Search the Community

No doubt . As far as breakfast is concerned . I don't see how that impacts my schemata though . Now , tell me how the members of the city council came to be there and who is their chairperson / Mayor ? They cant just run and around and do whatever they want and pass any type of laws they feel like , if they get out of control a 'higher authority' steps in. We see it often here , its a regulatory state body that overseas local councils . You cant rip a part of a system out and hold it up as an holistic example . In the houses of Parliament we could say the same thing ... BUT they must follow process and they are under the control of the speaker , when proposals are put forward . spoken for or against and then out to a vote . Nearly all properly convened meetings have a 'chair ' ; " Order .... ORDER ! < bang ! bang ! > " Yes, governance and systems in the self can run autonomously , to an extent , its when they become out of balance and disorderly that the Speaker or the controller or what ever name you want to put in that aspect of the psyche (if you have found it yet ) should be able to take control . This is a very basic aspect of Magick and to an extent psychology .....a lack of 'automatic function under guidelines ' or an imbalance in self autonomous energies " can result in 'possession' or ' DID ' . https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9792-dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder In both cases . communication or contact with the 'Super-ego'' can be a remedy . The Super-ego is postulated as a major hidden component of the self . Several of these 'aspects' come together in a subtle and interior ( mostly unconscious for the vast majority ) to form a handy conscious output model of 'self ' . I can provide a paper with clinical trials that shows the validity of both models together ... if you want to read it .

