Meaning of life

General Philosophy
62

No, the absence of philosophical terms made it more understandable, not less. You described something real.

I think that’s exactly right. Meaning does not exist in and of itself, it arises through the process of life. I’m not sure it arises in the person so much as the person is where it becomes visible to itself.

About location - my ‘life’ is closer to the biological phenomenon.

When I ask about meaning of life I don’t mean what makes your life feel worthwhile - though that matters to me too. I mean the thing the tree is doing when it grows toward light. The thing we are doing when we feel pulled toward a warm home. Same process. We’re just the versions of it that can notice it happening and ask what it is.

And the location of it - in the tree, in us - is never inside the thing alone. The tree doesn’t contain the meaning. The light doesn’t contain it either. It lives in the orientation between them. In the relationship between a living thing and what it’s moving toward. Take either one away and there’s nothing left to point at.

So when you said meaning arises through sensation and experience - I think that’s exactly right. That’s what the orientation feels like from the inside, at the level of complexity where it can feel like anything at all. You described the experience of it perfectly. I was just asking what’s happening underneath that makes the experience possible.

Something like:

What kind of system am I, that I persist the way I do?

The amoeba’s answer is simple and readable — toward food, away from harm. The pattern is clear because the system is simple.

My system is more complex. The pattern harder to read from the inside. But it’s still there. I still move toward some things and away from others. Some configurations feel like more life. Some feel like less. That differential response - that’s not narrative. Not constructed meaning. Not the social story. That’s the older thing running.

What does this system actually select for, when it’s running clean?

Not what I think I should care about. Not what makes a good story. Not what society installed where the question used to be.

That question has a different quality. Less weight. More curiosity. Not trying to justify or resolve. Trying to read something that’s already happening.

And the answer to that - whatever it turns out to be - might not be psychology. Might not be philosophy. Might not even be personal.

Might be closer to physics.

And I experience that - not as something that takes away from the personal, the felt, the chosen. If anything the opposite. Knowing the pull was already there before I named it, before I built a story around it - that doesn’t make the story less mine. It makes the moment of recognition feel like something real was found, not just invented.

Which might actually be closer to what you described than it first appears. The person who saw the nice house and felt something pull in them - that pull was real before they understood it. The meaning they built around it was theirs. Both things true at the same time.

63

@ [Chelydra]Thank you for your positive feedback on my thoughts. To be honest, yours are much more complex; I’ll need to give them some thought. It seems to me that the difference in our views on the meaning of life lies in the fact that, for me, a person sees a significant goal, feels an interest in it, develops a desire to achieve it, and sets a task for themselves, moving toward that goal. This becomes their meaning of life over a long stretch of their life.
But you, it seems, want to understand what it was inside this person that made them like this particular goal.
I don’t think I can simply grasp all your deep, abstract thoughts. Could you give a few real-life examples that would illustrate the structure of the meaning of life you described

64

I know you weren’t. I’m just saying that’s how we know it’s a different kind of meaning, not just the same meaning at a different level of complexity. DNA has no freedom to choose anything. It can’t not be part of the system that synthesizes protein, and that system can’t not synthesize protein.

The simplest life forms have no more choice than DNA does. Bacteria,amoeba,archaea, and the like respond to stimuli. They cannot not respond to it. When light hits an eye spot, a flagellum twitches. When poison hits the sensor, the critter moves away from it. Those things do, will, must happen.

The same cannot be said about you and me. There are any number of actions we take in response to stimuli that we do not have to take. Not only do we have more freedom to choose between options, we can also decide to ignite there stimulus, and choose to not response to itt in any way. We can decide to ignore the whole damn thing.

Where in the evolutionary ladder that ability first appears is a mystery to me. I don’t know if those who study such things have the answer. Does an earthworm ever ignore whatever stimulus usually illicits a specific response? Does a mosquito? A mouse? Regardless of where it happens, however, it’s a different thing when it happens.

65

Beliefs resulting from seeking meaning in metaphysical transcendence can offer a person as much meaning in their life as your need to “leave a mark”. That what they find cannot be universally applied does not cleanse it of meaning any more than to “leave a mark” would be cleansed of meaning for the same reason, i.e., it cannot be universally applied.

Perhaps there is little meaning in any meaning that can be universally applied.

1 Like
66

I think that if we want to talk about two different kinds of anything, moment of genuine discontinuity is required. In this case (Meaning of Life) I see only continuity. Different kind of meaning I can identify by its level of complexity.

67

Whatever the meaning of life is, it is not certainly in the category of thought or feeling. The meaning of life either exists or does not. If it exists, then humans have not evolved well enough to experience it, as most animals have not evolved well enough to experience thoughts.

68

Although it would be nice if we knew the moment of genuine discontinuity, we don’t. But even though we don’t, we can still discuss the two different kinds of things.

I’m talking about freedom from stimulus and response, the ability to choose to not respond. Our skin has nerves to keep it safe from injury. When something hot enough to injure it makes contact, or even comes close, signals fly through our nerves. The signals mean damage is occurring. And we move away from the heat.

But sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we willingly suffer the damage. We override the system because something else has greater meaning to us than the damage our systems tell us we are receiving. A very different kind of meaning than the signals traveling through the nerves.

69

Maybe we do have two kinds of meaning here being discussed.

Mine as meaning of life and yours meaning despite life.

As I see it, only one keeps life in the equation all the way through.

70

I think the only objective meaning of life is more life. I think any other meaning of life is what we each choose.

What I was just referring to might be a meaning of life issue for some. I might refuse the physical stimulus that other species do not have a choice but to respond to, because a child is in danger. Like maybe life a burning beam of a child because I think the child’s life has more meaning than the skin on my hands.

OTOH, maybe it’s more than that. Maybe I think the meaning of life is helping children stay free from harm and live better lives. Maybe I’m a Big Brother, and also volunteer at shelters for women and children who are victims of domestic abuse.

71

It’s clear to me, he’s exercising his knowledge of Nietzsche. Though, when he’s saying there’s “no other way” in this case, he’s talking about submission to the will to power.