Where does meaning come from?

Yes, gib, you are making a good analogy and meaning is self-referential for that matter but it is splayed, dispersed and yet integrated with every other meaning to make a conglomerate of meaning consisting of separate parts acting as a whole - meaning is like veins pumping blood in that it is heterogeneous with many different cells purposing for the whole organism.

Yes because this is meanings outer shell and it is the outer shell that the veins help to maintain, to give form and purpose - I am this shape because.

I hope you read this, what you have written that I have quoted again - very elegant and powerful words - I will let them be.

What if it is the case that meaning functions independently of us?

This is exactly the point I am trying to make and it works with emotions too - it is this external meaning that I am studying. What constitutes this consciousness? A god perhaps? Are you really a pantheist? Mind it seems is everywhere but obviously not just in human form. Whether this mind is aware of us we should first consider whether we are like red and white blood cells within the body of the universe - we know we are there but does the universe directly perceive us. Language and in turn communication in the body is achieved through chemical transmission and the immune system can mobilize. We can mobilize and the universe is so vast that it may not feel its own wounds directly. I could well be wrong here but I feel it necessary to acknowledge the awe inspiring size of existence.

I am looking for things that I can calculate - I have an idea that these things are heterogeneous - meaning is made up of many smaller meanings and is itself a part of a universal conglomerate meaning. Without contrast the larger meaning has no substance and yet its contrast is contained within itself. Therefore atomic meanings are in contrast with the greater whole and must remain that way or meaning is lost.

I hope that you do not mind me, quoting you in my signature.

The whole vs. the parts–yes, I understand this dilema very well–and it is very complicated (but doable).

First, let me point out how I see this in syllogisms. For example, this…

All X’s are Y’s.
This is an X.
Therefore, this is a Y.

The logic of this syllogism works because the meaning of the premises collectively leads to the meaning of the conclusion. Yet it can be rephrased as…

All X’s are Y’s, and this is an X.
Therefore, this is a Y.

…which can be further simplied to…

All X’s are Y’s, and this is an X, and therefore this is a Y.

Three thoughts translated to two thoughts translated to one thought.

But the shape changes when we learn new knowledge and insight, right?

What better way to promote one’s self than by a little publicity. Thanks encode for being my publicist! :smiley:

Well, if you’ve followed my pantheist logic so far, we can begin by saying that wherever a physical action occurs, there is subjective experience. What this means is that whenever we perform an action (even breathing), we have effects on the physical world surrounding us. These physical effects, therefore, must come along with a subjective experience. Not ours, but the universe’s. Thus, we can say that at the very least, the universe “feels” us, at least in our local vicinity. What constitutes a “feel” is, first and foremost, a subjective experience characterized by some quality (this is how I define it). But the quality of this “feel” isn’t necessarily conceivable to us humans. Nonetheless, one could say that the universe experiences a “disturbance” from us. ← This is the least we can say. We can go further and suppose that, based on this feel, the universe can identify its source–that the disturbance is experienced as coming from (or being) some third person entity outside itself (this would require making a distinction between “us” and “the rest of the universe” which isn’t necessarily innate). But in any case, I think we can say that the universe at least “feels” us. As for knowing about us, that’s a bit more complicated. This is why I distinguish between experiential awareness (feeling) and epistemic awareness (knowing). Everything, insofar as it “feels”, is experientially aware, but only those systems that experience knowledge can be said to be epistemically aware. In order to say that the universe is epistemically aware of us–that is, the universe knows about us, or at least knows about the disturbances it feels that come from us–it would have to be established that these disturbances, these “feels”, lead to knowledge. Knowledge is just a special kind of experience (a special kind of feel) defined by a particular kind of quality. The quality of the experience of knowledge is, at least, cognitive. It is the experience of thinking “I am experiencing X” or “X is the case” and to believe it. This doesn’t automatically come with any arbitrary experience. Whatever it is that we or the universe experiences, it must first be translated into knowledge before it can be said to be “known”. If the physical effects we have on our surroundings can be said not only to come along with some subjective experience (some feel), but that this subjective experiences carries the specific qualitative signature of knowledge, then we can say the universe knows about us, or at least the disturbance (and possibly its source) that we cause. If not, then it still might be possible to say that the universe knows about us but only by way of some indirect physical effect that our more immediate effects on our surroundings have on the wider world (i.e. further along the chain of cause-and-effect). If, at some point on this chain of cause-and-effect that we initiate, the signature of the physical action in question qualifies as that which corresponds to knowledge, and if that knowledge is specifically about the original “feel” that we directly caused (the disturbance), then we can say that the universe knows about us. But I don’t take that as a foregone conclusion.

