Meaning that doesn't end in anything meaningful.

"Finding Meaning". Blah. It is unclear to me if meaning gives hope or if hope keeps the search for meaning alive. But both are becoming difficult to maintain. 

The obvious problem with the loss of hope on top of meaning is that, it seems quite pointless to start any search for meaning.

The complete and utter loss of faith in humanity or what remains of it at this stage, makes the situation all the more difficult. Because, while leaving a legacy, a manifest, any sort of written account of world views and ideas, and to a lesser extent – purely writing as a form of therapy – become meaningless in itself rather than therapeutic. 

Who will this be left to? Who will read it? Who will care? Does it matter if they care? Do I NEED someone to read it more than it needs to be read for anyone else’s benefit?

Absurdism claims that the gap between the human need for meaning and the resounding meaningless silence of the universe in return is the cause for misery, and that the answer lies in existence, defiance and resistance. Finding any hope or religion of any kind may null the true meaning of Absurdism.

In Buddhism, the causes for suffering are desire and ignorance, attachment and aversion. We want what can never be satisfied and we act in ways that only make it worse. But Buddhism claims the answer lies in accepting the suffering – perhaps similar to Absurdism claiming there is no meaning to anything at all – yet Buddhism proposes a way to END suffering by living “right” and reaching Nirvana. While that may be a noble idea, it is not practical or pragmatic to any being trying to survive its daily life without abandoning what might be its only threads to sanity such as family, friends or hobbies.

Stoicism and Existentialism agree there is no meaning to life – just like Absurdism. However, they differ in their “solution” to this issue. Stoicism will tell you to live a simple and virtuous life. Existentialism will say the meaning is whatever you decide it is.

Absurdism says to imagine Sisyphus happy with his meaningless chore, thus to BE happy living in the now and your current experience in almost a defiant manner. I like that idea. But I cannot fully agree with it.

When Sisyphus defies his meaningless toil by being happy, it has context. Almost an intrinsic meaning. He was a bad person, both to his fellow humans and repeatedly mocked and tricked the gods. He must have guilt, remorse, shame or alternatively anger, rage… defiance. 

We do not have such luxury. We did not defy gods to find meaning in just “being”.  We are not Sisyphus because we don’t share his story. The universe is not as vindictive and an easy a target as Zeus.

In defying the cosmos by being happy, the same issue arises to negate it - the cosmos doesn't care about your defiance and thus, does defiance exist when there is nothing to defy against? Does the nothingness of space exist or does not exist? And, does defiance then turn into self-fooling?

Because something else has been bugging me for a while, and having the limited understanding of it makes it harder to swallow. As an avid Atheist and with utter hatred to organized religion, it is becoming apparent to anyone looking intelligently enough – without prejudice or conspiracy – that the universe has some rules we cannot ignore, even if we do not fully understand them. Why would the universe have rules? Who sets those rules? How are they enforced? And why does anything exist in the first place?

Quantum mechanics, String Theory, Space-Time-Gravity-Energy, Golden ratios, Water behavior and so much more – we cannot say the universe or cosmos isn’t someone involving itself in meaning. There is simply too much out there to decide that absurdly, life has no meaning at all and be content. left at that. Because, while it may be a great solution to be blissfully ignorant, you can’t help but feel you are lying to yourself, which violates the entire premise. And so, Nihilism is not an option as well as it ends its theory with “no meaning” and does not allow even the fragment of “solution” – not hope – that true absurdism suggests.

And so, what thread can be found – if any – looking at all these philosophies, in a way that may be understood and even implemented by the common man? That is what I would like to explore.

I cannot deny the liberating feeling of writing. Much like exercise, the hardest part is to bring yourself to do it. To “start the engine” sort of speak. And in that proof which I have experienced myself in both exercise and writing, I find the possible path to an answer may lie within the philosophies that encourage actively “being” rather than simply passive acceptance. The concept of defiant existence appeals to me personally so that is a bias trap I’ll have to pay attention to.

Let’s say you’ve written the most compelling story. A masterpiece. There are 2 ways this masterpiece can now exist. One, it could be completely ignored by everyone else – perhaps its not as good as you thought, perhaps it is but nobody sees it, or perhaps nobody cares because it was not “endorsed” by the right people. In any case, your masterpiece will be lost in oblivion among millions of other works that were not able to capture an audience. 

The other, your work will be acknowledged. It will be “found”. Putting aside any financial benefits, the burning question in my mind keeps being – who was all this effort for? Looking at the rapidly degrading world, in the midst of what could possibly be the 3rd world war as described by a former philosopher as a “guerilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation”. Is your work intended for the few remaining intellectuals – who are already a silenced minority? Is it to silence your own demons? Do you believe it has the longevity that great works once had?

What is the point of writing it in the first place then?

And so, we go back to finding meaning, or hope via meaning. Following the thread, the writing itself IS the rebellion, the defiance which Camus speaks of.

It is not a new concept, but an interesting one nonetheless. Comparison to art therapy immediately comes to mind, however, while in art therapy the mind is kept distracted to avoid over-thinking, perhaps absurdism refers to activity as proactively living in the moment and finding satisfaction in that. Similar to meditation from the Buddhist angle, it is not an easy feat despite sounding very simple. The hardest part of meditation is to avoid distraction and keep focus, much like actively existing in the moment requires us to avoid distractions of not living in the moment, I suppose worrying about the past or the future would be the most critical examples.

What if we are the variation of things that didn't happen in another dimension or existence, so those with most luck here are the luck less in another universe?

Will future generations know who was Newton, or even Albert Einstein? Will they care? And who might it be? The brain washed children of organized religion or perhaps the violent groups sitting in every current society waiting like a ticking time bomb to tale violent control?

Who will remain to read, let alone appreciate anything you write, if not those greats who came before?

We cannot deny we are very simple creatures, controlled fully and wholly by our biology and chemistry. And so perhaps, the answer to bypass meaning is to simply satisfy the elements that cause us to think about it in the first place. Yes, it does not “solve” the problem but it alleviates the negative impact and I’ll take that type of ignorance any day.