Projecting Meaning

Zalthos

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

I've been thinking a lot about what I read here, particularly this:

@Jim Eshelman said

There is no intrinsic meaning in anything. All meaning (on anything) is arbitrarily attached. I can't offhand think of any situation where that attachment wouldn't be a mirroring of the person who is attaching the meaning, i.e., a projection.

I have only ever encountered this way of thinking among a few mature atheists. We got into a philosophical debate, and I was honestly stumped when one of them shared that they felt nothing dealing about a life with no meaning.

In this context, its hard not to view projected meaning as a sort of weakness, existence without it being measured as strength. Maybe the truth only hurts if you expect to be comforted by it.

I did review the rest of the thread for the points on pattern recognition and outgrowing specific projections, and all of this is definitely changing the way I look at things. But its still somewhat strange to me.

After knowing this, its hard for things to feel meaningful without them being pleasurable or fulfilling some unmet personal desire of mine; achieving some goal. While there are times where other people find pleasure with me along the way, my aims are ultimately selfish, and I have been wrestling with guilt about that.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Macsen Melinydd

Check out this thread too: <a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9661">viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9661</a>
It has my thoughts on the matter.

Corvinae

Because things have no intrinsic meaning,
the ability to have effectual projected meaning
Is one of the greatest Strenghts human beings can have.
It has enabled us to survice the perils of Life on Earth

All acts of Love are my rituals.

I want as much pleasure out of this life as I can possibly get.
I see nothing wrong with masterbation, at all
Unless it is in public of course.
I enjoy mental gymnastics, or head games with myself, and if I am not violating another will, and taking care of my personal responsibliites, then whoes to say my projected meanings onto things, (ie coincidences) is a weakness. in fact because I am able to apply conscoius thought to life events, and turn negative events into positive ones (optimisum) my life is full, pleasurable, and strong.

( by which transfers to the metaphor, if what brings you pkeasure means being cruel and sadistic to others, snuff film kind of stuff, or Hostel esque... I personally draw a line there)

Jim Eshelman

I wasn't making the same points as the atheists you mentioned. Life - lived fully - is enormously meaningful. Meaning drives us in life.

My point is that no event has meaning inherently. It just... is. It doesn't mean anything. We attach meaning. (And we can detach and change the meaning that we attach.)

What does it mean that the chicken crossed the road? It means nothing inherently. But both the chicken farmer and the fox on the other side of the road will attach great meaning to it, and they need not agree on what that is.

Or - especially! - in communication!! (Oh my!!!) A person says something, states a fact. The person hearing often will attach meaning to it more than the fact. (Of course, this is a consequence of people communicating inadequately from the beginning.) For example:

A woman says, "I'm packing a suitcase." Her husband hears the words but attaches a meaning different from the simple fact. He doesn't attach the meaning that she's packing a suitcase. He attaches a meaning, "I'm leaving you." In fact, she meant that she was going to start early packing his suitcase for an upcoming trip.

Jim Eshelman

@Dara said

"Q: Did Issac Newton project a meaning he called gravity after an apple fell on his head, or was gravity in a meaningful sense already there before he noticed it and deduced a meaning from the event? Also - in what fashion was this meaning 'arbitrary' - if at all?"

Gravity, of course, was there. It just didn't mean anything that it's there. (Still doesn't.)

All meaning is arbitrary, btw.

Jim Eshelman

I'm not saying gravity is arbitrary. I'm saying that any meaning you ascribe to gravity is arbitrary.

Jim Eshelman

@Dara said

"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm not saying gravity is arbitrary. I'm saying that any meaning you ascribe to gravity is arbitrary."

Meaning may simply be an evident proposition, as gravity is itself.

If not then you could arbitrarily say that gravity is pink, and mean nothing by that."

Of course. Not everything you say has meaning. (Not just you personally - true of anybody.)

But when there IS meaning ascribed to a thing - a valuation, an emotion, a characterization, a decision about it - these are manufactured. Like most manufactured things, they have a particular value.

Al-Shariyf

"After knowing this, its hard for things to feel meaningful without them being pleasurable or fulfilling some unmet personal desire of mine; achieving some goal."

There may be no inherent meaning in anything, but that doesn't mean things don't matter to YOU. Like Jim said before

"when there IS meaning ascribed to a thing - a valuation, an emotion, a characterization, a decision about it - these are manufactured."

You can manufacture meanings that empower you to fulfill on those things that matter to you. AND, you can discard meanings that disempower you.

Jim Eshelman

That sounds like magick, 'Reef!

Al-Shariyf

Causing change in conformity with Will! HU-RA!

Simon Iff

@Al-Shariyf said

"You can manufacture meanings that empower you to fulfill on those things that matter to you. AND, you can discard meanings that disempower you."

I heard somewhere that there are people who call this sort of process "True Will"

Uni_Verse

You can throw out Newtons Gravitational Theory and just use Einsteins Special Relativity.

Jim Eshelman

@Dara said

"Meaning = whatever needs to applied to the circumstances of the moment that most conforms with the evident? "

"Meaning" comes from the same root as "mind." Meaning is what a person's mind adds to a thing, situation, or occurrence. These things are not inherent in the thing, situation, or occurrence.

Uni_Verse

@Dara said

"Why not? Orch OR theory has it that qualia is inherent to the thing, or things, and thus situations, and so consciousness does not add to it (although it can do) but essentially just reads what is there before the senses do. Thus - consciousness is a quality of the universe thats inherent to the qualia of it and not divisible to it as long as energy and gravity occur, and so F1 drivers can turn into a corner before their senses register it. "

The act of perceiving the object inherently changes the object.
I feel this is why the attaining of the samadhi technique is so important in Yoga, for it is not until then that a being may say they perceived an object free of projections.

You can say, it begs the age old question : does energy and gravity occur when no one is around?
Furthering the notion, towards the idea that energy and gravity do not occur in of themselves.
Rather, they are elements which come into play when there is an initiation,
When something is begun, set it motion.
Essentially, a thing exists as an entity due to the establishment of linear time by a conscious being.
Where we may say a thing existed at this time until this time, suffering various effects.
As opposed to being intermingled with time
(and space... remember time-space is a single entity[Special Relativity),
thus having no discernible beginning or end ( an existence without qualities).

Uni_Verse

@Dara said

"I wouldn't like to say if yeast experiences linear time, but I will venture that when consciousness perceives energy and gravity it reflects upon fundamental component of the system that powers consciousness, or it does not reflect and rather fully experiences those fundamental components during states of consciousness."

One thing to consider is that while gravity can act powerfully upon large bodies (such as planets) at microscopic levels (and lower) it has little to no effect.
In other words, for something to be effected by gravity it must have a mass perceivable to human senses.
While Relativity, on the other hand, effects any system with more than one object.
Both cases are dependent upon the interaction of objects (whether they are big as planets, as small as particles).

The question, possibly starting with "does yeast have a conception of linear time?"
Better posed as : "How much yeast must there be for linear time to be perceived?"

More poignantly: How many yeast organisms must there be before one becomes Self-Aware?
Some thing I have personally pondered to a great degree is:
If I was the only human to exist would I be Self-Aware?
Would the notion of Self ever even enter my awareness?