Well, I’ve thought long and hard about this very question for years. Keeping in mind that I’m a pantheist who believes that everything experiences, and that experience is underlied by meaning, I can offer you the following insight: when it comes to experience, and therefore meaning, the entire dynamic of “identity” radically changes. To the nihilistic objectivist, a thing can be broken down into its parts (in the way that the whole meaning can be broken down into component meanings) in such a way that we must still say the parts constitute the whole. IOW, the parts and the whole constitute an identity. The atoms that constitute a rock, for example, are said to be identical to the rock itself. But when it comes to experience and meaning, there is an alternative: one can speak of what I call “equivalence” rather than identity. Equivalence is sort of a complicated concept, but let me give you a few examples: if a pixel on a screen is perceived as orange, this may be said to be equivalent (but not identical) to the red, green, and blue hues that the pixel is made of when seen under a microscope. If the average score on a classroom’s exam is 82%, this can be said to be equivalent, but not identical, to the whole collection of individual scores of each student’s personal mark. If two poems convey the same meaning, each poem can be said to be equivalent, but not identical, insofar as their meanings are concerned. I can say that these are not identical by virtue of the manner in which we experience them: when we see orange on the screen, we do not see red, green, or blue. Focus on the screen as hard as you might, you’re not going to find them. Therefore, as a subjectivist, I say that the red, green, and blue that the orange pixel is made of is not identical to the orange I perceive (it’s not actually there in the perception–and what is a perception if not that which is perceived), even though it may be identical to the pixel as an external physical object, but as a perception, I see no red, green, or blue when I look at the orange on my screen. But I can still say the red, green, and blue are equivalent to the orange I perceive. Or in another example: the atoms which make the rock may be said to be identical to the rock, but as far as perception goes, I see no atoms in my visual apprehension of the rock. The atoms are identical to the rock as a whole, but my concept of the rock is not identical to my concept of the atoms–when I am thinking of the one, I am not thinking of the other. If you grant that my theory of experience is right (that experience constitutes the foundation of being), then it can be said that equivalence is the determining principle that ties together all states of experience in the universe. That’s not to say that identity plays no part, but equivalence, at least for me and my metaphysics, is the more suitable concept for imagining the relation between parts and whole. So, for example, even if we say that the atoms of a rock are identical to the rock as a whole, the experience that the rock is having (a steady buzz I would think) is not identical but equivalent to the experiences that the atoms are collectively having (a flurry of diverse and conflicting experiences). In the end, I define equivalence as the relation between two or more sets of things that are ontologically interchangeable, but not identical, with each other–interchangeable in such a way that there is no fact of the matter which one is real and which one isn’t (similar to how 1 = 1/2 + 1/2–well, which is it? 1 or 1/2 + 1/2? Well, it’s both, but we can interchange which one we focus on, and there is no fact of the matter which is the real expression and which is only on stand-in). They both have equal claim to existence. So bringing this back to the question of the holistic meaning vs. the collection of individual parts, I would say the parts that we experience at the human level, even when we are able to amass the whole conglomeration at this level (as dizzying a feat as that would be), is equivalent, but not identical, to the universal meaning at the level of the whole. Such an apprehension as that of all the meaning in all the experiences that a human being can have is (assuming it can be exhaustive of all meaning in the universe at this level) interchangeable with that of the universe as a whole, and neither the former or the latter have any entitlement on ontology over the other. They are both equally valid.

Now why would I mind that? I’d be thrilled if you quoted each and every one of my posts! (not that I’m asking :wink:)

gib

The changing is all the time because everything in the physical universe is changing all the time.

I am also saying that meaning’s shape is warping all of the time throughout the universe. We are impacted by new knowledge even on a biological level as we have already worked out - the interesting thing to take notice of is that our wisdom is in an up and down motion - for the lucky, mostly up - but there are times when our judgement fails us - yes, even our good judgement - I always recommend to myself not to panic when this happens.

Like I said, this stands by itself - and quite solidly.

You are very welcome gib.