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Three Ways to Understand ‘Meaning’ in Life: A Fortune Cookie Philosophy LIAM JAMES AUG 17 READ IN APP “What’s the meaning of life?” It’s one of the most profound philosophical questions, profound to the point of skin-crawling triteness. Were it directed towards you in a street or bar or kitchen you’d likely meet it with a roll of the eyes and a shake of the head as you suppress your hidden rage: “Get this prick away from me or I’ll be forced to throw a flailing overhand right in the vicinity of his vocal cords.” Yet here I am writing about it — hopefully from a slant that makes it slightly less unbearable — and here you are reading it. And while I don’t have any answers, I do have a useful way of thinking about it meaning itself that’s worth considering next time you’re hungover or on a comedown or having an existential crisis. In this article I’m going to look at three different ways we can define ‘meaning’ to make thinking about the question easier. I’m also going to share with you my own work-in-progress-and-open-to-revision philosophy on what type of meaning is the most profound to me, and probably to you too. I’m not claiming any of these ideas as my own; as I’ve said, this is as hackneyed a topic as you’re likely to find in philosophical discourse, so no hot takes here. I’m not claiming any of them to be ‘right’ or ‘true’ either — just ideas I’m thinking through, writing down, and sharing. Thanks for reading The Creative Awakening Playbook! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Pledge your support We all live our meaning Whether we know it or not, we all have a philosophy of the meaning of life because, to some degree at least, we’re living it. It may be conscious, something we’ve spent time formulating, questioning, and testing, though it’s more likely that it’s unconscious, but implicit in our actions. ‘Meaning’ is a broad term, but we can break it down into three distinct types. Three types of meaning The three types of meaning I want to look at are: Cognitive/intellectual meaning Teleological meaning Intrinsic meaning This isn’t an exhaustive list, and I know this is a topic that will have been covered countless times by people infinitely smarter than me. But I’m going to explore what I think each one… means. Cognitive/intellectual meaning The first type of meaning I want to consider is cognitive, or intellectual, meaning. This is the type of meaning we associate with the mind, the cerebral meaning we derive from understanding things and how they work, and the conceptual frameworks and worldviews we build as a result. If you want a cognitive understanding of why we’re here, the introduction to Yuval Noah Harari’s Sapiens may suffice: ‘About 13.5 billion years ago, matter, energy, time and space came into being in what is known as the Big Bang. The story of these fundamental features of our universe is called physics. About 300,000 years after their appearance, matter and energy started to coalesce into complex structures, called atoms, which then combined into molecules. The story of atoms, molecules and their interactions is called chemistry. About 3.8 billion years ago, on a planet called Earth, certain molecules combined to form particularly large and intricate structures called organisms. The story of organisms is called biology. About 70,000 years ago, organisms belonging to the species Homo sapiens started to form even more elaborate structures called cultures. The subsequent development of these human cultures is called history.’ If you read something like that and your response isn’t to think “what the fuck?” then you’re probably a bit odd. This four-step genealogy of our place in the cosmos spanning 13 billion years is mind-boggling in its brevity, and can help us build a conceptual map of why we’re here. Philosophising and intellectual contemplation — that is, investigating these conceptual frameworks more deeply — might lead us to more profound spiritual insights about ourselves and our existence. But still, this type of intellectualising probably isn’t what we’re imagining when we consider meaning in life. It’s only one part of the puzzle, and lacks the felt depth of the other two types. Teleological meaning Teleology relates to purpose. As a branch of philosophy, it explores the idea that a thing’s ultimate purpose or goal explains its existence, focusing on what it is for rather than only how it came to be. Objective teleology — more common in classical philosophy, but unpopular now — argues that purpose is baked into existence, and that all phenomena have a telos (purpose). For Aristotle, an acorn’s telos is to become a fully grown oak tree. Framed biologically, our telos may be to survive long enough to procreate and pass on our genetic code. I don’t think I believe in an objective purpose underpinning all our actions; instead, I think it’s something we’re either drawn towards or something we get to choose. This is a subjective teleology, which relates to existentialist thinking. Sartre thought that ‘existence precedes essence’, meaning we’re born without a fixed nature or purpose, creating our own meaning through our choices and actions. Camus viewed the universe as inherently meaningless, and that we should embrace this absurdity and find meaning in the struggle itself. This worldview (intellectual meaning) can give rise to more ‘purposes’. An artist might argue that it’s to create beautiful things and edify the world with their work. An athlete might claim it’s to push the boundaries in their sport and discover what humans are capable of. A Buddhist might say it’s the cessation of suffering for all humanity through Buddhist practices. Purpose is something you’re pulled to do, and I think this is closer to the type of answer we imagine when we consider the question at hand. Meaning alone is tricky to answer. Maybe purpose is the meaning. But maybe not. Intrinsic meaning This is where it gets interesting. For me, intrinsic meaning is the most profound, because it transcends both other types discussed. Switching the word ‘meaning’ to ‘significance’ may better illustrate the point here. Some things feel deeply significant despite making no sense intellectually or teleologically: Music is a great example. Do we derive intellectual meaning from music? Music may require intellectual understanding; chord progressions, time signatures, scales, and a litany of other technical components that music comprises can all be ridiculously complex, and understanding them intellectually may enrich your experience of making or listening to music. But none of these elements constitute the essence of the meaning we derive from music, no matter how much the nerds try to convince you. Does music have a purpose? It might do. Purposes can range from protest to enjoyment, propaganda to praise. But again, do any of these really capture what music is? Alan Watts claimed: ‘Good music never refers to anything other than the music. If you ask Bach, "What is your meaning?" he would say "Listen! That is the meaning."’ It recalls James Joyce, who considered art that taught a lesson ‘improper’. Joseph Campbell made a similar point: ‘When the intellect tries to explicate an image, one can never exhaust its meaning, one can never exhaust its possibility. Images don’t essentially mean anything: they are, just as you are. They talk to some kernel in you that is. So ask an artist, “What does your picture mean?” Well, if he despises you enough, he’ll tell you. The point is that if you need him to tell you what it means, then you haven’t even seen it. What’s the meaning of a sunset? What’s the meaning of a flower? What’s the meaning of a cow?’ Nothing illustrates this better than music, because nothing makes you feel like music does. It’s that fucking good that it justifies itself and doesn’t need any other justification — it just feels deeply significant. This is a subjective point I’m sure, and I’m wary of making universal claims or stating a universal significance. Still things like love, beauty, and art can all elicit this feeling of deep subjective significance; while they may be able to be ‘explained’ evolutionarily or psychologically, the experiences themselves and the intuitive sense of meaning they engender can’t be reduced to intellect or teleological interpretations. This, to me, is the deepest type of meaning we experience as humans. It’s what I think Joseph Campbell’s referring to when he talks about bliss — that significance that you feel deep in your bones that defies all logic and has no purpose outside itself. To me, Campbell’s advice to ‘follow your bliss’ is an instruction to make intrinsic meaning your purpose: surely one of the most beautiful models for living. Summary As I’ve mentioned, I’m writing these articles to work out what I think. My intuition is that what truly means most is meaningless, purposeless, and fundamentally inexpressible, because it’s deeply significant in itself. Intellectual meaning gives us worldviews, philosophies, or reflective systems that help us make sense of life beyond facts, but life itself can’t be reduced to any conceptual framework. Teleological meaning might give us purpose, or a ‘why’, in what I see as an objectively meaningless world — a necessary function, but still lacking something. Whereas the first two types of meaning attempt to explain or justify experience, intrinsic meaning recognises inherent significance. Music, art, and beauty capture this, because they’re all portals into a deep significance that’s ultimately meaningless and purposeless — something subjectively ineffable. And perhaps that’s the paradox we’re faced with: the inherent meaninglessness of existence — that is, its lack of explanation or justification — is what makes it deeply significant in itself. Thanks for reading The Creative Awakening Playbook! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

It's continuity is it's unity and lack of dualities. If the "self" as a separate construct is a delusion, then who is choosing? Even in the relative there is no free will. If we choose to believe science there was a big bang. The conditions for all interactions were laid out the moment that singularity collapsed. It has been proven that we begin to move long before we decide on an action... an order of almost a 3rd of a second if I remember correctly. There has already been plenty of cold water thrown on free will. In my experience? Everything... Unity. Causes and conditions that cover this moment. A billion tiny moving parts interacting at levels way below my ability to even see or understand or apprehend them. Pick whichever ones you like, not that it matters.

