Existence
cannot be revealed in symbols, and knowledge cannot be revealed without.
Throughout
human history, the search for meaning is a constant. We ask the meaning of almost every
characteristic, object, and event, from the profound to the mundane. What is the meaning of life? What does it mean to be a 34 year old white male in the United States in the early 21st century? What is the meaning of the dietary
information on this pint of ice cream?
What is
meaning, and where does it come from? Meaning simply comes from us, from our own individual and collective psychology. “Signs and signifiers can be appropriated and
reappropriated in an endless chain. Thus
meaning is rarely predictable and never fixed.” –Diane Raymond,
People with
theistic beliefs may protest and say that some type of fundamental meaning can come
from God. But even if that is true, and
certain things have divinely granted inherent meaning, we have no access to it. To illustrate my point, assume that the
fabled Holy Grail is real, it has been found, and it has inherent meaning endowed by God. Now assume that a Christian recognizes its
meaning. The Christian is not observing
the inherent meaning of the object. He
is only observing the meaning attributed to it by his religious texts, his
culture, and his own beliefs. The fact that his meaning of it matches the inherent meaning is an arbitrary coincidence.
Now some
might protest further, citing that the Grail may have supernatural properties
that are empirically evident, communicating the object’s inherent meaning. But this does not contradict my claim; it
only transmutes the object of the question.
The old question, “what is the meaning of the Holy Grail?” becomes the
new question, “what is the meaning of its supernatural properties?”. Some people might believe that the
supernatural properties mean divinity. Meanwhile others, believing it is a false
grail, might believe the supernatural properties mean witchcraft, conspiracy, or hoax.
We
constantly create, alter, annihilate, and recreate meaning. The human brain seems to have an overwhelming,
if not compulsive, hunger to find (or create) meaning. We endlessly create, disseminate, and consume stories of all
sorts, from fairy tales to sports reporting.
We do this because narrative is the vehicle for meaning. If you ask me, this quest for meaning is part
of what it means to be human. Along with
things like survival and procreation, meaning is a fundamental driver of human
activity. Also, meaning and narrative
can provide context for our suffering and give us comfort when we face
obstacles and hardships.
Conversely though, I’ve
been learning that, meaning and narrative are the causes of much
suffering. If a house is destroyed in a
fire, does that cause me to suffer? No. But if that house belongs to me, then the
answer changes. I’m not upset because
the house is lost I grieve because of
the meaning that I’ve attributed to that house in particular, as opposed to the
thousands of other similar houses nearby.
I’m learning
the practice of mindfulness, to observe things as they truly are, without the
baggage of the meanings that the mind wants to attach to them. As I do this, I keep coming back to some
fundamental questions about this path and its destination.
Can we take advantage of narrative's ability to give us hope and comfort when facing adversity without creating attachment and identification (ie. without suffering the negative consequences)?
If the
pursuit of meaning is a fundamental part of ‘being human’, what does it mean to
let go of or see beyond meaning?
According to
many spiritual teachers, mindfulness leads to a “higher”
consciousness. But how is this higher
consciousness different from a simpler animal consciousness?
Even if
equanimity or englightment is achieved, I don’t think meaning ‘goes away’. So what is it like to see meaning for what it
is and still engage with it, without attachment to or identification with
it? Or to rephrase, how does one’s
relationship with meaning change as one becomes enlightened?
I want to
understand things on an intellectual level.
That is my natural inclination.
But it is not lost on me that these questions are likely flawed, due to the very paradox of their nature. As
Lao Tzu so eloquently put it, “The Tao that can be described is not the true
Tao.” The true Tao transcends not only
language, but rational thought. In that
sense, maybe the true Tao is the ability to discern the meaning inherent in a
thing, at least in the case of existence. But if it can't be put into words, I don't think it will answer any questions.
Thank you for reading. Use the comment tool to post any thoughts or questions. And please share my blog with others who might find value in it. May you be well and happy.
-Andy
The English language is equipped with the words meaningful and meaningless. We should invent the word meaningfree. Positive, negative, neutral.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting thought. I understand the negative connotation of the word "meaningless". But what is the denotative difference between meaningless and meaningfree?
Delete