Does Meaning Really Matter?

At one point in my life, I desperately searched for meaning in my life and in all life. I felt that everything had a purpose or some destiny. Now I do not so much look for meaning as I do connection because through connection my life has purpose. I realize that I am not an island; my actions influence other people like their actions influence me. I also believe in Jung’s collective unconscious (Myers, 2010); that on some level, we all tap into, maintain, and add  new information to this collective which influences the individual at all junctures. This is like the Hermetic philosophy that the one is the all and the all is the one (The Three Initiates, 1908); each individual is part of the whole and influences the whole while the whole is part of each individual and influences the individual. The more I realize the connection I have with the life cycle the more meaning my life has. With meaning comes peace and tranquility in knowing that all is appropriate and cycles. Opportunities are not missed but will come up again when the individual is ready to receive the opportunity. One is hungry and sleepy at certain times. One has schedules that he or she adheres to. In essence, all of life is a cycle (1908) and the more I see my position in the various cycles the more connected I feel and the more meaning I perceive because life is not chaotic but masterfully orchestrated.

Ultimately, I feel that when people search for meaning they are really searching for connection. This is not to say the meaning is not important. This search is so important that I believe it drives most people’s daily interactions and sways or polarizes one to either a spiritual or scientific pursuit; as I have suggested before, I believe the science and spirituality are two sides of the same coin or opposite ends of the same spectrum. I believe that everything exists in a circular, cyclical format and this spectrum is no different. Therefore, as one approaches spirituality they are moving away from science; however there is an apex where one becomes so spiritual that they reach a critical point and then start to enjoy more scientific pursuits thus moving away from spirituality. In essence, because they are both part of the same cyclical spectrum there is never a complete absence of one from the other; they intermingle and dance and sometimes one is more dominant than the other. This example embodies the law of polarity as described in the Kyballion (The Three Initiates, 1908).

People all have different definitions for meaning. Some believe that meaning defines and pigeonholes a topic. Some believe it means they have a purpose or a driving passion. Some define it as value or the belief that everything must have an associated value. Whereas I look at meaning as pointless. To say that something has meaning indicates that one has an understanding of something that he or she pursues; the fact of the matter is, however, that these perspectives these are beyond our current comprehension and as such meaning does not fit within these confines. It assumes one has arrived at a destination and no more searching is needed on the subject. It abdicates further growth and development and speeds one up toward the inevitability of death by removing one from the cycle of life. Therefore, to search for meaning is pointless because it does not provide the impetus for continued development and searching.

Finding a meaning is an endpoint and derails one from the journey of searching. For example, suppose there was a male researcher whose entire life purpose was to find a cure to cancer. He spent many long hours holed up in a research lab, taking case studies of cancer victims and survivors, and reading all the new advances in the field. He developed many methods of making life more comfortable, extending people’s life, or enhancing the quality of life; however, no cure was ever found. On this individual’s deathbed, he felt remorseful and felt like a failure. The people, however, did not see it this way. This individual was celebrated for his accomplishments and additions to the field. Later, someone else took up his work, continued it, and was able to find an elusive cure; she could not have done this without the previous individual’s contributions. When she was asked what part of the previous researcher’s work was the most helpful to her, she stated it was the man’s failures because those helped keep her focused on the right path and away from exploring avenues that would prove fruitless. To the individual who defined his life on the meaning of curing cancer thought he was a failure. To the many people whose life he made more comfortable and to the future people who received a cure based on this man’s research, the man’s life was a success; the work created connections even if the man’s original meaning or purpose was not reached in his lifetime. If one just focuses on meaning rather than on the journey of growth and development, then that individual’s life will culminate in unhappiness.

For these reasons, I do not believe that meaning serves as a bridge between scientific and spiritual pursuits. While I appreciate Dr. Sharpe’s work on attempting to bridge science and spirituality, I do not think that his emphasis on finding meaning is the answer. Meaning is too fixed and un-malleable; it cannot adapt to changes in direction because it has already decided the direction. I do not think that something that only focuses on the finite and defined potentials can ever serve in a capacity as to define a journey when the destination is not fixed but changes fluidly.  

On a side note, finding meaning to give something a value or pigeonhole it into a specific framework is similar to the notion of labeling. Psychology has recently discovered that labels can inflict far more psychological damage than the psychological problem that one is diagnosed with (Comer, 2005). This is because the diagnosis, or label, carries a specific set of expected behaviors and inherent biases. In other words, people expect the patient to act a specific way (2005) and they will therefore interpret any and all actions within a schema of that label as justifications of the diagnosis whether the individual’s actions fit or not. In addition, the patient who received the diagnosis will adjust their behavior (2005) to fit the expected behaviors. Several studies have confirmed that people will adopt a disease simply due to the power of suggestion. This is also testament to the power of the placebo (Stangor, 2011) Researchers studying a new drug and engaging in drug trials to test the efficacy of the drug always create a control group that is given a placebo because the placebo effect (2011), or power of suggestion is well known. If the experimental group, the one receiving the drug or treatment, does not fare much better than the control group, then the efficacy of the drug is not much better than how well one recovers due to the power of suggestion. In essence, I am suggesting that by giving these things meaning, that it gives the thing a life of its own; however, the meaning is finite and carries a set of behavioral expectations, therefore it is not adaptable to new circumstances.

