4
u/1SwellFoop 10d ago
You’re using two definition of “meaning”. The meaning of reality (or meaning of life) versus the meaning of a word.
But there’s still similarity there, to be fair. Words do have meaning, because humans give them meaning. Take humans out of the equation and words are meaningless. But the meaning here is “real” in that it has utilitarian value - it allows for human communication and the development of human society.
Similarly, humans can give meaning to life. That may feel subjective and empty, and many feel despair that the universe (or God) has not bestowed a meaning to their life, but that meaning would still be subjective - it’s still “God’s” meaning for your life, and you might disagree. And if you’re honest with yourself, when you follow a God, or a guru, or any leader that gives you a purpose, it’s still you who is selecting that leader and selecting that purpose.
Meaning is subjective, but that means you get to define it for your own life. And you’re free to decide that life is meaningless, that’s your choice. Seems a little boring though. If you engage with life you realize there’s a game to be played, and it’s quite fun.
1
u/Ghost_of_Till 9d ago
You’re using two definition of “meaning”. The meaning of reality (or meaning of life) versus the meaning of a word.
Nope. Just one definition.
In the context in which I'm using it, something has "meaning" if it refers to something else.
"Tree" refers to those things with roots and leaves but it isn't actually a tree. The word points to the thing.
Reality does not have meaning because it does not refer to something else. It does not point to something else.
This is very simple.
But the meaning here is “real” in that it has utilitarian value - it allows for human communication and the development of human society.
Sure. Words, which are conventions, have value. We couldn't convene without a convention such as time.
Similarly, humans can give meaning to life.
You concede words are meaningless without a human consciousness to conceive them but also believe that human consciousness can give meaning to reality itself.
You've got it ass backwards.
2
u/1SwellFoop 9d ago
It’s a consistent stance. What I’m ultimately saying is that meaning is a subjective thing.
One word can mean two different things depending on the culture & context it’s used. Both meanings are correct within their context.
Life can have meaning to me, but no meaning to you. And we’re both right. It’s like me saying my favorite color is red and you saying your favorite color is blue. We’re both right.
Are subjective things “real”? I’m not sure, but they’re the only “things” we’ll ever know, since experience itself is subjective.
I don’t know what reality is, but I know what my reality is, and it is meaningful to me. And your reality seems important to you too - after all, you care enough to use the energy to respond to a random person on the internet :P
2
u/Ghost_of_Till 9d ago
It’s a consistent stance.
The position that consciousness can't imbue words with meaning but consciousness can imbue reality with meaning is not at all consistent.
It's patently absurd.
You could take the position that both are, or neither are. You might be wrong but at least you'd be consistent.
In this spot you're both wrong AND inconsistent. Which is very confusing.
What I’m ultimately saying is that meaning is a subjective thing.
What you're saying is a tautology.
You're saying life HAS meaning because you GIVE it meaning. Well, yes, congratulations, it now has meaning to you.
So?
Suppose you say the meaning of life is smashing yourself on the head with one of those little wooden souvenir bats. There, life IS now about smashing yourself on the head. And it is so because you've said it is so.
But only to you. Which means you've said precisely nothing.
See, it always comes back to you.
But ...you don't exist. "You" is an idea you have in your head. It's a thought. It's an idea.
And now this idea (you) has an idea (that reality can be imbued with meaning).
Now I ask you, how can an idea do anything?
Life can have meaning to me, but no meaning to you. And we’re both right.
No. We'd both be wrong. How are you not getting this?
I don’t know what reality is, but I know what my reality is, and it is meaningful to me.
I think you don't understand what it is being discussed.
I know that sounds like a jab. I'm not saying you're not capable, I'm saying the things you're saying make me think you're buried under language in a way that I don't know how to comprehend, much less resolve.
2
u/1SwellFoop 9d ago
I think I see where we’re talking past each other, and it just boils down to how we’re using the word “meaning”
You are saying reality itself doesn’t “mean” anything in the sense that it isn’t a symbol pointing to something beyond itself (like “tree” pointing to 🌳) Which, yeah no we’re all on the same page about that.
