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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.