The problem with "meaning" and "meaningful" is that they have no meaning! How would you set about defining meaning or meaningful? It's like these words exist not to mean anything, but to invoke that which forever escapes those who utter them!
Great question. Not sure I have a good answer, though. A couple of thoughts...
• A few hours after reading your comment, I heard this exchange, which you might find interesting: https://pca.st/8o6l5jbi?t=8m10s.
• Two caveats: 1. My answer re "meaning" is shaped by Jewish ideas. 2. I'm no rabbi.
• When I say "meaning" or "meaningful," I think about the Bible and the Story that emerges when Abraham walks away from Babel in search of a better life and the land that G*d will show him. People, events, and moments that advance that plot are more meaningful to me because they advance the Story (e.g., the creation of the nation-state of Israel, the third Jewish commonwealth, is a meaning-filled event); people, events, and moments that don't advance the plot are less meaningful to me (e.g., who won the Bruins game last night). If stories are the way we stitch together moments to create meaning, then the Jewish Story -- from Eden to Sinai to the day of universal redemption -- is a meaningful one for me. Is dinner with my family meaningful outside of the context of the Jewish "master narrative"? It can be. Then again, the blessing we say before the meal is an expression of gratitude *and* a way to consecrate the meal with meaning.
Plenty of people might say: "You made up your Story to create an artificial sense of meaning that doesn't really exist." And to someone looking in from the outside -- yeah, I can understand that viewpoint. .... Judaism is, at its heart, a meaning-making project. Or as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks often said (paraphrasing here): "Science takes things apart to discover how they work. Religion puts things together to discover what they mean."
When I imagine the (mythic?) Abraham when he was a boy, I see him sitting with his friends on a Friday night and saying: "Ok, so we go out and buy some beers and drive into town and pick up some girls. We drink. We party. We get into trouble. We go home. And then what? Do we do the same thing next Friday? And the Friday after that? Don't you guys ever wonder if there's anything more to this life than our pursuit of pleasure?" ... Abe's friends think he's nuts -- who talks this way? who asks such questions? who cares? Abe stands alone, hungry for meaning and searching for some greater point or purpose. Which is exactly what this particular G*d was looking for: One person who was looking for Him. (See: "God In Search of Man," by AJ Heschel.) And that's when G*d appears with his Mission Impossible moment: "Your mission, Abe, if you choose to accept it...." And so began a 4,000-year project that's all about giving meaning to the word "meaning."
Like I said, I'm no rabbi. But that's my layman's attempt to answer your (excellent) question.
Thankyou for responding! It may intrigue ypu to know that i, of NZ extraction and presently living in Japan, come to matters Judaic from the direction of generative anthropology, aka 'the little bang theory', world's only sound theory of the origin of language (TOOL). Around in textual form since the early 1980s, but to all intents and purposes unheard of and/or ignored by the world at large - be that 'world' scientific, academic or lay - its explanatory power knows no bounds that i can see.
Your quote from the rabbi in this regard is most pertinent. For it's been suggested that a very real reason for this 'soft taboo' against taking a rigorous theory of us sign bearing creatures' événemential birth seriously is that it's perceived to be, at some lgasp) fiendish level, "a Jew science"
IOW something that takes apart rather than puts together. And disassembled what's more from the wrong direction - the mind of a Jew! In this case one Eric Lawrence Gans! I'm here to tell ya that his generative anthropology puts things back together just as fast as it takes them apart - by way of the ostensive>imperative>interrogative>declarative sequence!
I will dare say no more for the moment other than i was not impressed so much by your penultimate paragraph. It seems to me opposing purpose to pleasure like fhat must ultimately be counter-productiive? After all, what is to stop Abe and the lads now lubing up at the pub every weekend fleshly/freshly hot to purposively trot?
Why, Heartworker, do you make this a matter of politics & a political divide? That is so bafflingly limited & mistaken as an approach. You think non conservatives are getting this right ? That is absolutely wrong. What you cite is a pervasive cultural problem and has nothing to do with some Right/Left split. What is childhood understood to be? How are children treated & understood? This should be a widespread conversation but it's not. Look at elite, liberal schools of education: they are failing across the board because childhood is so poorly understood along with children.
Postman wrote "The problem with television is not that it presents us with entertaining topics, the problem is that it presents every topic as entertainment." Unfortunately, self-proclaimed "conservatives“ (mis)use this to deduce that "certain topics are not (yet) for children."
However, I know for sure that my own children and others have had burning questions about „certain“, „candid" topics as early as the age of three or four, and asked them.
If so-called "adults" are not willing or able to discuss these issues in an open conversation, and thus declare children to be „stupid“ or „immature" - or "adults" project their own stupidity, immaturity and inhibitions onto children -, then others will do it, "television" or "the Internet". - -
The problem in itself is not even the presentation of topics in a lightweight way or as "entertainment", but the speechlessness of "adults" and their inability, their unwillingness to engage with children, to listen to them carefully and to speak openly with them., which experience ranks far above any „TV Show“. The problem is the unwillingness of "adults" to learn about themselves and to look at themselves critically.
As long as so-called "conservatives" do not want to understand that "G*d" has never showered us with "prohibitions", but with encouragement, demands, and abilities that should bring joy - not "restriction" - and are part of the bits of revelation that are accessible to human beings, they contribute to the fact that "adults" never grow up and take refuge in "entertainment", among other things.
So, both "conservatives" as "liberals" should put questions to themselves and each other, and unite, as G*d would wish for.
