Nov 282008
 

Someone posted this comment on Steve Pavlina‘s blog a while ago:

Why improve at all? We are born. We die. Everything else shares the same fate. Then why this struggle to improve? What is the use? Expectations can only lead to misery if we dont achieve. Why not just lead a life of no expecation and see what happens?

That chap Jim achieved first place. Cool! So what next? He will now set his goals to win the Milky Way Speaking Championship? Ok, let us give him the first place there. Then what?

Has anybody here tried to live a life of no goal setting, competition, improvement? Doing things intuitively without expectation. Isnt that peace? Isnt that what we are truly after?

Steve addressed it in the blog post titled, Why pursue personal growth at all? I feel he could have done a better job in addressing it by making more of the issues and hidden assumptions conscious and then addressing them. His actual answer seems to be that, no, nothing really matters in the long run, and that your subjective experience is what’s important.

I’ve held the beliefs that are mentioned by the commenter above so I feel I can offer a different intepretation. The first is that a materialist/physicalist/naturalist perspective pervades our society, which essentially rejects metaphysical or super-natural concepts. Materialism, as a philosophy, considers matter the only philosophical substance. Sorta like how an old Greek idea was that the world was made up of the four elements: fire, water, earth and air, except the universe is made up of matter and nothing exists beyond that. Now, in our folk philosophies we tend to assume that meaning of things in inherent in them. For example, if I say an elephant is big, we assume that “bigness” is somehow a property of an elephant (it’s noumenon), while I believe that “bigness” is a property imposed on the elephant within our own consciousness. In fact, I believe that meaning or value exists only in our consciousness and results as a consequence of the interaction between the “actual” thing, my sense and my consciousness. This is a tough concept to get across at first, so I suggest re-reading this paragraph a few times. Another thing to consider: what’s “red”? I’m colour-blind, so your experience of the wave frequencies that we perceive as “red” is different from mine. Red is not a quality of the object itself, but rather my experience of it.

Now for the second part of this argument: what the commenter is referring to is a realization that things don’t have meaning or value in and of themselves, and because materialism may be the dominant philosophy (often unconsciously), the meanings of our actions are value-less because they are not physical, but rather metaphysical in some way. This led me to a sort of nihilism. Not nihilism as a sense of dispair, but simply a recognition that existance has no inherent value or meaning. This can be dispair-inducing and may cause people to ask, “what is the point of it all, if it doesn’t matter in the long run?”

Of course, the hidden assumption in that question is two-fold: Things have meaning, value or point if they last or are eternal (an inheritance with Plato who claimed that “reality” is permanent); and that meaning only comes when things have physical form and last a long time. I would add that there may be a third assumption: to wonder whether things have meanings if there is no human consciousness to “judge” it. If a third-person, “objective” observer was to look at this, what would they say? This may be the primary way that folk philosophy looks at this problem.

I am arguing that things have no meanings in and of themselves, and that there is no meaning without human consciousness. That is my mind/consciousness creates the meanings around me. So, while something may not have any meaning in the long run or the rest of the universe or even to the rest of the world, my own conscious experience in this present moment is what’s important, and that is bar I judge things by, rather than how things would look to an “objective” observer looking at things in the context of the universe and a long time horizon. This view actually creates some interesting side-effects. For example, losing your job does not include disappointment, anger, dispair or however you may feel, and in fact, can be a non-issue because those are all reactions and you can choose to have a reaction of happiness in all situations.

There’s two broad movements that fail us here: religion and folk theories of science. The major religions emphasizes the immaterial, the supernatural, the permanent and can lead to the following: “But a person who rejects God and the divine may still retain the belief that all “base”, “earthly”, or “human” ideas are still valueless because they were considered so in the previous belief system (such as a Christian who becomes a communist and believes fully in the party structure and leader). In this interpretation, any form of idealism, after being rejected by the idealist, leads to nihilism.”

Folk theories of “rationalism” and “scientific” perspective can lead us astray by making us think of things in brutally logical and greedy reductionistic terms which may strip away the meaning of things by asking “so what?”. There’s nothing wrong with that perspective but I believe it is inherently disempowering to my consciousness while being less accurate than the phenomomenlogical perspective I’m advocating.

Additionally, goals are important for the psychological health and well-being of individuals. Hope this was interesting! I wish I could go back six or seven years go and tell my younger self about this stuff.

  2 Responses to “What is the Point of It All?”

  1. […] point isn’t there to life? Quoted for truth. I took a different tack to this question here: What is the Point of It All? | Mind-Manual My conclusion is basically that the question arises out of a certain sort of mindset and if you […]

  2. […] What is the Point of It All? | Mind-Manual That may include some pointers to the sort of disillusionment with the answers you’re finding. I do not believe religion was invented, I believe it evolved. The tricky bit is not to just make up a story, but to make a story that people will care enough about to repeat. There’s a reason why these stories were repeated. Remember, they could have been wiped out in one generation and in many cases were and left no traces. This is an interesting talk on the nature of myths and why they may be transferred: What is Evil? | Mind-Manual "There is an odd power to myths, which can hold our attention as a group over the course of many millennia. The story of Noah’s Flood is at least six thousand years old but it was told and re-told for all of that time. Maybe there is a deeper, hidden and implicit meaning to it. According to Jordan Peterson, the meaning is something like: do not allow yourself and your culture to become morally corrupt because if the structures of order that keep chaos at bay (ie culture and cities) will be washed away by chaos (water = chaos)." Battlestar Galactica = The Bible? | Mind-Manual Why is the fact that some notion of divineness is a human universal reason enough for believing there must be a divine out there? You can also check out this video: Jordan B Peterson on blip.tv The question you are asking, about the nature of meaning is important. The monist-materialist ideas that prevade our societies seem to destroy meaning but it doesn’t have to be like that. Check out the above links and you may find some answers. Finally, don’t identify yourself with your beliefs, identify yourself with the thing that changes beliefs. Ok, let’s say you have a theory about hte world, and then it’s proven wrong, then you can update it. If you identify too strongly with that theory and go "this theory is a part of me" you’re less likely to cut out a part of you. Also check Pavlina’s archives and Ctrl-F for "belief" __________________ Mind-Manual New: Battlestar Galactica = The Bible? […]

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)