:sunglasses:

Meaning is a way of attaining understanding about something. It is not knowledge but something more subtle. But unlike knowledge it is not objective so treating it as
if it was is unwise. When looking for meaning therefore the question should be asked from whose perspective? even though the answer is already known as it can only
be from human perspective. Is meaning easier to find if one thinks it exists? And is that because one actually wants it to exist? If so then how does one recognise their
own self delusion and confirmation bias? Why does there have to be meaning in the grand scheme of things anyway? Why cannot there simply be no meaning? Why can
not the things that make some seek meaning such as death not simply be accepted or welcomed rather than feared? So if meaning is subjective then why cannot it be
applied differently? And the answer to that is there is no reason why

As a nihilist [ atheist existentialist is a more accurate descriptor but I prefer nihilist for reasons of brevity ] who sees no objective meaning to the Universe I am very
sceptical of it being applied in such a way. And particularly as the line between objective and subjective becomes quite blurred for those using meaning like this. As
for me such a line is very clearly defined. I am more interested in what is true rather than what I want to be true since I have no say in the latter and so focus more
on the former. But even then one has to try hard not to confuse the two. I say there is no meaning in the grand scheme of things but is this because I think it is true
or is there a part of me that also wants it to be true? There probably is if truth be told but I try to keep such thoughts to a minimum as I have no real need for them

Meaning is also definition and interpretation of words, concepts and actions. Everything that exists is acting in that it behaves in a specific way. The specific way I do believe is meaning. This is how I view it anyway.

I disagree, I think it is a type of knowledge that is more subtle.

Now this is where I believe you are incorrect - not entirely though - as definition, meaning is objective(as in agreed standard) but as interpretation not so much.

The answer comes before the question otherwise there is not point to the question. Part of knowing is based on belief so you tell me how we are supposed to recognise our own delusions - what I do know is that some things work - I chase after the meaning question because it is working somehow.

I am not god(by anyone’s definition, from my point of view) so I am not sure why we seek out meaning - I know why I do - because it works - it gives us a language as to help us store our knowledge. Death would void meaning.

Why is there no reason why?

I must admit I have not been following it as pantheist logic. Obviously it is that and I do see what you mean.

Objective, subjective or whatever else-ive meaning I do not believe is confined to an ism.

Allow me to try a different approach - a psycho-jilted one - go with me on this one gib - respond as best you can.

Quality would then become a separate topic. Is disturbance not a quality? I can not distinguish one of my cells from the other - they are too small - the ones flowing through my veins present a particular difficulty. Yet they are built in to me.

I think we can say the universe feels us - from our point of view there is an impression left by us for the universe.

I like the way you distinguish awareness.

I am not going to argue the finer points of your argument here.

Do we experience when we believe? What is knowledge? How are you defining knowledge?

Hmmm

I like this paragraph - it points out one of the most human traits in nearly everyone that dare not think outside the box. Can you see the trait in these words?

To think that there is no meaning - we may as well not do anything.

Pantheism might be a bit strong. How 'bout panpsychism.

I never thought of it as confined to an ism either–as in meaning makes sense in this-ism but it doesn’t in that-ism.

Prepared to be psycho-jilted.

That’s a limitation of epistemic awareness.

And “disturbance” is just the best word I could think of. I’d be cautious about running with it–as if to say: there are experiences that count as “disturbances” and there are experiences that don’t.

Knowledge and belief as such aren’t experiences–they’re more like states or dispositions–in the sense that we can say: Joe knows X even though Joe may not be thinking of X. Similar with belief. But there are states of mind that we do experience in which we can identify the belief or knowledge. When Joe actually is thinking of X, I think we can say he is experiencing his belief/knowledge.

I’m defining knowledge as the ability to say “X is the case” and to believe it (obviously, if you go with the Aristotilean definition, you also need truth and justification).

You mean how I don’t take it as a foregone conclusion? Why would I? I have no idea how to identify knowledge in terms of physical actions.

Oh, nooo!!! You’re a nihilist! Say it ain’t so! :smiley:

It ain’t so . . .There is no nihilist in me. I believe meaning is everywhere and not because I want it to be so - but because that is what is evident to me in nature. Your response was well formed given the jilted nature of my instigation. I wanted to see how well you would smooth out the bumps. Now I will combine some of our writing and add pieces to it and edit small pieces and you should see a little harmony present. Meaning should be evident

This is an experiment - if you take enough notice you will see that there is a kind of flow that was not there before.