The problem with "meaning" and "meaningful" is that they have no meaning! How would you set about defining meaning or meaningful? It's like these words exist not to mean anything, but to invoke that which forever escapes those who utter them!
Great question. Not sure I have a good answer, though. A couple of thoughts...
• A few hours after reading your comment, I heard this exchange, which you might find interesting: https://pca.st/8o6l5jbi?t=8m10s.
• Two caveats: 1. My answer re "meaning" is shaped by Jewish ideas. 2. I'm no rabbi.
• When I say "meaning" or "meaningful," I think about the Bible and the Story that emerges when Abraham walks away from Babel in search of a better life and the land that G*d will show him. People, events, and moments that advance that plot are more meaningful to me because they advance the Story (e.g., the creation of the nation-state of Israel, the third Jewish commonwealth, is a meaning-filled event); people, events, and moments that don't advance the plot are less meaningful to me (e.g., who won the Bruins game last night). If stories are the way we stitch together moments to create meaning, then the Jewish Story -- from Eden to Sinai to the day of universal redemption -- is a meaningful one for me. Is dinner with my family meaningful outside of the context of the Jewish "master narrative"? It can be. Then again, the blessing we say before the meal is an expression of gratitude *and* a way to consecrate the meal with meaning.
Plenty of people might say: "You made up your Story to create an artificial sense of meaning that doesn't really exist." And to someone looking in from the outside -- yeah, I can understand that viewpoint. .... Judaism is, at its heart, a meaning-making project. Or as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks often said (paraphrasing here): "Science takes things apart to discover how they work. Religion puts things together to discover what they mean."
When I imagine the (mythic?) Abraham when he was a boy, I see him sitting with his friends on a Friday night and saying: "Ok, so we go out and buy some beers and drive into town and pick up some girls. We drink. We party. We get into trouble. We go home. And then what? Do we do the same thing next Friday? And the Friday after that? Don't you guys ever wonder if there's anything more to this life than our pursuit of pleasure?" ... Abe's friends think he's nuts -- who talks this way? who asks such questions? who cares? Abe stands alone, hungry for meaning and searching for some greater point or purpose. Which is exactly what this particular G*d was looking for: One person who was looking for Him. (See: "God In Search of Man," by AJ Heschel.) And that's when G*d appears with his Mission Impossible moment: "Your mission, Abe, if you choose to accept it...." And so began a 4,000-year project that's all about giving meaning to the word "meaning."
Like I said, I'm no rabbi. But that's my layman's attempt to answer your (excellent) question.
Thankyou for responding! It may intrigue ypu to know that i, of NZ extraction and presently living in Japan, come to matters Judaic from the direction of generative anthropology, aka 'the little bang theory', world's only sound theory of the origin of language (TOOL). Around in textual form since the early 1980s, but to all intents and purposes unheard of and/or ignored by the world at large - be that 'world' scientific, academic or lay - its explanatory power knows no bounds that i can see.
Your quote from the rabbi in this regard is most pertinent. For it's been suggested that a very real reason for this 'soft taboo' against taking a rigorous theory of us sign bearing creatures' événemential birth seriously is that it's perceived to be, at some lgasp) fiendish level, "a Jew science"
IOW something that takes apart rather than puts together. And disassembled what's more from the wrong direction - the mind of a Jew! In this case one Eric Lawrence Gans! I'm here to tell ya that his generative anthropology puts things back together just as fast as it takes them apart - by way of the ostensive>imperative>interrogative>declarative sequence!
I will dare say no more for the moment other than i was not impressed so much by your penultimate paragraph. It seems to me opposing purpose to pleasure like fhat must ultimately be counter-productiive? After all, what is to stop Abe and the lads now lubing up at the pub every weekend fleshly/freshly hot to purposively trot?
Why, Heartworker, do you make this a matter of politics & a political divide? That is so bafflingly limited & mistaken as an approach. You think non conservatives are getting this right ? That is absolutely wrong. What you cite is a pervasive cultural problem and has nothing to do with some Right/Left split. What is childhood understood to be? How are children treated & understood? This should be a widespread conversation but it's not. Look at elite, liberal schools of education: they are failing across the board because childhood is so poorly understood along with children.
Postman wrote "The problem with television is not that it presents us with entertaining topics, the problem is that it presents every topic as entertainment." Unfortunately, self-proclaimed "conservatives“ (mis)use this to deduce that "certain topics are not (yet) for children."
However, I know for sure that my own children and others have had burning questions about „certain“, „candid" topics as early as the age of three or four, and asked them.
If so-called "adults" are not willing or able to discuss these issues in an open conversation, and thus declare children to be „stupid“ or „immature" - or "adults" project their own stupidity, immaturity and inhibitions onto children -, then others will do it, "television" or "the Internet". - -
The problem in itself is not even the presentation of topics in a lightweight way or as "entertainment", but the speechlessness of "adults" and their inability, their unwillingness to engage with children, to listen to them carefully and to speak openly with them., which experience ranks far above any „TV Show“. The problem is the unwillingness of "adults" to learn about themselves and to look at themselves critically.
As long as so-called "conservatives" do not want to understand that "G*d" has never showered us with "prohibitions", but with encouragement, demands, and abilities that should bring joy - not "restriction" - and are part of the bits of revelation that are accessible to human beings, they contribute to the fact that "adults" never grow up and take refuge in "entertainment", among other things.
So, both "conservatives" as "liberals" should put questions to themselves and each other, and unite, as G*d would wish for.