meaning” comes from the Old English mænan, meaning “to intend” or “to signify.” The word emphasises intention and what is being pointed to or implied, focusing less on the mind’s internal creation and more on outward signification and communication. 

In the context of this forum, I get that the word meaning is mostly used as the former.

To illustrate, in one of his last discourses, Krishnamurti told the audience, "Do you want to know what my secret is??" 

He paused, and everyone leaned in, expecting some grand revelation. Then he smiled and said:

"You see, I don’t mind what happens."              ('mind' -verb- as the act of sensemaking)

 

a simple sentence with a profound meaning (significance). He means (signifies), 'I don't engage in sensemaking, I don't project personal importance onto events, I am not acting as a meaning-making machine. I let things be as they are'

I like that - and it dovetails nicely to what I commented earlier and on the previous page - the distinction between meaning (noima) and meaningfulness (seemasia)

Meaning is the outcome of the mind’s engagement with reality - but meaningfulness is the very being of reality itself.

The mind's job is to mind, to sense make, find meaning and purpose, which has a path to that purpose, which is a means to that end, and that means gives the meaning. So in this context, there is no meaning, unless we create it and make it, sense make it.

But as existence has no end, then there is no means to an end. What's left is not nothing-ness but everything-ness - which is inherently meaningful and significant, despite having no externalised meaning or means to an end. The purpose is in the suchness.

The reason Krishnamurti doesn't mind what happens is because he is resting in a meaningfulness beyond the mind. No need to assign meaning when you are awake to meaningfulness. Mind creates meaning, being radiates meaningfulness. He doesn't sense make, but has sensed the maker.

Edited 15 hours ago by zazen

[UnbornTao]

On 7/18/2025 at 0:04 AM, zurew said:

I think thats a good move to 1) object to the realist position about meaning and 2) point out the confusion that the sentence has to be interpreted in a negative way or that its objectively true that negative implications come from that sentence.

You point out well that there isn't any "true" conclusion that can be inferred from the sentence "Life is empty and meaningless" . The inference that one draws from that won't be based on any oughts (there isn't any fact of the matter what that sentence has to mean to you and there isn't any ought about how the sentence ought to be interpeted and what facts ought to be inferred from it)

 

But the meat of issue  with respect to negative meaning or the lack of meaning still remains:

1) Just because we go with the anti-realist position from that doesn't follow that one can freely change what one's relationship is to the "life is meaningless and empty" sentence (when it comes aesthetics and beauty , just because there isn't any fact of the matter about what is beautiful from that doesn't follow that you can change what you find  beautiful) - it can be the case (as others have already pointed out) that its  largely based on and explained by our biology and our biological structures (the idea is that biology largely defines what kind of meaning you will draw from certain truths and how it will make you feel).

2) Even if it is the case that one can change their relationship to that sentence (for example changing it from negative to positive), its unclear how hard it is to do it

 

 

So even though making your point ( clearing up the intellectual confusion about what kind of implications come from the anti-realist position) can be helpful with destroying some of the negativity and depression surrounding it , it only settles one slice of the issue.

The next part of the problem is basically diving deep into the patterns and facts about meaning-making - and it seems from your other reply that you are well aware that just because the anti-realist position is true from that doesnt follow that meaning making is arbitrary or that there arent any facts about how we create meaning ( or in other words  - just because there isn't any correct/right way to give meaning to things, there can still be facts and patterns about how we assign meaning to things). 

 

As a sidepoint:  even if there would be objective meaning to life (the realist position would be true), that wouldn't help with solving the issues that I pointed out - because it would still be about our meaning making and our relationship to truths and not about what the correct meaning is  - its irrelevant what the correct meaning is , if your meaning-making machinery attaches negative meaning to things. 

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.

"If I'm the one doing meaning, this totally invalidates it! It strips it of its power."

That's what we may think to ourselves.

On 7/18/2025 at 1:21 AM, zurew said:

I have an antirealist position on aesthetics,morality ,meaning  and I think the same line of thought applies to all of them. Even though there arent any objectively true/correct answers to what is beautiful, what is moral, whats the meaning of life  - our relationship to these questions isn't arbitrary - there are patterns and facts about our meaning-making, about what we find ugly and beautiful and about why we have the moral intuitions that we have.

Those questions already presuppose that meaning and morality exist objectively. In my view, a better question to ask would be: What is meaning?

Our very survival requires evaluating and categorizing every perception as 'good' or 'bad.' Every interpretation is related to your self and its agenda in such a way that it supports that agenda - 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 naturally we 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: that of import.

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. 

I feel I haven't fully addressed your points, so I'll return to edit and perhaps elaborate. 

Edited 39 minutes ago by UnbornTao

[zurew]

18 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

This means we're free to create meaning for our lives, or to enjoy a life with no ultimate meaning assigned to it.

This is where I am skeptical, because it doesnt necessarily follow.

Going back to my point - just because there isn't anything that is objectively beautiful , from that doesnt follow that you can freely choose or change what you find beautiful.

Or just because gastronomical realism isnt true (there arent facts about what is delicious, its based on the subject's judgement), from that doesn't follow that you can freely choose and change what you find tasteful and what you find disgusting.

same with morality, just because there arent any moral facts, from that doesnt follow that you can change your moral intuitions (what you find morally reprehensible and what you don't)

The same goes for meaningfulness - just because we go with the antirealist position from that doesnt follow that you can have power over what you find meaningful and how meaningful it is for you.

 

18 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

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.

Some people are okay with that kind of life, others arent - and im not sure whether everyone can be okay with it or not (again going back to my issue with the changing of preferences and intuitions)

 

 

 

But maybe in a truly egoless state what you are saying is true, because there arent any preferences and moral intuitions about anything (maybe) - but im agnostic on that for now . And the reason why is because in egoless or kind of egoless states I tend to be calm (and other practicioners who are much better at meditation than me tend to say the same) and its not a blank state (its calmness and spaciousness) - so 1) im not sure whether some of the things we are talking about are depended on our egos and its just purely survival related or its something much more deeper that goes beyond that 2) And If it goes beyond surivival there can be still facts about consciousness (just like the calmness and spaciousness that comes from the egoless states - and there you cant just choose that you want to be angry in those egoless states - there seem to be certain qualities that comes with states.

Edited 1 minute ago by zurew