Extended Thoughts on "the real meaning...

*I've tried emailing this post for the first time on St. Peter's [blog] because blogger.com is being super slow.

**As I come back from vacation, the emailed post came in as a "draft" and was not published. So here it is, 2 weeks late (but July 3, as promised!). Apologies for the formatting.

As I mulled on David Seaman's "The Real Meaning of Life" last week, I stumbled on some new insights and ideas, collected below. I'm on vay-kay after today, so probably no post next week, check back 7/3 after CrossWalk has been through town!

- ) An overwhelming majority of entries on the "real meaning of life" included an emphasis on sensory experience. Seeing, feeling, tasting, and hearing things (and almost always, novel things - we have an appetite for the new).

- ) "There is a fine line between platitudes and the rules we choose to govern our existence." So true. This is a much better way to say what I meant in the previous post about generalities/transcendent truth.

- ) Make it better has a corollary I forgot to include in the original post. Remember that "life is good" can be reduced to "human beings have an innate preference for existence over non-existence" (which is a much poorer statement, but can still yield important meaning). "Make it better" has a minimal iteration, Do no harm. Even such a basic principle can be transforming when taken deeply into consideration.

- ) About "subjectivity" - Many entries include a statement like "the meaning of life is whatever you make it" or "whatever you want it to be." As seriously as we take our own subjectivity and its existential implications, we are all human subjects. I am very interested in seeking the human universals that we share because of that. Going a step farther, imagine the universe of living subjects; are there universal meanings or attitudes that all life might share? Meanings that are not strictly necessary or objectively true (therefore "subjective") but universal anyway? (I'm not sure what a non-living subject might be - perhaps artificial intelligence? - but admitting the possibility at least).

- ) Because of Peter's entry (which I will quote next), I realized that subversiveness is for me a sign of divine truth, or a "thin place" (to use Marcus Borg's langauge). Not always, but it's a good indicator. I think of Jesus' parables, which are often subversive: remember the father's love for his lost son in "the prodigal son" story, or the good Samaritan. These truths turn our expectations upside-down. Of course, not everything subversive is thin for me, but it's a flag that tells me to look closer.

- ) The entry that will stick with me the longest is Peter Davison's on page 193. It is unique in the book in its subversion of the original question. It questions what we mean by the word "meaning." Peter does talk about the fulfillment of human purpose, which I'm interested in as well; he's not a nihilist.

"Just as there is no speed of the sky, no weight of happiness, no batting average of my car, no consensus of the clouds, there is no meaning of life. Meaning is not a word that applies to 'life.'

A quest for meaning is equivalent to a quest for water. It's simply an intrinsic human need. What in other animals would generally be the physiological and mental impetus to find and environment with better food and mating prospects equates in the more advanced human brain with a quest for meaning.

As evidence, consider that no one ever finds the meaning of life - they simply become suitably satisfied by love, children, or career, and these become the outcomes of the quest and human fulfillment of purpose.

So, in summary, if you are ever consistently hounded by longings to uncover the meaning of life, it's you telling yourself that something is missing in your existence. Stop reading books about the subject - that's the equivalent of reading romance books when you're lonely. Get out and open yourself up to new experiences. You're being set up for an internal battle with your own desire for security.