A Pointless Universe ?

[Robert Arvay]

Quoted from Scientific American
online article
July 27, 2021

Steven Weinberg, who died last week at the age of 88, was not only a Nobel laureate physicist but also one of the most eloquent science writers of the last half century. His most famous (or perhaps infamous) statement can be found on the second-to-last page of his first popular book, The First Three Minutes, published in 1977. Having told the story of how our universe came into being with the big bang some 13.8 billion years ago, and how it may end untold billions of years in the future, he concludes that whatever the universe is about, it sure as heck isn’t about us. “The more the universe seems comprehensible,” he wrote, “the more it also seems pointless.”

-
-

[ParadoxZone]

Hi Robert,

Bernardo's latest public YouTube interview (check his Twitter timeline) touches on meaning. He references Viktor Frankl and the therapy he was giving inside concentration camps, which, in a nutshell, consists of helping people to find meaning, seemingly any meaning, to get them through the suffering.

I read Frankl's book, "Man's Search For Meaning", many years ago, and had the exact same reaction described succinctly by Bernardo. My reaction was that it was a good book, but that it was just another trick. A little bit more sophisticated than the more obvious trickery of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT), but a trick nonetheless.

It may have been hearing Bernardo speak, a long time ago, about how CBT might get you back to work, but depth psychology gets you back to yourself (paraphrasing) that so attracted me then.

Is this the point of your post, that search for meaning? It's hard for me to tell.

[Robert Arvay]

Paradox Zone wrote
"Is this the point of your post, that search for meaning? It's hard for me to tell.

I made no point, but simply quoted an online article.

I will say, however, that I find absurd the idea that there is no real meaning to anything,
and even more absurd the idea that we could ever concoct one of any value.

Life is astonishingly brief. It is gone in a cosmic instant. If we did have to concoct some
kind of meaning or other, what would be the point?
That is of course a circular question, as absurd as its premiss.

Physicalist science has nothing to say about truth, but only about measurements.
It makes no distinction between medicine and poison.
When scientists assert that the physical is all that there is, it is as if a musician
declared that there are only vibrations in the air.

Of course I could be wrong.
-

[Starbuck]

Hi Robert,

Bernardo's latest public YouTube interview (check his Twitter timeline) touches on meaning. He references Viktor Frankl and the therapy he was giving inside concentration camps, which, in a nutshell, consists of helping people to find meaning, seemingly any meaning, to get them through the suffering.

I read Frankl's book, "Man's Search For Meaning", many years ago, and had the exact same reaction described succinctly by Bernardo. My reaction was that it was a good book, but that it was just another trick. A little bit more sophisticated than the more obvious trickery of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT), but a trick nonetheless.

It may have been hearing Bernardo speak, a long time ago, about how CBT might get you back to work, but depth psychology gets you back to yourself (paraphrasing) that so attracted me then.

Bernardo, has made this point a lot recently and I keep coming back to it. If you look at the Verveake discussion, its actually Bernardos main argument and the core of their disagreement. All this mapping of meaning and stimulating/reconnecting archetypal pathways in the ancient brain is great - but what's the elephant in the room? it's the taboo against knowing a transcendent and TRUE ontology that we seem to be hardwired to drive for (or alternatively sniff the bullshit of mirrors and corridors reflected back at us by our own minds). We don't want 'my' meaning, we want MEANING.

[AshvinP]

Hi Robert,

Bernardo's latest public YouTube interview (check his Twitter timeline) touches on meaning. He references Viktor Frankl and the therapy he was giving inside concentration camps, which, in a nutshell, consists of helping people to find meaning, seemingly any meaning, to get them through the suffering.

I read Frankl's book, "Man's Search For Meaning", many years ago, and had the exact same reaction described succinctly by Bernardo. My reaction was that it was a good book, but that it was just another trick. A little bit more sophisticated than the more obvious trickery of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT), but a trick nonetheless.

It may have been hearing Bernardo speak, a long time ago, about how CBT might get you back to work, but depth psychology gets you back to yourself (paraphrasing) that so attracted me then.

Is this the point of your post, that search for meaning? It's hard for me to tell.

I have not watched BK's interview yet, but I must say that is a very odd and, IMO, completely wrong assessment of Frankl's logotherapy. I am assuming "trick" means it gets results by means of some inauthentic way (if that is incorrect, then I apologize for the mischaracterization and would like to know more precisely what you mean). I harp on the modern age a lot here, but this again is a great example of the inversion which has taken place - a therapeutic system which helped people survive Nazi concentration camps is considered some sort of "trick". That inversion stems from the demotion of Thinking and meaning to secondary roles in the modern age, and eventually to illusory roles. When we realize that Thinking (including imagination) is truly unifying activity and experience of truly shared meaning is its good fruit, then we see why Frankl's approach was so powerful. Then we do not have to adopt an abstract theory of his approach which cannot at all account for its striking results, but rather we can look at it and say, "yeah, those results make perfect sense!"