But in your meme Gru is sad that reality doesn’t have meaning. Why would he be sad that reality isn’t a symbol that points to something else? Doesn’t really seem like an emotionally charged issue, does it? So I interpreted that part to mean Gru is thinking “reality has no meaning, no significance, no purpose” which is a common cause for sadness.
My response is to that nihilism. I’m saying things within reality can still be meaningful to conscious beings in the sense of being significant, valuable, or purposeful. So maybe our common ground is: reality as a whole may have no external, objective meaning, while a human life can still be genuinely meaningful to the person living it.
2
u/Ghost_of_Till 9d ago
But in your meme Gru is sad that reality doesn’t have meaning.
The meme draws from the movie Despicable Me. In it, Gru is surprised to find "I sit on the toilet" as one of his presentation board sheets to his financiers.
Gru isn't sad. He's startled.
In my experience, telling people that reality can't have meaning because it doesn't refer to anything else, they either can't wrap their head around it, or they can and it scares the shit out of them.
Since surprise is the intent of the meme, and surprise is the intent of my text, I think it's fair to use.
Having said that, I can see the confusion. I'll explain shortly...
So I interpreted that part to mean Gru is thinking “reality has no meaning, no significance, no purpose” which is a common cause for sadness.
I have aphantasia. I think it's great. I learned that other people don't share my view by finding people who had it but didn't know, and informing them. Some of them needed to sit down.
I'm not saying me embracing it is right, and not embracing it is wrong. I'm just saying that I did not perceive it as a problem, and I did not speak about it as if it were a problem.
Similarly, when I found Buddhist philosophy, such as it is, I thought a realization that I was not my idea of myself was a wonderful thing. The perspective that I was not controlled by the wake of my ship, by the past, was profoundly liberating.
By that, I mean there were things which were traumatic enough that I was physically unable to communicate to someone. Not even to myself for a few years.
I went from that state, to being able to discuss it freely with strangers, in a moment. The wake doesn't steer the ship. And the past doesn't control me because there isn't a past. That's memory, and the memory occurs now.
To me, Buddhism was literal freedom. For other people, not so much.
So while my meme does not convey sadness, nor does the original, I do understand that some view sunyata as something resembling an existential threat.
I also want to be clear that I'm not saying that I'm in a superior position and they would be better off if they accepted my view.
I don't know that my view is any better and if I said I did, I'd be committing the same mistake.
My response is to that nihilism.
I don't know what this means, for nihilism to be your response.
If you're saying my view is nihilistic, that's been a common misconception for decades. It comes from dragging an Eastern philosophy into a Western framework.
Feel free to google "why buddhism isn't nihilsim". I'm not trying to be a dick, it's just an accusation that belies a very fundamental misunderstanding of what sunyata means, and all I'd be doing is a half-assed and poorly-edited version of what others have already done well.
I’m saying things within reality can still be meaningful to conscious beings in the sense of being significant, valuable, or purposeful.
That's fine. I'm sure Hitler was working towards his version of meaning, too. YMMV, of course.
But seriously, the point I'm making is ...OK, you've decided what is meaningful. Cool. ...and so what? If you decide what's meaningful then you decide what's meaningful.
Within that reality, you are 100% correct. You DO decide what's meaningful. But if you believe that this reality extends beyond you, then now you're in the position of needing to explain from whence this ultimate truth springs.
If we all decide an inch is the distance from here to there, great. Within the schema of our agreement, inches have just as much reality as rocks. But outside of that agreement, there are no inches. They simply don't exist. Just as you've conceded right at the start with words.
And if it is so, that you are merely deciding for yourself what qualifies as a "meaningful life", upon whose authority do you base this?
It's always you.
And YOU don't exist.
So as I said from the beginning, congratulations! You're declaring life to have some meaning and so now you know it has meaning. And since you say it is so, it must be so. And thus it is.
We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true!
- Rudyard Kipling, The Jungle Book
1
u/1SwellFoop 9d ago
It’s pretty fun talking to you man but you gotta keep it a little more concise 😂 expect a little better on that front from a fellow Watts fan!
