The mindless cosmos and inherent meaning

Since the so called "enlightenment" many seem to have become accustomed to a mode of thought that sees external reality - our universe - as some sort of mindless backdrop. In itself it has no meaning. We, as human beings, finding ourselves the seekers of meaning, then assume that we simply project our meanings upon an outside world that is essentially meaningless in and of itself.

This assumption has been questioned by many. The alternative to it has been ascertained by those such as Carl Jung. In speaking of Jung's thought another has said:-

(Jung implies) that meaning is not just subjectively projected onto a meaningless external reality but can be an inherent feature discoverable in, or creatively emergent from, the one reality that we also are.

The "that we also are" takes us back to our world's Faith Traditions.

That is all for now.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

RebelliousSpirit · F

There is no intrinsic meaning in the universe and it's pointless to try and create a substitute.

SW-User

@RebelliousSpirit Thanks for your input.

😀

PS. I'm not looking for substitutes.

SW-User

Another quote:-

...the modern mind engages the world within an explicit experiential structure of being a subject set apart from, and in some sense over against, an object. The modern world is full of objects, which the human subject confronts and acts upon from its unique position of conscious autonomy. By contrast, the primal mind engages the world more as a subject embedded in a world of subjects, with no absolute boundaries between or among them. In the primal perspective, the world is full of subjects. The primal world is saturated with subjectivity, interiority, intrinsic meanings and purposes.

(Richard Tarnas, from "Cosmos and Psyche")

SW-User

And another:-

"This world is very far from being an objective, Newtonian realm of dead objects that humans hold dominion over and manipulate and utilize for their human agendas. Rather, the myriad aspects of phenomena are all energetic partners in spiritual engagement and devotion."

(Dan Leighton)

SW-User

And another, again from Richard Tarnas in speaking of the post-enlightenment mindset and its assumption that our Cosmos lacks inherent meaning:-

Might not this be the final, most global anthropocentric delusion of all? For is it not an extraordinary act of human hubris - literally a hubris of cosmic proportions - to assume that the exclusive source of ALL MEANING AND PURPOSE IN THE UNIVERSE is ultimately centered in the human mind, which is therefore absolutely unique and special and in this sense superior to the entire cosmos? To assume that the universe utterly lacks.........what we human beings conspicuously possess? To assume that the part somehow radically differs from and transcends the whole?

(Emphasis is as per Tarnas)