What is meaning?

[zurew]

43 minutes ago, zurew said:

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)

For example could that Zen monk find being a rapist or a serial killer just as meaningful as being a monk or a teacher?

[Breakingthewall]

7 minutes ago, zurew said:

For example could that Zen monk find being a rapist or a serial killer just as meaningful as being a monk or a teacher?

People who use violence to empower themselves do so out of a place of lack, a need to complete themselves, anger over past trauma and humiliation, and a reaffirmation of narcissistic structures. Supposedly, a truly Zen monk would have left these energetic structures behind.

[zurew]

50 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

People who use violence to empower themselves do so out of a place of lack, a need to complete themselves, anger over past trauma and humiliation, and a reaffirmation of narcissistic structures. Supposedly, a truly Zen monk would have left these energetic structures behind.

The point isnt that he would necessarily choose those extreme and violent things, the point is to challenge the idea that it would be just as meaningful/meaningless to him.

If the idea is that one can have complete power over what meaning one attaches to things, then it shouldnt be an issue to be a rapist or a serial killer  ,because you can choose how things strikes you and or you can have a mindstate completely detached from what you do and what happens to you.

So if you have two people: one is enlightened and in presence mode and the other isn't enlightened and both are forced to rape people every day and to eat shit every day - there is a high chance that one would be miserable and highly suicidal, but what about the monk? Could the monk maintain a blank mindstate and would the monk (since he is completely present) find the whole thing just as blank and devoid of meaning as if he would solve world hunger?

Or would the monk have the ability to find solving world hunger to be horrible and atrocious and being a rapist to be highly meaningful and positive?

 

 

And im not talking about a situation where your mind completely detaches from the situation as a defense mechanism so that you don't need to live through the horrible things that you go through or you don't need to remember the horrible things you did  - im talking about being completely present and living through all moments.

Edited Saturday at 03:58 PM by zurew

[Breakingthewall]

@zurew well said , this demonstrates the obviousness that while from an unlimited perspective everything is the same, from the perspective of form everything has an infinite meaning, everything starts a chain of infinite cause and effect relationships, then the monk would perceive that each breath, each energetic vibration that produces a thought reverberates in eternity, and from the relational node that he is, only openness, synchrony and fluidity would arise, since that would be its nature, it's structure.

Violence is a kind or relational energy that happens in reality, but you could say that it's low vibration. The monk would operate from higher vibration and the result would be armony. It's not that he choose armony, it's that his structure is that and what emanates from that equalized structure is harmony. It's not "better", it's equalized, another level of existence

Edited Saturday at 04:36 PM by Breakingthewall

[UnbornTao]

@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:

1. meaning as it's experienced in the course of living, and
2. the meaning of life.

We're also making plenty of assumptions along the way, but I don't want to deal with them in this post.

"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, storylines - 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 something to avoid because it threatens one's physical wellbeing.

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?

Edited 9 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Sugarcoat]

Meaning is something that is imposed on something for it to represent something else

[UnbornTao]

42 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Meaning is something that is imposed on something for it to represent something else

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. 

Edited 13 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Sugarcoat]

13 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I'd say assigned or added, but I like that! 

A charged interpretation made on top of the existence of things to orient the behavior of one's self - is another that came to mind. Not sure if it is accurate or tells the whole story, but I felt cute. 

Thanks!

Id say yours is decent too because it sure guides a lot of our behaviors. I guess that’s kinda where the potential value lies in this contemplation, seeing how it connects to our lives

[Sugarcoat]

It can be hard to distinguish meaning from labelling and identifying or even judging.

For example if you say Oreo is a kind of cookie. You’re labelling/identifying Oreo as a cookie. You’re not saying that Oreo MEANS cookie. 
 

If you say war is bad, you’re not saying war MEANS bad, you’re labelling/identifying/judging war as bad. 
 

Meaning seems to be when something has to do with something that it is NOT. For example the sound of the alarm means I have to wake up. Meanwhile in these above examples they have to do with identifying things as they are 

There might be flaws in this point I’m open to that

Edited 13 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[UnbornTao]

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Characters in a video game may be a better analogy

Whatever the self is attached to gives it meaning. Does it have to be attached to those particular things? Not necessarily. It can attach or identify itself with all kinds of things. 

[UnbornTao]

4 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Thanks!

Id say yours is decent too because it sure guides a lot of our behaviors. I guess that’s kinda where the potential value lies in this contemplation, seeing how it connects to our lives

Sure, thanks.

4 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

It can be hard to distinguish meaning from labelling and identifying or even judging.

For example if you say Oreo is a kind of cookie. You’re labelling/identifying Oreo as a cookie. You’re not saying that Oreo MEANS cookie. 
 

If you say war is bad, you’re not saying war MEANS bad, you’re labelling/identifying/judging war as bad. 
 

Meaning seems to be when something has to do with something that it is NOT. For example the sound of the alarm means I have to wake up. Meanwhile in these above examples they have to do with identifying things as they are 

There might be flaws in this point I’m open to that

Maybe in this discussion it'd be like asking: What does a cookie mean? Or thinking of the cookie as a good sweet.

We'd have to have a cookie awakening.

"Bad" is essentially an assessment of meaning.

You could say seeing war as physically harmful would be more accurate in terms of identifying some of its effects than making a value assessment of it as something negative. Obviously, since it's been established that it is harmful, it is estimated to be bad.

Yes, it is never about the existence of anything, but about how that something relates to you in a way that serves yourself - for example, by assessing whether it is positive or negative, which show up in various forms: interesting, irrelevant, worthy, trivial, valuable, significant, useless, important, etc. For instance, you could ask: Worthless for what? Or: useful for whom? These questions point at a relationship. 

Will likely edit tomorrow

Edited 8 hours ago by UnbornTao