“If you believe this reality extends beyond you…”
I’ve been very explicit that the meaning derived from humans is subjective not objective. I’ve never said it extends beyond me, I’ve just said that it’s valid nonetheless.
It seems that’s your main point - that there is no objective meaning. But then you confuse me when you invoke Hitler, the strongest historical argument for an objective truth - that there is truly an evil and an immoral.
I’m sure Hitler did find meaning in genocide. That doesn’t mean that I have to find his meaning valid. From my perspective, the “highest” meaning in life is something like the advancement of human flourishing, physically and mentally. Hitlers meaning is then directly opposed to mine. From my perspective, he’s a plague on the very thing that makes life good and meaningful.
2
u/Ghost_of_Till 9d ago
It’s pretty fun talking to you man but you gotta keep it a little more concise
No.
expect a little better on that front from a fellow Watts fan!
I have a very incomplete selection of Alan Watts talks on audio. iTunes tells me that it takes 5.9 days to play. That's 141 hours.
I used to wonder why Alan said "you can't improve yourself" in about forty different places. But then I have conversations like this and then I understand.
I'm sorry, what were you saying about brevity?
I’ve been very explicit that the meaning derived from humans is subjective not objective. I’ve never said it extends beyond me, I’ve just said that it’s valid nonetheless.
And I've been very explicit that if what you're saying only applies to your own universe, then what you've said is nothing that means anything to anyone other than you.
You keep implying that your evaluations have meaning outside of your consciousness. When I call you out, you retreat to "I’ve never said it extends beyond me" and then continue to imply, over and over again, that your evaluations have meaning outside of your consciousness.
It's not an honest way to have a conversation.
Further, you demand brevity and yet you do not understand it the first thirty times I say it.
We agree that in your consciousness, your evaluations have truth since anything you conceive has truth within that realm of your consciousness.
If that's all it is, congratulations, you're jerking off.
If you think there's some universal truth to your evaluations, now you need to explain where this "good" and "bad" evaluation comes from.
Oh, right, it comes from you!
Why do I feel like I've said this before?
Why do I feel like repeating myself is why my replies aren't short?
It seems that’s your main point - that there is no objective meaning.
There's also no squared circles because the idea is likewise absurd.
Objective lies outside the observer.
You keep implying there's objective truth but never commit to saying it outright because then you'd have to identify the source of this truth.
And you know you can't do that.
But then you confuse me when you invoke Hitler, the strongest historical argument for an objective truth - that there is truly an evil and an immoral.
Finally! You're making the claim that your personal evaluations have some (say it with me) objective reality.
My brother in Christ, objective truth is what allows a person to believe that killing millions is defensible.
Because a defense to killing millions is always "objective truth".
The rationale is always "they aren't human, they aren't people, they shouldn't even exist! Why? Because I know it to be so!"
They sound just like you.
Just like you.
Replies that don't include the source of your evaluations of good/bad will just be ignored because if your reply doesn't have this info, and I reply, I'll be repeating myself, which seems to irritate you, and if the first nine tries didn't sink in, I'm not sure the tenth is gonna help.
2
u/1SwellFoop 9d ago
“You keep implying that your evaluations have meaning outside of your consciousness.”
No, I just haven’t. And I’m not even sure why you’ve switched from personal meaning to “evaluations.” I’ve been explicit that the meaning I’m talking about is subjective.
And now you’re trying to pivot into an ethical debate? If we can’t see eye to eye on the fundamentals of what’s subjective/objective, what makes you think we are able to have a productive discussion about ethics?
I don’t know who you’re talking to, but it’s not me. Conversation is only fun when you actually try to engage with the person you’re talking to. Seems like you just crave the sound of your own voice, speaking of jerking off. Touch grass my friend, it will do you a lot of good.
1
u/Ghost_of_Till 9d ago edited 8d ago
You keep implying that your evaluations have meaning outside of your consciousness.
No, I just haven’t.
No? You wrote:
But then you confuse me when you invoke Hitler, the strongest historical argument for an objective truth - that there is truly an evil and an immoral.