< << <<< Disturbance can be harmony >>> >> >

. . . I must admit I have not been following it as pantheist logic. Obviously it is that and I do see what you mean. Pantheism might be a bit strong. How 'bout panpsychism. Objective, subjective or whatever else-ive, meaning I do not believe is confined to an ism. I have never thought of it as confined to an ism either–as in meaning makes sense in this-ism but it doesn’t in that-ism . . .

The quality of a good argument, a good debate and anything agreed upon can be seen as a sort of harmony when comparing the words of the interlocutors. Quality would then become a separate topic. Is disturbance not a quality? You might think of it as a class of qualities. When building a good argument you can see disturbance in it and this I believe is a type of meaning and knowledge. When having a good debate as we stated earlier, both parties are able to express differing points of view, enjoy the debate and still there is harmony in the disturbance - a type of quality involved. When people agree, it is hard to distinguish the outcome from the outcome. Yet when we agree, the previous state of the situation when we didn’t agree has been disturbed.

< << <<< Disturbance is a set of qualities >>> >> >

I can not distinguish one of my cells from the other - they are too small - the ones flowing through my veins present a particular difficulty. Yet they are built in to me. That’s a limitation of epistemic awareness. And “disturbance” is just the best word I could think of. I’d be cautious about running with it–as if to say: there are experiences that count as “disturbances” and there are experiences that don’t. The outcome for each person is different and yet they believe the outcome to be the same - two sets of qualities, experiences and ultimately meaning - one of the sets is disturbance or all of the sets are disturbance if not two of the sets.

< << <<< Disturbance holds meaning >>> >> >

Do we experience when we believe? What is knowledge? How are we defining knowledge?

Knowledge and belief as such aren’t experiences–they’re more like states or dispositions–in the sense that we can say: Joe knows X even though Joe may not be thinking of X. Similar with belief. But there are states of mind that we do experience in which we can identify the belief or knowledge. When Joe actually is thinking of X, I think we can say he is experiencing his belief/knowledge.

We are defining knowledge as the ability to say “X is the case” and to believe it (obviously, if you go with the Aristotilean definition, you also need truth and justification).

If not, then it still might be possible to say that the universe knows about us but only by way of some indirect physical effect that our more immediate effects on our surroundings have on the wider world (i.e. further along the chain of cause-and-effect). If, at some point on this chain of cause-and-effect that we initiate, the signature of the physical action in question qualifies as that which corresponds to knowledge, and if that knowledge is specifically about the original “feel” that we directly caused (the disturbance), then we can say that the universe knows about us. But I don’t take that as a foregone conclusion.

< << <<< Disturbance can be felt and becomes knowledge >>> >> >

This small essay points out one of the “most human traits” in nearly everyone that dare not think outside the box. Can you see the trait in these words? I don’t take it as a foregone conclusion? Why would I? I have no idea how to identify knowledge in terms of physical actions. To think that there is no meaning - we may as well not do anything. To think that there is meaning - we may as well do something.

Sophistry, art or neosophi? Let us conclude.

So with our combination have we presented a third point of view? A third set of opinions? A third meaning? A triangle has been formed by existence, the first person and the second person in the form of discussion and a disturbance has been left in the wake - somehow in some sort of harmony, a good or bad set of qualities and holding some sort of meaning to present to us new knowledge and a new slice of wisdom pie.

Oh, nooo!!! You’re a nihilist! Say it ain’t so! :smiley:

It ain’t so.

I am looking for things that I can calculate and so far I have discovered some patterns to our communication - patterns that show me that at all times there are multiple flows going on even when we think there is only one - I would say that there are thousands of different meanings being employed in a minute - these things are many and component to the conversation - the meaning of the conversation is modular and is made up of many smaller compressed meanings. Meanings are also connected to the outside world and within everything in the outside world there is more meaning. Meaning can be added to and subtracted from and there are other operations that can be performed too.

As per usual our conversation eventually gets out of proportion - isn’t it great - I find it stimulating. Pantheist or not, your insight is useful to my, whatever you would label it, kind of philosophy. I know I am not always remaining bounded. Identity does change gib and the components do constitute the whole but then I also think the whole is greater than it looks. Maybe it is the parts and the whole that constitutes a separate identity - an identity that is in contrast to its surrounding.

