the two-pronged approach

if everything is predestined, and life is inherently meaningless and all meaning is a solely an artificial construct of the human mind, what's the point of making an effort to do anything?

how does one go from a negative, despairing view to a positive, life-embracing one?

so perhaps, the logic leap is this: if nothing matters at all, the only thing that matters is how we feel. and personally, i prefer feeling nice to feeling bad.

if there's a way to feel good without making any effort in life, then, by all means (we might starve, but perhaps some of us don't mind). for most of us, we aren't quite wired that way. feeling good entails attempting things, achieving things, to get that sense that we're doing, we're fulfilling something. of course, we're mostly focusing on the fulfillment portion - when we fail, it's not really not so good. but if we never try, we're also stuck with the sense of regret. sometimes, it seems like a winless situation. at least, that's how my brain seems to have been wired. not that i wished it to be or not to be wired like this - it seems to just have happened that way.

so the paradox of doing our best and being non-attached will surely remain a paradox, but in a way it's a two-pronged approach to the issue of maintaining well-being. on one hand, being non-attached is the practice of feeling good without making any effort, and accepting things as they are. on the other, we know not trying really doesn't feel good either. so we have to try, and try really hard. before we fully realize the nature of success and failure, the non-attachment part starts to help dull the pain of failure.

so desireless action, is the ideal. non-action for the most part does not work, as the lack of fulfillment is so strong that it can easily start the cycle of hopelessness, overshadowing any progress made on the non-attachment front.

ultimately, when we realize there is joy in action itself, the emphasis we place on results lessen, until, one day, they don't matter much anymore.

meaning of whose life?

once in a while, we'll come across the big question, "the meaning of life".

do we mean, the meaning of my life? why i exist, and what i'm supposed to do?

or, the meaning of life in general? including flowers, bacteria, and sushi? why does life exist at all, and do we believe in evolution or intelligent design?

though these are not mutually exclusive questions, one way to start might be to narrow down whose life we're trying to figure out.

believing the illusion

according to a recent article, understanding that freewill is a pure illusion (driven by physics) actually causes people to engage in more selfish, antisocial behavior - and this runs counter to many philosophies and religions where people become more ethical when they believe they have some sort of free will that needs to be reigned in, in order to appease a particular deity (hence their lives are driven by a higher spiritual order, rather than some cold, hard physical law.

so, believing in freewill is generally a good thing, even though we may understand at a deeper level, it simply is an illusion?

locating the meaning in life

so, assuming locating the meaning in our particular lives is of paramount importance, in order to lead a fulfilling and content existence, how do we go about doing it? how do we determine this particular thing or cause is the thing we should live for, rather than some other thing? don't these things change all the time, according to our moods, time of day, stage in life?

perhaps - the point is to find meaning in whatever it is we do, and not get tripped up by the meaning in life, rather we should refer it as a generally meaningful life?

or perhaps, we need some kind of ultimate meaningful thing as a distant goal to keep us going?

or, do a bunch of what i would consider meaningful things and see where it goes from there? and what precisely are those things?

meaning of life vs meaning in life

why do i exist vs what do i exist for?

a minor but not unimportant distinction.

the former, we'll generally never agree on and no particular theory or belief can be absolutely proved or disproved.

the latter, we can all generally agree that each of us has to find and tread our own specific path.

there's no compelling reason for...

changing our life and beliefs, for the most part. most of the time, we're fine the way we are, really. change is not so fun. voluntary change goes against everything that seems to make sense.

people change usually because of big shocks. people who suddenly find spiritualism in their lives usually encounter great tragedy, great loss, or perhaps a near-death experience. faced with some form of an existential crisis (there's even a wiki entry on this), they suddenly question their priorities in life, when they take a step back and take the proverbial look at the man-in-the-mirror.

we all know really bad things will happen to us eventually. or at least, things we generally regard as really bad or tragic. shouldn't we change our perception on lives in anticipation, so it doesn't hit us like a ton of bricks? or at least, re-prioritize while we can think logically?

but i suppose it doesn't really work that way. we're simply not very good at figuring out what really matters until we're forced to do so. especially when i) our current lives are fine or ii) we have trouble putting food on the table so got no time to do anything other than trying to get my family the basic necessities or iii) it takes too much energy to think about it and since i don't know where the tragedy is coming from (and perhaps it will never come), i might as well deal with it then.

so, spiritualism is almost another word for "rationalizing/dealing with shit in my life"? (suffering is the more appropriate word but "shit" seems more to the point...)

in the long run

in the long run, we're all dead. this is a pretty well known quote by economists (attributed to Keynes), what is probably lesser known is the quote that preceded it: that the long run is a misleading guide to current affairs.

therein lies one of the key issues of my little quest. how far down the road do we look? in the long run, yes, we no longer exist (ignoring heaven, afterlives and reincarnation for the time being). in the medium run, serving humanity is one of my goals. in the short run, i am worrying where my next paycheck is coming from and where, if anywhere at all, my career is going. the problem is the medium run journey involves a bit of risk and one would hope to have a little bit of financial security before embarking on it. perhaps ironically, the people that need help do not have this benefit - the longer one takes, the later they get help.

if our current existence as we know it are in fact only a small portion of our larger existence, which way does the balance tip?

perhaps it's time to actually do the "time left" thought experiment. how would you live your life, if you had a week left? three months? a year? three years? ten years? thirty?