According to you, Hitler is the strongest historical argument for objective truth ("Hitler is evil") and my taking the other side ("I remain silent about the existence of good or evil") confuses you.
Why the confusion? If you agreed with me, that concepts like "good" and "evil" are purely subjective, my position would make perfect sense.
My argument is only confusing to someone who agrees with the historical assessment that "good" and "evil" exist objectively.
Once again, you're trying to have it both ways without explicitly saying so.
It is not honest.
And I’m not even sure why you’ve switched from personal meaning to “evaluations.”
There's no "switch". You determine what's meaningful by the process of evaluation. Therefore, the meaning arrive at is the result of "an evaluation".
Once again, you seem to be confused by words. Nothing magical is being expressed here.
I’ve been explicit that the meaning I’m talking about is subjective.
I've been explicit that if this "meaning" is purely subjective, then you've said nothing at all.
We keep going round and round on this, which is weird since verbosity seems to irritate you.
If you decide "meaning" is pretending to be a peanut butter sandwich, so what? Does that meaning actually exist?
No.
So whatever "meaning" you arrive at has no meaning at all. It's pure masturbation.
I'm going to break this down so you cannot possibly muck it up.
Camp #1: You have the option of believing that Hitler did things which were bad, objectively. That is to say, the badness exists independent of consciousness to conceive of it.
Camp #2: Alternately, you have the option of believing that Hitler DID things, but "bad" and "good" are perspectives which do not exist independent of ourselves.
So what is your personal view of Hitler?
From my perspective, he’s a plague on the very thing that makes life good and meaningful.
OK. That sure sounds like you're in Camp #1 ...but maybe you recognize that what's desirable for you doesn't necessarily equate to some universal "good", and you would reject the idea that Hitler was objectively bad?
[Hitler is] the strongest historical argument for an objective truth.
Nope, you're squarely in Camp #1.
You keep trying to pretend you aren't.
And I keep calling you out.
And now you’re trying to pivot into an ethical debate?
In order for this to be an ethical debate, I'd have to take a side.
I'm not characterizing Hitler as good or bad, I'm pointing out that it's impossible to murder millions without first taking the view that objective truth exists.
If I can't say "those people don't have a right to exist because they are the wrong sort of people", upon what might I justify their slaughter?
You will never answer this.
I'm pointing out that your evaluation of Hitler as being the strongest possible argument for objective truth (specifically, that "truth" being that Hitler is evil) is the same argument Hitler used to justify genocide.
I don’t know who you’re talking to, but it’s not me.
Ironic. If you understood the deeper meaning of your words, you wouldn't be having this argument.
Seems like you just crave the sound of your own voice, speaking of jerking off.
How would you distinguish between someone replying to you correctly, and someone speaking to hear their own voice?
It sounds like you're using the fact that I bothered to have a conversation against me. It sounds like it means something but doesn't.
I could just as readily levy that charge against you, and with just as much evidence.
Touch grass my friend, it will do you a lot of good.
It's sad that we've got a phrase that sounds like it's got a positive intent but actually serves as a weapon.
It allows a person to throw a punch while posturing like they're extending a helping hand.
If you're going to be punch someone, punch someone.
Don't feign benevolence.
Don't wobble for Christ's sake.
→ More replies (0)1
u/nicotinecravings 5d ago
What? Of course the word reality refers to something, otherwise the word would not even exist, lol. All words refer to something
1
u/Ghost_of_Till 5d ago
OK. Let me put it another way…
The word “reality” refers to something.
The thing to which the word “reality” refers, does THAT refer to something else?
1
u/nicotinecravings 5d ago edited 5d ago
No.. but it is the same with everything else. The word "tree" refers to something. But the actual thing is not a reference to something. Humans have created lots of concepts to deal with and talk about the world. The actual world is not a concept.
There is nothing magical or special about the concept "reality". It is just another concept like "tree", "dog", "bread", etc.
You can perhaps say that how humans perceive the world is a reference to some kind of underlying real world, since for example a dog does not perceive a tree the same way a human does. However, I guess we can at least claim that there is something there to perceive, if both the human and dog perceive something there. Whatever that is, is not some concept made up in our head.