Hmm, this is an interesting way to think of things - this time I am getting your gist and developing one of my own.

I can understand this >> Objectively speaking we cannot say that people experience color the same way anyway - that is being sensible - there are millions of differences that become significant to each individual - still we can be reductive in our approach to gaining perspective on vision for instance - just not precise. I know a few people here that would love to waste my time arguing this concept but my only response would be to take their argument back to the drawing board because it holds not more validity than my own - likely less. This is objectively speaking.

No two planets are the same - no two birds are ever the same - and so on. Oh but we are people - oh but are we?

This strangely reminds me of the proton conundrum whereby the hydrogen atom’s proton is smaller than other protons - how can this be? Not to worry. I would say that equivalence is more like setting standards and I would really like to see you argue me on this - no really I would . . . I think because it would help us uncover something new and I am all about the new. Now the relation part you are mentioning is important to me - obviously - it is how I am basing my contrast for a start. Things are only relative in contrast to other things - in other words they only appear the same but are in fact always different - hard for some to grasp, no doubt, but empirically able to be proven the case. We can only conceptualize reality we can never nail it entirely - we can say that tolerances are changing all of the time and they are relative to our conceptual understanding - there is enough stability for us to work with. I hope I am making sense.

Oh this is very true >> No one atom is having the same experience as its conceptual counterpart. Can we really say that two atoms experience the same state of orbital electrons in any given moment - we would have to look infinitely close for that and that as far as I know is impossible. When we compartmentalize states the rock becomes the shell state and not the collective atomic state. As you say “a flurry of diverse and conflicting experiences” is what the atoms experience but conceptually the rock is only in contrast to its background and the atoms collectively - there might even be a dimension missing here. I would say that the space the atoms collective occupy and the rock occupy are the same and they are the same as what the measurements represent in one instant - so there are a number of equivalence relations going on but they are always relative to our knowledge of them and the meaning we apply to them.

Hmmm, I will leave this as is for now - why I dont know - just a gut feeling.

:-k

Perhaps meaning is a critique of the myth of the given. Humans traditionally live in a world which is hostile to them. From this, there is the myth of the given, like the bear who eat a human. But reality is not that fix given, but with Peirce an order of signs. And meaning does represent what is the Fixation in the myth of the given.

Encode,

It seems what you are doing here is to interleave your comments with my comments, making them read seamlessly together. This seems to demonstrate that when an exchange unfolds like this where the two parties involved agree with each other, or find it easy to reconcile their difference, you could read them as though it were a single individual just writing his or her thoughts. If you were to instead interleave the thoughts of two parties who vehemently disagree, that would be quite a jarring read indeed.

^ How am I doing?

Now, your second post strikes me as an actually response to what I said (you know, in the usual sense of responding to the content). You said:

Well, if you ask me, meaning is not “atomic”–that is, it can’t be broken down into simple indivisible units the way matter can–which is not to say it can’t be broken down, but that if it is to be broken down, it is by any arbitrary method that we choose–much like in the way 1 can be divided up into .5 and .5, or .25 + .25 + .25 + .25, or .1 + .9, or 8-9+2. There are no “atoms” of meaning, in other words, but meaning isn’t indivisible either. It’s more like the idea of matter that some of the ancient Greeks held, the ones opposite to Democritus and his theory of the atom, that said that matter is infinitely divisible. But for me, this idea must be accompanied by my concept of equivalence (if you’re gonna invent the atoms of meaning as you see fit, you can’t very well rely on identity). So if you find the meaning to something, and you divide that into smaller “component” meanings, those components, even collectively, may only be equivalent to the original meaning, not identical.

Well, I think this is just how the human brain works: it identifies objects based on the collection of its parts (based on the conglomeration of its features and components). After having identified that collection, it gives it an identity over and above the full collection of components–so yes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts–and this whole is defined by its its boundaries, which, as you said, allows it to contrast with its surroundings.

You are a brilliant writer, encode, with penetrating insight. You are one of those thinkers that leave people like me with much to think about. Thank you for that.

gib

I am so happy that you understand the approaches that I was taking. :smiley:

I think your response is worth my while putting some thought into, so if you don’t mind giving me a few days - I will have something for you then.

Kind regards,

Aaron.