[ParadoxZone]

Hi Starbuck, Robert

Starbuck : Yes, I agree with you. I watched that talk too, and wasn't sure what to make of it. That's what I want, meaning rather than my meaning.

Have you come across Humancondition.com? They seem to be advertising quite heavily. I relented and gave it half an hour recently. The only newish thing I came across is that we're more like the bonobo than the chimp. And from there, a whole new outlook, which says we can stop with the generally hurting each other stuff and still feel good about ourselves. Which is all helpful, I suppose. I'm probably being grossly unfair to someone with that characterisation.

Robert : Thanks for the reply. I want to stay focused on meaning. I agree with many of your assertions. All I'd say as an aside is that physicalist scientists know that medicine and poison are the same, medicine being the judicious application of poison for a particular purpose. And some of those scientists/doctors might not be physicalists at all, but do want to keep their jobs.

My question to you is as follows : If the idea that there is no real meaning is absurd, and the idea that we can concoct one is more absurd, then what is the meaning? (Partial disclosure; I have seen previous posts of yours, so have some idea of what your response might be.)

I could be wrong about everything, all the time, so let's take that as read.

[ParadoxZone]

Ashvin,

Hold your horses there. Nobody is accusing Frankl of being inauthentic. Not me, and I'd doubt Bernardo is. Bernardo's point is (you'll see this when you get round to it) is that people come out of therapy sessions and later feel tricked, in that finding their own meaning wasn't their reason for attending therapy. Which was my reaction after reading the book.

What is your impression of CBT? Is that a trick, or at least training, rather than an attempt to allow the client to get back to herself? Even if yes, that doesn't imply there's no value there, authenticity notwithstanding.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

Hold your horses there. Nobody is accusing Frankl of being inauthentic. Not me, and I'd doubt Bernardo is. Bernardo's point is (you'll see this when you get round to it) is that people come out of therapy sessions and later feel tricked, in that finding their own meaning wasn't their reason for attending therapy. Which was my reaction after reading the book.

What is your impression of CBT? Is that a trick, or at least training, rather than an attempt to allow the client to get back to herself? Even if yes, that doesn't imply there's no value there, authenticity notwithstanding.

PZ,

Could you let me know the timestamp when the relevant comments begin, because I would like to listen to those to get a better sense of what he meant? I don't really distinguish between finding one's "own meaning" in an experience as opposed to shared meaning of experience in general - I don't see how they could be different if it is anything other than pure fantasy. I can say for sure, though, that I deeply resonate with Frankl's book, Man's Search for Meaning, and his underlying philosophy in that book, which seems to be reflected in the psychological approach of "logotherapy". There is a fundamental connection there with the Logos of Western philosophy-spirituality, as I am sure you are aware, which I value the most highly.

I think we may be in agreement that only therapy which prompts towards deep Self-knowledge is of lasting transformational value, but it is my sense that logotherapy does actually emphasize that the most in the search for one's meaning in their experiences. For CBT, I suppose it depends on the specific approach and the extent to which it really digs deep rather than remains at a superficial level of analysis. I wouldn't really call of any of those approaches "tricks", but just ones which will work worse or better depending on the extent they emphasize a deep search for Self-knowledge.

[Robert Arvay]

Paradox Zone wrote:
My question to you is as follows : If the idea that there is no real meaning is absurd, and the idea that we can concoct one is more absurd, then what is the meaning? (Partial disclosure; I have seen previous posts of yours, so have some idea of what your response might be.)

The question of, "what is the meaning [of the universe, of reality, of existence]?"
is on a level of difficulty comparable to the question of, what is consciousness?
I cannot answer that, but only address it.

Since you have apparently found some level of predictability in my expected response,
I am going to be somewhat defensive, since I think too highly of myself to think that
I am that shallow LOL.

I would propose that the assertion, "life has meaning and purpose" is too axiomatic for
reduction to a simple, "this is the meaning."

I also draw a distinction between "the search for meaning," and the concocting of one,
by which I mean, "MY meaning in life is such and so, because I say so."

Paradoxically, I like the idea of searching for what is meaningful to ME (you, etc), rather than
some sterile, academic definition of meaning.

As I said, this is a difficult topic to formulate.
Therefore, I fall back on the predictable Koan:
Birds fly, fish swim, humans worship God.

That is the best I can do, for now, to respond to your question.
-

[ParadoxZone]

Ashvin,

You'll find it starting at about 20 mins and it's very brief.