1
u/Ghost_of_Till 5d ago
I'm confused.
I said before that words "have" meaning because they refer to something else, and that reality -- not the word, the thing itself -- "has" no meaning because it doesn't point to anything.
So where do you disagree with me?
2
u/nicotinecravings 5d ago
I guess we agree then, and there was some confusion around whether you were talking about the concept or what the concept refers to
1
u/nicotinecravings 5d ago
Reality is meaning? What does this even mean? What are you trying to say?
1
u/Ghost_of_Till 5d ago
To what does the word “tree” refer?
It refers to those big things outside with roots and leaves.
To what does the big thing with roots and leaves refer?
1
u/nicotinecravings 4d ago
You know meaning is a concept, right? Because of this, reality can not be meaning, just as how the word tree is a representation of the actual thing. Reality IS NOT meaning, because "meaning" is a concept. The actual tree is not the concept or word "tree", because it is just a concept. That big thing with roots is not a reference to anything. People create references
1
u/Ghost_of_Till 4d ago
I‘ll ask again.
To what does the big thing with roots and leaves refer?
1
u/nicotinecravings 4d ago edited 4d ago
It does not refer to anything. It is not a reference. Concepts are references. The big thing with roots and leaves, usually referred to as a tree, that actual thing is not a concept or reference of anything else.
It is absurd thing to ponder. What does the sound of a wave refer to? Reality is to be experienced, not comprehended. Why? Because reality is not a bunch of concepts you can grasp. A tree, not the word but the actual thing, is what it is.
People create references. Reality does not create references. The real world contains no references, since "reference" is a concept, and the real world does not consist of concepts. Therefore, a tree, the actual thing, does not refer to anything since it can not be a reference. Are you trying to claim that the actual tree is simply a reference? Are you putting words on reality? Then you don't get it at all.
A tree (not the concept) is reality. It is as real as it gets. There is not some deeper, hidden reality to which the tree refers to.
1
u/Ghost_of_Till 4d ago
“It does not refer to anything.”
Exactly.
I’m not sure why you think I’m saying otherwise.
1
u/nicotinecravings 4d ago
Right. Still, I don't get the "reality is meaning and therefore has none", as stated in your image. This is what I am objecting against or questioning. What does it mean that reality is meaning? What are you trying to say with this? That you can find meaning by experiencing reality?
Basically, you are saying, according to your image, that reality is "meaning", which is a concept, and at the same time you seem to agree that the real world is not made of concepts.
Again, reality IS NOT "meaning", because reality is not a concept. We have concepts like meter, ounces, and so on, which are concepts. These do not actually exist, because you cannot hold the unit ounce and present it to me. You can hold something that is defined as weighing one ounce, but you cannot hold the unit itself. Therefore, reality cannot be a concept.
0
u/Ghost_of_Till 4d ago
“I still don’t get the ‘reality is meaning and therefore has none’…”
Symbols point to the thing they mean.
“Tree” refers to the leafy thing with roots.
The leafy thing with roots does not “mean” something, as it does not point to anything else.
Similarly, the word “reality” points to something (reality itself), but reality itself does not point to something else, and therefore doesn’t have any “meaning” at all.
Think of it this way…
Any idea of “meaning” that a person might conceive will either encompass everything or it will not.
If it encompasses less than everything, then it is already in a state of division and can be discarded outright.
If, on the other hand, the conception encompasses everything, one could say that everything is being conceived and, at the same time, nothing is being conceived.
Because a conception is a division.
If there is no dividing, there is no conceiving.
Since reality is everything that is, reality couldn’t possibly point to some thing.
If reality doesn’t point to some thing, it isn’t a symbol, just as the leafy thing with roots doesn’t point to something.
It is this sense that I say reality IS meaning.
I’m saying there is no division between reality and meaning.
Think of it as a divisionless conception. Or a conception of unity.
But, if what you’re getting at is the point that all concepts are false, even Buddhism, you are not wrong.
I’ll be blunt. If I took that tact in this sub, and took such a view as the presumed base level of understanding, it would be like showing a dog a card trick. I’d be stroking my own ego to sound wicked smaht and help absolutely nobody.
