i think the issue here is a conflict of language versus the senses. A division between description with the express purpose of creating universal understanding and subjective experience. A lot of "pointless" thought conflicts stem from trying too hard to attach formal labels onto everything.
In my experience words must be acknowledged from a safe distance lest they swallow you whole. Take "unique". The desire to feel like a significant individual is universal. It is not a unique pursuit to create the appearance of uniqueness. Which is why so many "quirky" people end up so similar. They are grouped by the very common spirit of the pursuit of uniqueness.
In the same vein you have "meaning". There are universal truths that are meaningful which resonate with all, but have zero originality/individuality as a prerequisite to being understood universally. Then there are personally meaningful creations that run the high risk of not being understood by many or any because the subjective experience is integral to the transference of meaning. When people make it their goal to make something "meaningful" they too often try to fuse both under one umbrella. Expecting their subjective interpretation to be universally understood or mistakenly believing they are the creator and owner of a common universal truth.
i think the issue here is a conflict of language versus the senses. A division between description with the express purpose of creating universal understanding and subjective experience. A lot of "pointless" thought conflicts stem from trying too hard to attach formal labels onto everything.
In my experience words must be acknowledged from a safe distance lest they swallow you whole. Take "unique". The desire to feel like a significant individual is universal. It is not a unique pursuit to create the appearance of uniqueness. Which is why so many "quirky" people end up so similar. They are grouped by the very common spirit of the pursuit of uniqueness.
In the same vein you have "meaning". There are universal truths that are meaningful which resonate with all, but have zero originality/individuality as a prerequisite to being understood universally. Then there are personally meaningful creations that run the high risk of not being understood by many or any because the subjective experience is integral to the transference of meaning. When people make it their goal to make something "meaningful" they too often try to fuse both under one umbrella. Expecting their subjective interpretation to be universally understood or mistakenly believing they are the creator and owner of a common universal truth.
i think the issue here is a conflict of language versus the senses. A division between description with the express purpose of creating universal understanding and subjective experience. A lot of "pointless" thought conflicts stem from trying too hard to attach formal labels onto everything.
In my experience words must be acknowledged from a safe distance lest they swallow you whole. Take "unique". The desire to feel like a significant individual is universal. It is not a unique pursuit to create the appearance of uniqueness. Which is why so many "quirky" people end up so similar. They are grouped by the very common spirit of the pursuit of uniqueness.
In the same vein you have "meaning". There are universal truths that are meaningful which resonate with all, but have zero originality/individuality as a prerequisite to being understood universally. Then there are personally meaningful creations that run the high risk of not being understood by many or any because the subjective experience is integral to the transference of meaning. When people make it their goal to make something "meaningful" they too often try to fuse both under one umbrella. Expecting their subjective interpretation to be universally understood or mistakenly believing they are the creator and owner of a common universal truth.