Meaning is a strange thing. It recedes and hides once one tries to isolate it. As soon as meaning is grasped, it falls between one's fingers like clutching a handful of sand. Some particles, or traces, are left, but this merely teases one. It acts as a placeholder to showcase that meaning has moved on, or receded into hiding. Similar to happiness, the edges around meaning are fuzzy, and as soon as one "zooms in" or take a closer look at it everything seems to crumble into itself.
Ignorance is bliss. To a large extent, this is true. Knowing less about a particular situation might help one. Knowing only the surface "truths" about a given situation, such as meaning or happiness, might be just enough to soothe one's mind. As soon as curiosity takes over, or anything of this kind, and one delves deeper into the situation, all meaning recedes and hides. The rigid structures of "knowledge" disappears like mist in front of the sun. What seemed to be built on solid foundations turns out to be nothing more than wishful thinking. Happiness is a million dollars or a fancy car. For those that do not dig deeper with critical reflections and live in the moment, this idea of happiness might be more than enough. For the person reflecting on and immersed in the literature of happiness, this might not be enough. Happiness is about relationships. This might be digging deeper into the payload, but as soon as one starts to reflect on this simple statement, it crumbles for no apparent reason into a bunch of dust. A host of questions might be the cause of the destruction, a keen eye on life itself, or a host of other reasons might be given.
Meaning as such, it seems, is built on unsure foundations. Various philosophers have tried to give their opinion on this.
Meaning is found in the word itself. Or,
Meaning resides in the traces in between words. Or,
Meaning emerges from the use and is governed by pragmatics.
And so on, and so on.
What seems to be the only constant and sure thing is that there is and probably will always be dispute. No one author, scholar, or philosopher will ever agree. It is basically built into the practice of academia. It is uncritical and unphilosophical to agree with an author too much. Implying that dispute is a necessary condition for meaning. But this leaves meaning in a precarious position, it will never be stable. It will bounce from one author and article to another, thrown to another like a hot potato. The unlucky reader of that article will already be behind and trying to catch up is futile. And again, this seems to be baked into academia itself. Dispute is the only driving force behind the copious amount of publications that circulate in academia. Another consequence of this is that one author cannot read everything that has been published. Vast gaps and oblivious overlaps are thus baked into the system. Why did you not cover XYZ? someone might ask. But one can never state: because I did not have time to read it. Why did you cover ABC if author P has already done it? another asks, again, one can never answer: because I did not see that article/book/publication. One is reminded of R.D. Laing who states that
Albeit written in and for another context and field, it can be carried over to philosophy and meaning. One should act as if one could read it all and be on time when publishing a piece of work. Infinite knowledge is stored in one's mind whilst writing. It seems like an impossible battle to fight but one that so many are actively partaking in. Most are screaming into the void (that is, no one is reading their work) with the void only staring back with a devilish grin on its face.
What does this have to do with meaning receding and happiness for that matter? As a philosopher, one is constantly trying to make sense of things. Creating concepts and explaining old ones rely on a certain amount of rigidity and certainty. But as soon as one critically reflects on what "there is" an overwhelming sensation of fuzzy edges and weak foundations hits one. Depending on who one asks is a pretty common response I give to people. Because how can one say that something is X when various people dispute that very claim? It is better to state that something is X according to P. But this leaves one's conversation partner mostly in a state of confusion. It gives the feeling that meaning is not solid or present, even though it might never really be, but that is something for philosophers to think about.
Reading two papers on the meaning of concepts X or Y leaves one with relative certainty about the situation. But as soon as one reads 10 or 20 papers on that concept and other similar concepts the fuzziness of borders and rigid meaning arrives at one's doorstep. (On that note, philosophers particularly love to name the "same thing" differently. Some might talk of lifeworld, for example, others might refer to lifeworld by using horizon and so on. It is really "messy" and fuzzy as one starts to dig deeper into these things.)
At the end of the journey or bumpy adventure, one is left with the question: What does it mean?
And sometimes, I am not sure of this any longer.
I am currently in a tight spot regarding the amount of work I have on my table. Seminars, Ph.D. chapter deadlines, articles, and so on. The one thing that keeps me up at night is the feeling that the more I read the less I know. I am supposed to finish my Ph.D. in a couple of months and I am feeling less secure about everything than when I started this journey or rough adventure. Meaning recedes and hides from me. I feel what they call imposter syndrome because once you broaden the horizon the field of the unknown also grows. What one does not know is often likened to the surface area of a balloon. Without air in it (read: without knowledge) the surface area is relatively small. But blow air in it (read: knowing more) the surface area grows as well. I feel this every day.
In any case, if you read my philosophical mumblings, I hope that you can find some meaning in it. For now, happy reading and stay well.
The photograph used in this post is my own, taken with my Nikon D300. The musings are also my own, albeit inspired by the vast amount of stuff I do not know. The quoted material is also hyperlinked.