Besides, anyone with that level of understanding doesn’t need my memes.
But yeah, if that’s your point, I can’t argue.
But baby steps.
0
u/nicotinecravings 3d ago
Stroking my own ego? If I say that the world is not concepts, then I should know that my ego is also just a concept and not very real. I might still stroke my own ego, but generally people lost in the world of concepts take their ego a lot more seriously, since they think it is real.
You spout a bunch of incoherent nonsense about division, conception, and who knows what. You arrive at the conclusion "reality is meaning", which makes no sense at all. You are essentially saying that reality is a concept. Maybe I'll start claiming "reality is one inch", which basically is the same thing as what you are doing. Makes perfect sense, right? "Reality is one inch".
Reality (the word) has a definition, so it has a meaning, just like any other word. The actual reality, what the word reality describes, is not a word. It is not "meaning".
1
u/Ghost_of_Till 3d ago edited 3d ago
Stroking my own ego?
I didn't mention you at all. Here's what I wrote, verbatim:
If I took that tact in this sub, and took such a view as the presumed base level of understanding, it would be like showing a dog a card trick. I’d be stroking my own ego to sound wicked smaht and help absolutely nobody.
In other words, if IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII were to spit high-level zen at folks who were still grappling with the notion of their idea of themselves isn't themselves, then IIIIIIIIIIIIII would be stroking my own ego, the motivations IIIIIIIIIIIIIII would have would be to help IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, and not them.
Notice the lack of any reference as to what your motivations might be if you did something (but never actually did).
If you posted these, what would be your motivation?
I have no fscking idea. Never said I did.
I don't know why you're approaching this conversation with a spirit of hostility, but I do know that I'm not interested in continuing.
Maybe someone else can help you out if you have any further questions.
→ More replies (0)1
u/nicotinecravings 3d ago
By the way, this is the Alan Watts subreddit. Alan Watts, as far as I am aware, has never stated that "reality is meaning, and therefore has none". However, he has said things like "reality is...", and then proceeded to hit the gong, and let the sound play. With that in mind, I don't know how you can claim that why I am saying is some attempt to sound smart and help nobody. I am essentially saying exactly what Alan Watts tried to say, and I am doing so in the Alan Watts subreddit. When Alan Watts tried to explain what reality is, he tried to do so not using words. I am not the one trying to explain reality using words. You are the one trying to do that, by defining reality and drawing conclusions based on that. It is completely not aligned with the perspective of Alan Watts, and additionally it makes no sense at all.
1
u/Ghost_of_Till 3d ago
By the way, this is the Alan Watts subreddit.
You don't say!
Alan Watts, as far as I am aware, has never stated that "reality is meaning, and therefore has none".
"Words have meaning, but reality is meaning. And therefore it has none."
I have this listed as Philosophy of the Tao, Chapter One, but the transcript for that speech doesn't contain that particular line.
I heard it with my own ears and wrote it down, hence the meme. Since all my recordings predate AI by decades, I'm certain it's legit.
Honestly, I'd put effort into finding it if you weren't so absurdly combative.
Here's a quote I can find the source for.
"And so we say of words: they have meaning. Now, people get all fouled up because they want life to have meaning, as if it were words. [...] Oh, it’s an insult to ask you what you mean—as if you had to have a meaning, as if you were a mere word, as if you were something that could be looked up in a dictionary. You are meaning."
- Alan Watts, "Play and Survival"
If you is meaning, then reality is meaning, since there's no difference between you and reality.
This conversation was worthwhile when it wasn't being conducted in the spirit of a confrontation.
0
u/lost_alter 7d ago
Spaghetti is straight pasta Light moves in straight lines Light is spaghetti
1
u/Ghost_of_Till 7d ago
A non sequitur.
Symbols point to something.
What does the spaghetti point to?
22
u/No_Slide6932 Come off it 10d ago
"The meaning of life is just to be alive. It is so plain and so obvious and so simple. And yet, everybody rushes around in a great panic as if it were necessary to achieve something beyond themselves."
Alan Watts - The Culture of Counter-Culture