Random destinies

[Fist and Faith]

Hmm, I somehow didn't see this post before my last post. Just to explain the idea:

if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.

This is a mega-non-sequitur if I ever saw one. Sounds good, but is logically meaningless.

No, it isn't logically meaningless. It means that if it doesn't matter as far as any afterlife goes, then what we do is the only thing that matters. Now, I have to decide: What will I do with the only thing that matters? What if I see a child bleeding to death in a field, having been attacked by a dog. Or some such scenario. Will I say, "Who cares? I don't need to help him, because there's no afterlife where I'll have to pay for not having helped him." Or will I say, "That kid needs help. I'll help him." The only thing that matters is how I act. It doesn't matter for some eternal reward or punishment. That's what the quote is saying.

[rusmeister]

Trouble is, as soon as you say that something "matters", you are smuggling in the idea of meaning, and the whole question is, what is the meaning of your life when it is ended? (Hopefully this will clear up what confused you, Harbinger, as well.) If we use the verbs "mean" or "matter", then we are implying someone to whom it means something.

Sure we can talk about "meaning" while we live, but that's not the question. What is the meaning of the life of Ivan Ilych*, or Priscilla and Aquila**? To whom does it "mean" anything at all? More specifically, what is the meaning of your life beyond your own life? Or does that meaning end with your death? Or the death of your grandchildren? Where is the meaning of your helping the kid 10,000 years after the fact? (It is in THAT context that I am asking "Why does it matter?")
What is the meaning of everyone who has ever died?

Does the question make any sense?:?:
Or is it meaningless to you?

The logical conclusion for me is that a life means nothing if it "means" it only to that person. Upon their death, then, or at most when they are forgotten, the meaning is lost. Thus, meaning only "means" anything at all if it is eternal, and if there is Someone to Whom it always means something.

(That's why, when a person dies, Orthodox Christians speak/sing of "Memory eternal")

*Fictional character, Leo Tolstoy, 19th century ("The Death of Ivan Ilych")

** Real people mentioned in the New Testament (1st century)

[lurch]

rus...Can you explain to me ..how Logic can applied with a straight face,, to anything,,ANY THING,,death or after death?..There is nothing of substance for Logic to stand on or squat on concerning death and after death..imho. Faith can take one into death and after death, imagination can take one into death and after death..but,,Logic?..no. I can't put a logical syllogism together that works to define, after death. So I am having trouble with the foundation from which you speak.

[Fist and Faith]

Thus, meaning only "means" anything at all if it is eternal, and if there is Someone to Whom it always means something.

This is the crux of it, eh? I don't agree that something need be remembered forever for it to have meaning.

[lurch]

The idea that only a Supra Natural entity can be the functionary of a human's meaning is some what compromised by every archaeologist who has and continues to excavate burial sites and grounds, villages, ceremonial centers etc etc of ancient civilizations. Their Meaning, their existence,,is brought forth to New Meaning for us by the archaeologist...The question can become then.. who will be excavating our civilization, our " Time",,our Meaning..thousands of years in the future?

[Fist and Faith]

Bah!! We don't even need that to have meaning. Let's say nothing existed. Nothing whatsoever. No time to measure how long nothing existed. No reality. No nothing! Then some intelligence pops up for a second, and is gone again. Who am I to say that intelligence's second of existence was meaningless? I'd say that intelligence was a better judge of that than I am. And I'm a better judge of whether or not my life has meaning - whether my personality exists after my body's death, or anyone/thing remembers me for any amount of time after I'm gone - than anyone else is.

But it looks as though rus is attempting to define the term "meaning" in such a way that the continuation of personality after death and/or someone/thing remembering me for eternity is necessary. I would be surprised if either thing is a necessary component of the objective/linguistic/dictionary/whatever definition of "meaning."

[lurch]

Well.. okay F&F..lets say ..there is no Meaning...chaos rules the Universe...and an Intelligence does pop up in the midst of this Chaos..Us, say. We, this intelligence, perceives the chaos...lack of Meaning. As a pop up that perceives its own "Intelligence" in contrast to the chaos...we have this penchant to make order ( what our Intelligence directs us to do) out of chaos. This property of Intelligence includes Creativity.

