Abstract Terminology

Perhaps some of the greatest disturbances that i have felt in my ineffectual quests for the absolute come from the realization of the futility of the very concept of 'Meaning'. Though no one can truly says there is an ultimate 'base for reasoning' that transcends human existence, we continue to try to find sorts of "meanings" (a singular ethic) through religion and metaphysical illusions.

Even if there were a god, however, that would not solve our desire for the absolute. Meaning, in itself, is an unattainable concept. To reduce existence to one single principle can never be accomplished. Therefore, the word 'meaning' can not be used in alignment with the purposes i have described.

thoughts?

I am (for now) in whole agreement with you on this!

I'll take a Cosmicist's approach to this one. The universe far too vast, complex, and ultimately over our heads that even if there was a meaning to our existence It would be infinitely too complex for us to comprehend.

I, for one, believe that it is really emancipating to have no knowledge of a meaning. I do like the power of the search for one, however.

Bombadillo wrote:

I, for one, believe that it is really emancipating to have no knowledge of a meaning. I do like the power of the search for one, however.

It is interesting that you should mention this emancipating feeling, as once a man begins thinking, he uncovers this unreasonable attempt to try to understand, and it becomes much a torment.

Torment and emancipation seem highly contradictory, yet freedom is best found within its limits... We must struggle to comprehend, to describe the human experience, but at the same time, we must not worry ourselves with such a trifling 'meaning' as it can never be humanly relavant...

The problem you propose is purely linguistic. The difficulty in deciphering an objective meaning of the universe lies within the fact that the word "meaning" has no definition in a materialistic context. Significance necessitates a subjective reaction; "meaning" is a two-way street. The meaning of a word requires a subjective response to the word. The meaning of an object requires a subjective response to the object. The idea that meaning, which can translated to "subjectively interpreted significance," exists exterior to consciousness is absurd and, pardon me for saying, meaningless.

Following this trend, the meaning of existence is also subjective. You can only find the meaning to your life by cognitive response to it. In other words: I think, therefore I am...I am, therefore I am x, I think.

In short: You create meaning rather than find it.

K. wrote:

The problem you propose is purely linguistic. The difficulty in deciphering an objective meaning of the universe lies within the fact that the word "meaning" has no definition in a materialistic context. Significance necessitates a subjective reaction; "meaning" is a two-way street. The meaning of a word requires a subjective response to the word. The meaning of an object requires a subjective response to the object. The idea that meaning, which can translated to "subjectively interpreted significance," exists exterior to consciousness is absurd and, pardon me for saying, meaningless.

Following this trend, the meaning of existence is also subjective. You can only find the meaning to your life by cognitive response to it. In other words: I think, therefore I am...I am, therefore I am x, I think.

In short: You create meaning rather than find it.

My point merely lies in the realm of thought which believes meaning can only be put on a fractal scale of existence. There can never be an absolute meaning. And when you create your own meaning, it can not possibly become universal. This is the point i was trying to put out. I have no qualms with your conjecture.

DeridingPolyphemus wrote:

K. wrote:

The problem you propose is purely linguistic. The difficulty in deciphering an objective meaning of the universe lies within the fact that the word "meaning" has no definition in a materialistic context. Significance necessitates a subjective reaction; "meaning" is a two-way street. The meaning of a word requires a subjective response to the word. The meaning of an object requires a subjective response to the object. The idea that meaning, which can translated to "subjectively interpreted significance," exists exterior to consciousness is absurd and, pardon me for saying, meaningless.

Following this trend, the meaning of existence is also subjective. You can only find the meaning to your life by cognitive response to it. In other words: I think, therefore I am...I am, therefore I am x, I think.

In short: You create meaning rather than find it.

My point merely lies in the realm of thought which believes meaning can only be put on a fractal scale of existence. There can never be an absolute meaning. And when you create your own meaning, it can not possibly become universal. This is the point i was trying to put out. I have no qualms with your conjecture.

I agree with you of course. Universality necessitates uniformity and we are far from uniform.

It could be universal, though, if we accept solipsism.