References

Comer, R. J. (2005). Fundamentals of abnormal psychology (4th ed.). New York: Worth

Myers, D. (2010). Exploring psychology in modules (8th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.

Stangor, C. (2011). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

The Three Initiates. (1908). The Kybalion: A study of of the Hermetic philosophy of Ancient Egypt and Greece  (Kindle ed.). Retrieved from www.amazon.com

 

 

 

Spectrums are Circluar Cycles

For this paper, I was supposed to determine whether I believed that science and spirituality are destined to always remain separate, or if there will ever be a point of convergence.

Many want to believe that the pursuits of science and spirituality are divergent; heading in opposite directions. However, divergence indicates that at one point the paths were together but they branched apart; this also implies that the two are still linked together by some point of commonality. This monoism point of view does not represent the views that humanity has about the separate distinctness of these two fields of thought; a rather dualism perspective. An example more fitting toward this dichotomous view is that of parallel paths on each side of a canyon: the individuals on each path can see one another, but there is no point of commonality nor is there any way to transverse the expanse of the canyon divide. However, this also brings up a paradox, are these two ideas parallel and seeming to discuss the same things in a different way? The members on each side do not see it that way and believe that one is right while the other is wrong (Sharpe & Bryant, 2005); the religionists believe that creation is the only possible answer while the scientists believe that evolution is the only possible answer. Some attempt to build bridges to connect these two ideas (Sharpe & Bryant, 2005). However, these individuals are under the illusion that both are separate and distinct entities and that a bridge is merely a connection but does not change the intrinsic, individualistic nature of either.

A better approach to bridging the divide is to not merely build bridges but to create a point of path convergence where the two become one by weaving together the seemingly disparate pieces; this is what philosopher Phillip Hefner (Sharpe & Bryant, 2005) discussed. A monism point of view suggests that there is one underlying unification or emergence point; that the subjects are essentially the same at their core.

I believe it is human nature to want to dissect and classify things in to distinct, definite categories; people do not seem to like fading edges where the distinction between where one ends and the other begins is not readily apparent. The whole argument between creationists and evolutionists or religionists and scientists is this essence at its apex; separate, distinct, definite, and not intertwined. I do not believe this is a healthy state of existence; if one’s sole purpose in life is to distinguish the self then that individual is setting the stage for a lonely existence. In addition, I believe instance on separate and distinct fails to look at the threads that unite or the inherent commonalities. I do not believe in opposites because this indicates distinctness; rather I believe in polarity. I believe that the things people often consider opposites such as (The Three Initiates, 1908) night and day, hot and cold, good and bad, white and black, etc. are in reality ends of a spectrum  because there is no such thing as the complete presence or lack (1908) of any of those states of existence.

For example, is there a point at which something is defined as hot or cold? No, the perspective is relative. To a snowflake, 35 degrees is hot because it melts the snowflake; however, to a flower, 35 degrees is cold because the flower has either died or is hibernating (annual or perennial) during the time when the temperature is 35 degrees. It is all a matter of perspective. Take good and bad as another example. To the individual who is just learning a new skill, say knitting, a good piece of work is what one finally completes although to the advanced knitting practitioner, a newbie’s knitting leaves something to be desired; in other words, it is bad. All opposites are relative and depend entirely on the point of view of the thing making the judgment.

This relative nature and the absence of finite and distinct points of one or the other, indicates that opposites merely fade into one another; often there is a point of ambiguity or ambivalence (The Three Initiates, 1908) where one is not sure where one ends and the other begins. For this reason, I suggest that opposites are merely points on the same spectrum. This spectrum, however, is not linear, and is, in fact, circular; one moves from one to the other and back again. This is similar to how a pendulum swings (1908) from one side to the other and back again. This perspective gives a good example of how a spectrum might appear linear; as one moves closer to one point they move away from the other, but there is always a point of return to the opposite thing and away from the original point of approach. Think of the earth as it rotates for an image of a circular point of existence. As the earth rotates, it moves from daytime to nighttime and then starts over in a never-ending cycle.

I believe that science and religion, while often seen as opposites, are merely a spectrum; in other words, they are polarized and one in the same. In suggesting this, I am saying that it is possible for these two to combine in a monism point of view; for their paths to converge once again. I believe that as one becomes more spiritual that there is a point where the mind turns to scientific understanding; likewise, as one moves toward the scientific part, there will come a critical point where one’s mind turns to spiritual matters. I am not sure if the current state of affairs will ever allow people to come to this understanding that the disparate parts are essentially one in the same. If people like Hefner continue to espouse upon the similarities and people wake up and realize that they cannot necessarily ignore the very real reality of scientific discovery or spiritual experience, then there will come a point where there is a loving “conflagration” (Sharpe & Bryant, 2005, p. 69) or point of convergence. As long as people continue to believe that everything is separate, distinct, and unique then there will always be dualism.

Resources

BELIEVE (1980). Monism. Retrieved from http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txn/monism.htm.

Sharpe, K. J., & Bryant, R. I. (2005). Has science displaced the soul? Debating love and happiness. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

The Three Initiates (1908). The Kybalion: A study of the Hermetic Philosophy of Ancient Egypt and Greece [Kindle edition]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.