So, as holders of this wonderful property, ability, called Intelligence,,we see the chaos of the Universe, realize our Pop Up is not even an ants fart in a hurricane, and its choice time..yea,, Cain and Abel time. We are the only beneficiaries of our Intelligence, its all about me..or ..do we extend our wonderful Intelligent Ability to all those also able to perceive it? What we create with our wonderful property called Intelligence has no " meaning" unless its shared. Once shared, it becomes part of " civilization." Once part of civilization ,,it can be excavated thousands of years in the future and released to a new meaning,,and on and on into perpetuity.

Consider this..and I'm not one for organized religions,,but consider how a wise man some 2000 years ago put forth the open ended concept of God Love,, a Love beyond and above the lust and " kiddie Love infatuation". No,, its not that the wiseman became labeled as Jesus and lives ,,has Meaning, to this day is NOT the point...That LOVE ,, the idea of LOVE,,was an continues to be expanded since the wiseman's Time IS the point...possibly giving Meaning to All of Our Intelligence..

Careful,,here comes the next step..with a ever expanding understanding, grasping,, of this God Love...a Time may evolve to ,when Us, holders of Intelligence, rather than fear the Chaos,,try to make order out of Chaos, We actually come to Love Chaos, take it for what it IS and Love It. Such a quantum expansion of our Intelligence..could be the eternal meaning of ourselves. If there is a ' destiny"..fear cannot be part of it.

Thats why I don't dig the Batman comics and movies. Ya know what I mean?

[rusmeister]

rus...Can you explain to me ..how Logic can applied with a straight face,, to anything,,ANY THING,,death or after death?..There is nothing of substance for Logic to stand on or squat on concerning death and after death..imho. Faith can take one into death and after death, imagination can take one into death and after death..but,,Logic?..no. I can't put a logical syllogism together that works to define, after death. So I am having trouble with the foundation from which you speak.

I think that in a sense, this is what I am trying to say - that at some point you have to step off of the reason train when it reaches the last stop and you can only go further via faith/mysticism - an acknowledgment of what we can't know, except by superior/special revelation.

In this context, 'meaning' is something that cannot exist unless it always does so - it is not something that can cease to have meaning - and if it does, then there is no ultimate meaning.

That's why I've been speaking of hopelessness for people who reject faith; who take materialistic views. Once they're dead, or their grandchildren, the 'meaning' of their life becomes more and more abstract, until it ceases to mean anything particular, for practical purposes.
:l (Straight face smilie)

[aliantha]

Careful,,here comes the next step..with a ever expanding understanding, grasping,, of this God Love...a Time may evolve to ,when Us, holders of Intelligence, rather than fear the Chaos,,try to make order out of Chaos, We actually come to Love Chaos, take it for what it IS and Love It. Such a quantum expansion of our Intelligence..could be the eternal meaning of ourselves. If there is a ' destiny"..fear cannot be part of it.

Thats why I don't dig the Batman comics and movies. Ya know what I mean?

Well, no. But that's okay because I get what you're saying in the preceding paragraph -- that the point to our evolution might be to give up trying to impose order on chaos, and just accept it for what it is, and love it for its innate qualities.

The definition of "man imposing order on chaos" could, of course, extend to positing the existence of God in order to give life meaning. Right? So our evolution *could* involve accepting that there is no God, that the concept of God is a human construct that we discard as we evolve -- kind of the way a child discards training wheels on a bike.

I know that rus, and others, will argue that that would lead inevitably to despair. But I don't see it as inevitable. It's more like maturing to the point where you can be happy with what you have. And if you think about it, that *is* part of the maturation process -- not that you give up striving toward your goals, but sort of rethinking them, reframing them in terms of what's actually possible for you, personally, to accomplish in your lifetime.

So okay (to continue this idea further), there's no God, there's no afterlife; what you're left with is right now, today. You've got what you're going to get. What are you doing with it? Are you living according to your personal moral imperative? (Just because there's no god, it doesn't mean there's no morality.) Can you live with yourself? Can you sleep at night? Those become the important questions. And I dunno that they're all that different than the questions a Christian would ask of him/herself. The phrasing may be different but the underlying intent is the same.

The Buddhists, after all, strive to be happy with what they have. What does or doesn't await them after death doesn't enter into the equation at all. The Dalai Lama looks like a pretty happy guy, regardless of his lack of an afterlife, y'know?

That's why I've been speaking of hopelessness for people who reject faith; who take materialistic views. Once they're dead, or their grandchildren, the 'meaning' of their life becomes more and more abstract, until it ceases to mean anything particular, for practical purposes.

