The human mind, as it is, has a tremendous capacity to distort [from L. 'to twist apart']. Turning the enquiry into a personal matter may just be such a distortion - it 'twists apart' wholeness. The "personal" is accidental and fleeting, with very little meaning - "there is no self to be understood". What is it then to enquire?
On Dialogue - On Creativity - Unfolding Meaning - Thought as a System - by David Bohm, The Ghost in the Machine by Arthur Koestler, On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins (do read between the lines...) [more to come]
This question may reveal a subtle issue with regards to 'meaning':
To begin with we would probably agree that meaning is generally regarded as something fundamental to our lives, e.g. that the difficulties we encounter from day to day are often due to our getting the meaning of a comment, situation, event, etc. ?wrong?, or to attaching a ?wrong? meaning to things. The word ?wrong? is problematic, of course, as it connotes an act of judgment. Instead, we may approach meaning in terms of coherence or incoherence. The root of the word ´cohere´ comes from the Latin "co-" `together´, and "haerere" ´to stick´ - and in this sense we could say that a coherent meaning is a meaning that holds things together well, harmoniously, in an orderly way. For example, the meaning of the story is what holds it together; the less the parts of the story complement each other the less meaningful we find the story as a whole. We may also consider that it is obviously more helpful to see the whole of a painting - as opposed to seeing just a small part of it - if we want to get closer to its meaning. Regarded this way, then, meaning has to do with sticking parts, or particulars, together, but also in a movement that may, or may not, lead to a harmonious whole.
Meaning within thought may be regarded as some glue that holds together a particular aspect of thought (fear, hope, etc.) We may also consider that the explicate order of the system of thought (see Bohm) itself is held together by a particular meaning. Basically, the implication circled around here is that any meaning that arises in thought is always and necessarily confined within the boundary of thought on the one hand, and is limited to holding thought, or an aspect of thought, together, on the other.
Now, if "living the teachings" pertains to something immeasurable or unlimited, then the relevance of any limited (measurable) meaning that may or may not arise is clearly questionable.View all answers to this question
No recent activity recorded.