What Begins by Danusha Laméris What begins in beauty, ends in beauty. What begins in sorrow, ends in sorrow. The seed once planted, soon in full bloom. If grief, then grief. If anger, anger. They say the first week of any love affair reveals its end. Give me the child at seven, and so forth. And didn't the world begin with a bang? Hard to argue for another truth. But I have seen a heart worn thin, take to small repairs, have watched a blue jay, born wild, eat out of a woman's hand. And didn't we begin as tadpoles, curled and gilled? I want to think the starting place is only one location on a curve that we can follow to another end. And then, begin again.

Ah, I found another one. I had translated A9 (received 2) before the others, and I guess I had forgotten to check it for 不 Bu's with the coded line. It has 2, and one of them is a 不 Bu without the line. But the second, does have a line over the Bu. So here is what I had before: 是以聖人居亡，爲之事，行不言之教。 Because of this the masterful person takes up residence in resolving, serving this concern, this undertaking, modeling not speaking this teaching. "modeling not" 行 Xing is about engaging, acting, conducting, moving, proceeding, implementing. My "modeling" was perhaps a slight stretch of the meaning. Now, it becomes clear that the 行元 Xing Yuan is directly extending the previous line. And we even have what could be a mark here to show that this line ends with Yuan. However this is where the binding straps would go. And it is hard to tell if it is an actual inked line, or just a dark spot from the binding cord. But this is not the first place where it seems like there is an intentional line drawn. Perhaps this could have been a hidden way of showing - beneath the cord - where a line ended, to help reveal the code. I don't know. In any case, the previous lines transforms to: 是以聖人居亡，爲之事行不。 Because of this the masterful person takes up residence in resolving, serving the undertaking of engaging/implementing the Original. As for the three characters at the end, they become the contextual opener that frames the meaning of the next lines, which I find very helpful. 言之教 Yan 言 is about talk, speech, language - and also a theory, teaching, doctrine. Zhi 之 is "this, that, these" or a possessive, like our apostrophe. Jiao 教 is a teaching, instruction, a school of thought or sect, or to convey, transfer, hand on. So already my next section was a little unusual: 萬勿作而弗始也，爲而弗志也，成而弗居。 The 10,000 do not stand up and then not commence or, do and then not attend to or, accomplish and then not rest. 夫唯弗居也，是以弗去也。 So indeed in all cases of not resting it, this is the means for not storing it up. Because I take 萬勿 literally as "the wan do not", as it is drawn, but all others render it as shorthand for 萬物 "wan wu" - the [wan/10,000/myriad] [things/phenomena]. And indeed I also render this shorthand in all other cases. But here, it seemed to fit, with the "do not" providing the initial negative that is inferred for the next two lines of this phrase. And because it seemed to fit the meaning. So putting it all together, we could go with: 言之教 Talking about this teaching. But 言之教 The theory of this teaching is: Works much better, as then it connects the meaning behind the three sections: 1 - The observation that as we descend from heaven there is a descending of tiers that create relationships of cause and effect. We all know excellence / goodness because we come from heaven, and that purity is naturally good, there for anything less than that is easily recognized. 2 - Because these things tend to balance each other in terms of relativity in their relationships, there is an ability to become stuck within their balancing. For example, mastery / peerlessness / sagacity, creates a reputation for itself. But that reputation can manifest simply by rising above its peers. It takes truly resolving and getting back to the source of the excellence - heaven / yang / oneness. And so the Sage or Masterful Person takes up residence in resolving, serving the undertaking - that is necessary for - engaging the Original. 3 - The theory behind this is simply that things follow a cyclical flow. The 10,000 (things) do not come into being but not initiate, or carry something out but then not follow their goal, or accomplish their goal and then not rest. We need to rest / settle down / stock up on, in order to store it up. This comes of resolving. Thus the undertaking of resolving allows us to store up all that we need to gather back our yin capacity and rekindle the yang clarity of the Original. This process is what allows us to always return to excellence. And this is something we all know well - the benefits of a good night's sleep cannot be understated. This undertaking of resolving to restore the original is the same idea, it just goes all the way back to the root. So this can help to showcase how I worked out the meaning I did from this text. And this also shows how when we work like this, a much greater cohesion of meaning is uncovered. It was always there, but was deliberately hidden. The use of Tian Xia as Fallen of Heaven rather than say "all under heaven" aka "all the realm" in the way I do here also shows that this idea that we and all the realm is something that has fallen / descended from heaven is very literal. It is no different from our saying that all the universe came from the big bang. Again and again, I find that the text really tries to point out that this is not just a realm under heaven, but that this is a process that when understood, can be used to return to heaven. Thus the more we resolve and bring things to an end - especially energetically, especially when we stop using our energy for thoughts - the more we return to the original. Thus this is associated with mastery / peerlessness / sagacity.