Sorry, rus -- we must have posted at the same time, so I'm editing mine.

I have two comments for you:
1. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the word "materialistic". I don't believe that people who reject faith are automatically materialistic, in the sense of only caring about cars/houses/acquiring more stuff. Is that what you were aiming for? Or did you mean "not willing to accept the existence of anything other than that which can be experienced through the five senses"?
2. Why does living forever matter to you? I'm not looking for the usual "dwelling in the house of the Lord" answer. I'm hoping for a personal, non-religious gut check from you. Because to be honest, this whole idea of needing to live on forever somehow, some way, strikes me as hubris.

[Fist and Faith]

I think that in a sense, this is what I am trying to say - that at some point you have to step off of the reason train when it reaches the last stop and you can only go further via faith/mysticism - an acknowledgment of what we can't know, except by superior/special revelation.

The thing about me is, I see no need to go beyond the last stop. Not only that, but I don't have any reason to think there is anything beyond the last stop. If I had reason to believe there was, I'd go looking just out of curiosity. It would likely be an amazing thing to learn about. But with no reason to think it exists...

In this context, 'meaning' is something that cannot exist unless it always does so - it is not something that can cease to have meaning - and if it does, then there is no ultimate meaning.

That's why I've been speaking of hopelessness for people who reject faith; who take materialistic views. Once they're dead, or their grandchildren, the 'meaning' of their life becomes more and more abstract, until it ceases to mean anything particular, for practical purposes.
:l (Straight face smilie)

But I don't need the meaning of my life to go on after my life. "Meaning" need not be eternal. My ego does not demand it even now. And if my expectations are correct, and my ego does not survive my death, it certainly won't demand it then.

[Zarathustra]

The logical conclusion for me is that a life means nothing if it "means" it only to that person. Upon their death, then, or at most when they are forgotten, the meaning is lost. Thus, meaning only "means" anything at all if it is eternal, and if there is Someone to Whom it always means something.

Why do you equate meaning "only to that person" with "nothing?" A person isn't nothing.

Why does meaning have to be eternal? Even under your belief system, each of us has a beginning point in time. Does this vast stretch of nonexistence before we were born in any way threaten our meaning? If not, then why does a vast stretch of nonexistence after our death in any way diminish our meaning? If meaning is "eternal," as you say, then this temporal, directional exception we must make to accept your view seems like a giant glaring contradiction. Something that only came into existence 15 billions years after the beginning of the universe is in no way "eternal." You can only say that by ignoring the vast stretch of nonexistence which has already been delineated by my birth at a single point in time.

But let's forget about humans. Surely you don't think that flowers and trees have eternal souls, right? Are they meaningless? Is every star, planet, moon, asteroid, comet, and proton meaningless because they won't spend eternity with us in Heaven? That's an astronomic waste of space, on God's part, to create such a vast realm of meaninglessness only so that human souls can one day leave it in order to attain their "meaning." I can't believe that God would be so capricious--a tendency which would be especially ironic given that you are using this "eternity" argument to show how God imbues reality with meaning. I think your view robs reality of meaning, for it places all meaning beyond this life, beyond this world, beyond this universe. That's why I (and Nietzsche) say that Christianity (and religion in general--or "metaphysics") is a life-denying philosophy. You can't even accept the people right here telling you they give their own meaning to their lives. You deny the meaning of this temporal, finite world so passionately, that you can't even leave room within your worldview for the meaning that people choose to partake. You deny them the right to give their lives meaning.

That, in my opinion, is an impoverished worldview of denial and inauthenticity. Let people have their own meaning. At least give them that much.

[rusmeister]

The logical conclusion for me is that a life means nothing if it "means" it only to that person. Upon their death, then, or at most when they are forgotten, the meaning is lost. Thus, meaning only "means" anything at all if it is eternal, and if there is Someone to Whom it always means something.

Why do you equate meaning "only to that person" with "nothing?" A person isn't nothing.

Why does meaning have to be eternal? Even under your belief system, each of us has a beginning point in time. Does this vast stretch of nonexistence before we were born in any way threaten our meaning? If not, then why does a vast stretch of nonexistence after our death in any way diminish our meaning? If meaning is "eternal," as you say, then this temporal, directional exception we must make to accept your view seems like a giant glaring contradiction. Something that only came into existence 15 billions years after the beginning of the universe is in no way "eternal." You can only say that by ignoring the vast stretch of nonexistence which has already been delineated by my birth at a single point in time.

But let's forget about humans. Surely you don't think that flowers and trees have eternal souls, right? Are they meaningless? Is every star, planet, moon, asteroid, comet, and proton meaningless because they won't spend eternity with us in Heaven? That's an astronomic waste of space, on God's part, to create such a vast realm of meaninglessness only so that human souls can one day leave it in order to attain their "meaning." I can't believe that God would be so capricious--a tendency which would be especially ironic given that you are using this "eternity" argument to show how God imbues reality with meaning. I think your view robs reality of meaning, for it places all meaning beyond this life, beyond this world, beyond this universe. That's why I (and Nietzsche) say that Christianity (and religion in general--or "metaphysics") is a life-denying philosophy. You can't even accept the people right here telling you they give their own meaning to their lives. You deny the meaning of this temporal, finite world so passionately, that you can't even leave room within your worldview for the meaning that people choose to partake. You deny them the right to give their lives meaning.

That, in my opinion, is an impoverished worldview of denial and inauthenticity. Let people have their own meaning. At least give them that much.

As usual, Malik, you're almost right (regarding the Christian view).
I'm saying that that meaning ceases to mean anything upon your death.

Put it this way, what does the life of Flavius Minimus, a Roman slave of the 2nd century, mean to you? It has to be clear that you have to say "Pretty much nothing" - and in the same way, a couple of millenia from now someone could be asked, "What does the life of Malik mean to you?" and it would elicit the same answer. You'd already be dead and your life would cease to mean anything.

But it is NOT life denying, because Christians (Orthodox Christians, at least) hold that God remembers us, God gives us eternal meaning, and that at the Resurrection those that choose God and reject self will be resurrected unto eternal life, and have that self given back to them the way it was always meant to be, and this will at the same time give meaning to all of our temporal lives, all the way back to the beginning. ("It was this, and this, and this that I did, that set me on the path of salvation.") And it is indeed salvation. Our lives will have been "deleted". But we will have been "reinstalled". That is true meaning, and it is eternal.

[rusmeister]

Hi Aliantha!
I am no intellectual giant – so can’t match up to the brilliance of Lewis, Chesterton, or Schmemann in logic, common sense and faith (their respective outstanding strengths). I’ll do the best I can. (I still think you ought to read those writers first, but I am the soldier who appeared in this gap, this place and time with you, so to speak…

I know that rus, and others, will argue that that would lead inevitably to despair. But I don't see it as inevitable. It's more like maturing to the point where you can be happy with what you have. And if you think about it, that *is* part of the maturation process -- not that you give up striving toward your goals, but sort of rethinking them, reframing them in terms of what's actually possible for you, personally, to accomplish in your lifetime.

My objection here would be about its inapplicability to situations where one CANNOT speak about maturation, where in all normal mortal understanding, meaning is reduced to meaninglessness. Perhaps the starkest illustration is that of your child being killed, as we say, senselessly. In such cases, all talk of accomplishment become ashes. All that we want to know is why this had to happen and what does it mean? It is then that most philosophies come to nothing, for without faith, there is no way out at all.

So okay (to continue this idea further), there's no God, there's no afterlife; what you're left with is right now, today. You've got what you're going to get. What are you doing with it? Are you living according to your personal moral imperative? (Just because there's no god, it doesn't mean there's no morality.) Can you live with yourself? Can you sleep at night? Those become the important questions.

Here again, these important questions lose all of their importance on your death. I do agree that there is enormous importance to what we do in the moment. (Here I am, trying to communicate to you the compatibility of faith and reason ). But as I said to Malik, who cares about Flavius Minimus? What does all of that matter after our deaths? Who cares that we struggled to learn, to grow, to develop and mature, only to have all of our effort become dust?

That's why I've been speaking of hopelessness for people who reject faith; who take materialistic views. Once they're dead, or their grandchildren, the 'meaning' of their life becomes more and more abstract, until it ceases to mean anything particular, for practical purposes.

Sorry, rus -- we must have posted at the same time, so I'm editing mine.

I have two comments for you:
1. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the word "materialistic". I don't believe that people who reject faith are automatically materialistic, in the sense of only caring about cars/houses/acquiring more stuff. Is that what you were aiming for? Or did you mean "not willing to accept the existence of anything other than that which can be experienced through the five senses"?
2. Why does living forever matter to you? I'm not looking for the usual "dwelling in the house of the Lord" answer. I'm hoping for a personal, non-religious gut check from you. Because to be honest, this whole idea of needing to live on forever somehow, some way, strikes me as hubris.

On materialism, hope you got that I do mean in the broader sense. Obviously, there are things like perception and intuition that we admit can have validity even though not supported by the 5 senses.

That last question is a very good question. Trying to be simple and direct (is that really possible here?) I would ask why would you want all that you have become to come to nothing via death? Surely my answer is the same, generally speaking, as yours? Like Luke Skywalker, “I have learned so much!” To see that become nothing, except for a few things that I managed to write down badly, and even after a millennia or two or three to have those fade into obscurity in the very best of circumstances (and likely after only a few years). I think it eminently reasonable that we desire to live forever; that we really do object to death, despite all of its benefits, that there is something fundamentally wrong about death – that what is right is itself the result of something that is wrong (such as population balance, ending evil as well as good, etc). The forcible ripping apart of body and soul – something evident about our design – is something that we all feel on a gut level (hope that works for ‘gut check’!) is wrong wrong wrong wrong. That we are sorrowful and not joyful upon the death of a loved one – even if they told us to rejoice, we know that sorrow is an appropriate reaction.
I realize that is way too short and leaves many other questions unanswered. Hope that communicated something of my idea, though.

[Fist and Faith]

Put it this way, what does the life of Flavius Minimus, a Roman slave of the 2nd century, mean to you? It has to be clear that you have to say "Pretty much nothing" - and in the same way, a couple of millenia from now someone could be asked, "What does the life of Malik mean to you?" and it would elicit the same answer. You'd already be dead and your life would cease to mean anything.

A life's meaning does not have to be remembered eternally for it to be legitimate/real/"true". How you define "life's meaning" is not the only way to define it. Nor is it the objectively correct way. Some of us feel differently about things like meaning and a personal identity that is eternal. But the fact that we do not feel and believe as you do does not make us wrong. Our definitions are as valid as yours.

[rusmeister]

Put it this way, what does the life of Flavius Minimus, a Roman slave of the 2nd century, mean to you? It has to be clear that you have to say "Pretty much nothing" - and in the same way, a couple of millenia from now someone could be asked, "What does the life of Malik mean to you?" and it would elicit the same answer. You'd already be dead and your life would cease to mean anything.

A life's meaning does not have to be remembered eternally for it to be legitimate/real/"true". How you define "life's meaning" is not the only way to define it. Nor is it the objectively correct way. Some of us feel differently about things like meaning and a personal identity that is eternal.

Interesting that you should use that word, "eternal". To whom is personal identity eternal?

But the fact that we do not feel and believe as you do does not make us wrong. Our definitions are as valid as yours.

Only if they are correct (express the truth), F+F, only if they are right.
(If we are claiming to be able to form any definition that suits us, then our ability to communicate is greatly hampered.)

We're back to the question, "Who's right?"

[Fist and Faith]

Interesting that you should use that word, "eternal". To whom is personal identity eternal?

I don't have reason to believe it is eternal to anyone. But you believe a personal identity must at least be remembered eternally for its meaning to be "true." Therefore, a life's meaning that is not remembered eternally is "false." And I do not recognize your authority in defining meaning that way.

But the fact that we do not feel and believe as you do does not make us wrong. Our definitions are as valid as yours.

Only if they are correct (express the truth), F+F, only if they are right.
(If we are claiming to be able to form any definition that suits us, then our ability to communicate is greatly hampered.)

We're back to the question, "Who's right?"

In one sense, you're right. There is likely an actual, correct answer. Does God exist, or not? Does personal identity go on after death, or not? Are our lives remembered eternally, or not? I suppose there are answers to these questions. But, obviously, they are not answerable in any way but to each individual. If they were, we wouldn't be having this debate now, for the billionth time in history. We'd have found the objectively accurate answer if it was findable. (Unless something or other is discovered in the future. But since we don't have access to that future discovery, if it ever comes to exist, we're stuck with what we have.) In light of the impossibility of knowing which of us is correct, we each get to hold to the definition we choose. I don't care if my life's meaning is remembered after I'm dead. It has meaning to me, now. That meaning is legitimate. That definition of meaning is as legitimate as yours.

However, in another sense, even if your beliefs are correct, my attitude that my life's meaning would not be invalidated if it was not remembered even a second after my death is still true. This lifetime - indeed, this moment - counts, in and of itself, without any need for anything beyond it.

As I've said several times in the past, there are any number of gods who, if I learned they did exist, and were the Truth of existence, I would not follow. I wouldn't follow a God who demanded that I do things I find morally wrong. "Kill these children, or suffer eternal torment." Well, I'll take my chances with eternal torment. Probably not much worse than whatever alternative that God has in mind. But regardless, I'm not killing those children. Belief in the existence of any particular God doesn't automatically mean I'll be a follower, right?

So I would still be free to argue that a life's meaning need not be remembered eternally for it to be "true," or legitimate, or whatever. I would still be able to feel as I do about what is arguably the less important concept of whether or not a life's meaning is true if it is not remembered after the life has ended. I would still be able to feel as I do about the importance of the moment.

[Fist and Faith]

Ya know... I'm aware that we're viewing this from drasitically different angles. In some ways, we're having different discussions. Let me try to explain it this way. Sort of a start-over.

-My car is blue. In 1,000,000 years, my car will have been blue.
-My life has meaning. In 1,000,000 years, my life will have had meaning.
-The fact that my life's meaning will be of no more importance to the universe in 1,000,000 years than my car's color is of no significance. My life's meaning does not need to be eternal for it to be true.

[Zarathustra]

Rus, so do you admit that anything which lacks an immortal soul has no meaning? I notice you didn't address this point. Yet, you must believe it, if you think death and finitude robs people of meaning.

Therefore, given this conclusion we must make in order to accept your view, everything in the vast realm of creation--except us--must be meaningless. Why would God create such a plethora of pointlessness?

Following this line of reasoning, our views are actually pretty similar. We both think that the universe in general has no objective meaning. We both make an exception for humans. I exclude humans from the general meaninglessness of the universe in virtue of their created, subjective meaning. You exclude humans from the general meaninglessness surrounding them by supposing they have an eternal soul which sets them apart from the dying world around them.

However, your view is contradictory, because you must simultaneously admit the meaninglessness of the universe (except us), while maintaining an over-arching objective meaning. Why doesn't this objective meaning save the rest of the universe from being pointless, too? And if this "surrounding" objective meaning (the equivalent of water, in your desert analogy) gives finite, soulless objects meaning, then why wouldn't this apply to humans, too? If that were true, then we wouldn't have to have immortal souls in order for our lives to be meaningful. Which undermines your claim that eternity is necessary for meaning. Which is why I say your view is contradictory.

The only way to escape this contradiction is to admit that the rest of the universe is meaningless, since it doesn't have a soul and it's not eternal. But then it becomes very strange to say that meaning is objective, if it leaves out most of reality.

[lurch]

Careful,,here comes the next step..with a ever expanding understanding, grasping,, of this God Love...a Time may evolve to ,when Us, holders of Intelligence, rather than fear the Chaos,,try to make order out of Chaos, We actually come to Love Chaos, take it for what it IS and Love It. Such a quantum expansion of our Intelligence..could be the eternal meaning of ourselves. If there is a ' destiny"..fear cannot be part of it.

Thats why I don't dig the Batman comics and movies. Ya know what I mean?

Well, no. But that's okay because I get what you're saying in the preceding paragraph --

Try this Ali...The Joker is Chaos..that Human Existance is a Universe Joke..that " we" are less than a ants fart in a hurricane,, when put on the scale of the Universe we exist in,,hence "meaning" is a big joke.. The Joker. Batman, the Dark Knight,, is to bring Order to the chaos..the best I have ever said of the whole Batman deal was..He has no sense of humor.

Yet..a very strange phenomena with the latest " Dark Knight " movie,,people are talking as if Ledger's " Joker" was the best ever..so.. I'm wondering,, if the idea of Loving Chaos,, hasn't already begun..??

[lurch]

Try This....All of The Universe has meaning. " We" are the Universe understanding Itself. As The Universe,,our "meaning" is to Understand,,with our Intelligence.

Now,, that is "our" destiny.."Our" destiny and an Individuals destiny are only interlocked in the degree,, by whatever small amount or way.. it contributes to The Understanding.