:sunglasses:

…so meaning is acquired over the years. from experiences? :-k

…which may be why city folk start moving out… to seek a quieter life elsewhere, to gain meaning back into their lives.

…meaning that there is comfort in meaning?

…running on all cylinders all of the time? sounds very exhausting., especially if you lived in a city centre.

Perhaps such types are restricted by capacity? having less of it than others in order to create a more meaningful existence for themselves… I too have seen and known such types. Samsara, perhaps?

You have summed up the current state of the world nicely here… the pressure on the individual is now immense… shifted from the top down, or has it always been like that and I am only just realising it now? :confused: We now have obligations that have nothing to do with our immediate circle or peers, but of everyone.

Humans don’t flourish well in the wrong or negative environment, but do what they can/must to live some semblance of a meaningful life. :eusa-violin:

Now that is a nihilist. :mrgreen:

surreptitious75 wrote:

Oh, I don’t know. If you sit under this beautiful giant Oak on the hottest day of the year ~~ let’s say 115 degrees lol and you feel all refreshed and new and cool, doesn’t that sense of qualia which you are experiencing (meaning) tie in with the function and purpose of that Oak?

I may not be expressing this well but do you not think that there are times when the meaning does not so much come from us but is derived from the sheer utility of something in itself (the Oak). If that made sense. Maybe not. Maybe I am wrong here. #-o Perhaps it is all the Mind.

.

I do not think that that is necessarily so. When I look up at the stars and see their great beauty and mystery, can almost feel their heat and energy, the last thing on my mind is that “Oh, they must be there for a reason”.

The heart needs no reason and the play of beauty on the mind/psyche is for its own sake, not for that of interpreting the universe.

Of course, on the other hand, at some point, meaning may creep in ~~ one may feel that the Universe is there for their pleasure, that they have been graced by it. But denying and resisting that is denying our own humanity and what gives us that urge to go on - that life can be good ~ even though it is simply based on the qualia of that interface between the Universe and our Self.

Could something which has the capacity to be something have a reason behind it?

Of course it can. The reason for being is the possibility to exist, or not. To be or not to be is the ultimate question. Which suicides sorrily reasoned into the wrong conclusion

But really the deeper question is, to what can they credit to their reasoning? To truth, or to fiction. The meaning of this ultimate question pertains to understanding of the most basic concepts of faith, love, compassion, capacity, and utilization of tools of clarity.

Meaning when unhinged from the manifestation of conceptual symbolism do not demark all effects of.civilization, when humanity denies its own humanity in reference to the Ape, then what we are doing is doing disservice to the animal. The thin slice, the facade of.civilization hides the tremendous undertow of pre civilised man, a well meaning docile animal perhaps.

It’s is.fearless of a hunter to go into the deepest jungle and understand really how fragile a construction of civilization really is. It’s discontent and its overcoming are.heroic attempts.to salvage at least.some.presumptive urges.

surreptitious75

I always find your posts interesting enough to read and consider them not to be a waste of time to spend some time thinking about them. I find myself disagreeing with a significant amount of what you say, even though I do not see this as a negative thing. I will say that we are inseparable from the universe that defines us.

You say that you see no objective meaning to the universe but clearly this is just you and a small group of people. I also know that just because one does not see something, does not mean that it does not exist - so you have a belief of some sort - this is clearly evident. I would be interested in what ways you think that I have blurred the lines between the objective and the subjective. What do you mean by using meaning like this? What is this?

??? Clearly defined how exactly ??? How do you know what is true given that everything to do with your existence can be boiled down to electrochemical signals interpreted by your mind? Everything is really just an interpretation to us. For the human being there is no absolute truth, just and interpreted truth that seems to work the best - I prefer to keep the mind open just in case I am missing something along the way and there might be the chance of detecting the said something. In all cases any given person goes with what they want to be true; a person chooses to believe what makes the most sense.

What exactly do you have a need for?

:-k

Brando

I am somewhat lost by what you have written so I make the request that you give me a little more information or further your thoughts here.

I can only make assumptions based on what you have written. I understand the hostile world as you have written it. Myth of the given, I am a little lost on.

Clearly meaning is tied to every connection that exists - take us out of the picture and there is this human-non-interpreted meaning that still exists because a why and a how can exist with out us or at least the universal interpretation of it.

:smiley: