Darkness: Perpetually Dissatisfied

(Note: there are about 30 posts absent from this miror blog site, these posts can be found here.)

I have been talking about how motivation as a matter of value and worth, how desire and passion as a matter of 'individual will', are indicative of our common and individual humanity at some essential and meaningful level so that I may ultimately shed some light on (my) interior darkness and (my lack of) heroism.

Throughout most of my life I have found very little to be of 'lasting value and worth', consequently I've always been very uninterested and unmotivated compared to other people. Even now, I don't watch television or film (or movies), I don't 'entertain', drink or smoke, have a hobby, garden, collect anything, or even have any 'friends' most people might consider worthy of the name. In college, my professors believed I was good at understanding the necessary shadings of difference that make a good student when I applied myself. But that was the problem, so very little struck me as of lasting significance, value or worth that I spent most of my time shunning education and even most forms of 'fun' in favor of searching for something 'better' and more fulfilling. If I managed decent grades on strength of good memory and sheer cleverness, I was never a very good student, and today, though I am not 'searching' as diligently as I once was or even for the same sorts of things, in some ways my 'persistent perpetual dissatisfaction' now finds even less to be of lasting significance or importance than ever before.

And such a maximizing 'search' has its price; as my wife often remarks, I don’t seem to enjoy life very much and worse, my abiding lack of interest in nearly everything has been often (mis)perceived as an evaluative and reductive dismissal, earning me something of a reputation for being arrogant. And to some extent, I think both assessments are correct. I've said before I think of myself as a differentialist, seeing difference and similarity everywhere, but I suspect it's precisely such constant analysis that leaves me with a somewhat dark attitude about living and enjoying the activities of life. By taking and enjoying so little of life at face value, I find much of life little of value.

~

In my defense, I do point out that I do enjoy reading and writing, that a good bit of my reading and writing is quite life affirming – but of course some of it is really a continuation of my 'negative differentialist search'. Differentiation inevitably has its shortcomings, but in the course of separating life affirming analysis from the more nihilistic that I discovered how such negativity is detrimental – even in a life affirming relationship.

I also enjoy my 'occupation' and truly feel being my wife's partner, homemaker and stay at home father is my 'avocation', my 'calling in life', so unsurprisingly there are a great many things about 'doing what I'm doing' that make me deeply happy and satisfied (whether I am good at them or not). But I've been trying (as possibly many uxorious men do) to use the 'powerotic' passion I have for my wife to get me motivated to do things I wouldn't otherwise have the motivation to do, but the 'bait and switch' tactic of trying to get my wife to demand that I do things I don't want to do (ostensibly so she'll be happy) violates some pretty basic realities of an honest, intimate love symbol negotiation.

And this is what I meant about true heroism: I may be happy now merely to be on the path I'm on and 'doing what I'm doing', but in order to have the most happiness I can have in life, I'm eventually going to need to do something about this darkness. But my darkness, my shadow self, can only ever be faced down and conquered by me. My wife will help me of course because she loves me, but she can't, powerotically or otherwise, do it for me. If I'm ever going to manage my own idea, hope and standard of 'standing tall', one less selfish, lazy, uncaring, unsympathetic, unmotivated and nihilistic, then I've got to be brave and be my own hero.

The Meaning of Meaning - Part 1

Assessment: When I first saw a possible connection between the numinous relationship experience and the human experience of meaning itself, I quite thought I mightn't have much more to say about (female led) relationships at all any more. I was (happily) wrong; see especially here, here, here, here and here. In my last segment about the nature of the human experience of meaning I think I either burned myself out or finally managed a functionally accurate (enough) theoretical framework with adequate explanatory power (for a while anyway). However, although in this analysis of the 'biological meaning matrix' I've hinted at how to do this, I haven't yet adequately connected the human interior experience of meaning (and passion) to the numinous (female led) relationship experience.

Theory: The experience of numinousity is similar to 'flow' and 'play' in that it results from action or passion (nearly) completely 'filling up' the 'space' within a given (no matter how they are 'derived' or 'created') set of rules, borders or limitations.

Yet the experience of numinousity is unlike 'flow' and 'play' in that it's meaning has an aspect of 'revelation' or 'epiphany', akin to a 'short circuit' of consciousness, that (I think possibly) results from a large scale 'fitted-ness', like (a large number of) puzzle pieces (all at once), of symbol/experience with one's interior mental framework.

The numinous intimate (female led) relationship experience is thus particularly interesting because the dynamic (I think) is one's partner becomes (to a large degree) the set of rules, borders or limitations (through empathy and sublimation) that one (nearly) 'fills up'. The result I think of as a 'relationship synapsis': the perceived intimate 'lining up' of two people's interior spaces and an intimate sense of 'fitted-ness' that also has qualities of 'playful flow'.

This is an emotional 'rim experience' on the mental space spectrum but since it happens (is at least perceived as happening) on both one's emotional interior and interactively on one's exterior, this lands on arc C or D (depending on how compact or differentiated one's mental framework is) and arc A.

And, to answer another question I had, I do think meaning is both an emergent property of mental frameworks and used as if functionally accurate for the objectively 'real'; thus meaning is (or at least can be) simultaneously concurrent to experience and retrospective.

Need

The word 'need' must be the one of the greatest sources of confusion to accurate and adequate relationship communication simply because most people only ever infer (implicitly, contextually) what the goal a thing is needful for, or what might happen if what is needed doesn't happen. Try inserting the phrase "in order to _____" or the phrase "or _____ will happen" - or better yet, insert both. For a frustrating but educating bit of perspective, instead of "I need _____" try using this formula every time:

"In order to _____, I need _____ or _____ will happen."

When it comes to love, our interior spaces and our emotions in general, you'll find not only you and your partner but most people only have the vaguest ideas of what to put in those first and last blanks, yet they are the blanks that make what one 'needs' meaningful.

Being Better from the Inside

In Plato's Symposium, Phaedrus suggests love is great because it makes you want to be a better person; his idea doesn't fare well philosophically. Even today, common wisdom has it that you can't make your life or your self better for anyone else's sake besides your own self's sake; you have to (consistently) want to be better at whatever it is before any lasting permanent change will take hold. I think I agree with this and today I think I noticed the difference between her sake and self sake.

On one hand, I think it can sometimes be difficult to sort out whose wants are who's in a relationship, often enough they overlap. Many times the betterment and standard I want for myself but have a hard time implementing I do eventually accomplish because I know it is also her standard too and the betterment she wants for me as well.

Of course on the other hand, there are those occasions when I am trying to accomplish something almost entirely for her sake; I might think this something is a good idea of itself or fine for other people, it's just not something I would choose for myself. And unsurprisingly these are the occasions I suffer from a serious lack of motivation; I'll procrastinate, and rush the process at the last minute, quite naturally doing a qualitatively shoddy job of it. And of course this inevitably comes back to haunt me (see love symbol negotiation).

However, today I felt and noticed a difference; I started a project for her earlier than the utmost procrastination might have allowed me and I did a decent job of it. I think the difference was I that wasn't doing it solely for her sake. Oh, I was using her qualitative standards for the project (mostly), but my motivation was that I really wanted to be better at being a house husband; her house husband of course, but more as a matter of incident. This is a job I really like and I just really wanted to be better it.

The 'job' description happens to include some qualitative standards set by my beloved wife, and indeed, I rather still think most of the point behind my house husband 'job' (role expectations) is to help her to her happiness (falls under the rubric of life lesson two, see also love's interior meaning for importance of motivation for life lesson two). But within this new (female led) motivation (on my interior) in wanting to be a better partner for her (better 'fit' like glove) is a practical daily life application that I didn't have, or even see, before. (See here for female led motivation she understands.)

When do my best to help her to happiness, I realized it was perfectly all right if she weren't happy in the final outcome - because while she sets many of the standards and the outcome of her happiness is the goal of the process, helping her as much as I am able to help is my goal, and if I only do this, I can be happy with me.

Female Led Motivation She Understands

Apropos of an empathetic (female led) progression, when it comes to life lesson two and 'doing what she wants / what she tells me', I am reminded that uxorious men are often compared to children in the female led 'obedience' dynamic (see my story 'Glint' for example). Yet one thing my wife does not want (along with having "an employee for a partner"), nor would find fulfilling, is to have the (added) responsibility (in life) of a full grown child for a relationship partner.

While I have gone on about my experiential compaction of erotic truth with numinous experience with fate and destiny (cf. life lesson), the way in which my wife best (symbolically) understands my desire and motivation to do what she wants, asks and tells me to do, is that I want her to not feel any extra weight of duty and obligation, from me or anywhere. I just want her to be happy - and to this end I am willing, have already decided, to do what she wants – so that she can be happy. This motivation says love to her; this motivation is a love symbol she can understand.

Life Lesson Three: Relationship Peace and Harmony

The love symbol negotiation in a (female led) relationship is so important; the course of learning life lesson three, balancing the preeminence of my (reflective, mental) interior space and the numinous (uxorious) relationship experience, is an emotional process where (emotional) toes can get stepped on. I am reminded of a quote about Middle East peace, that there are no new ideas about the process, just new combinations and timing, because being at peace, at heart and center, is ultimately about dealing with emotions, your own first and foremost, but also integratedly and dynamically with the emotions of another person.

The (Female Led) Garden Hose

Like a garden hose (flr dynamic) with a nozzle (woman's control) under water pressure (man's passion), it is true there is tension - the force of water (man's passion) pushes against, and is constrained by, the hose (e.g. the rules she makes). Yet there is also amazing harmony, at the nozzle point, where one might think all the 'really cool action' happens, but just as there can be variations in the woman's control (nozzle), so too can there be variations in the man's passion (water pressure). And while clearly the tightest metaphoric nozzle control and the highest metaphoric water pressure have some desirable experiences, I think other possible combinations can meaningfully illustrate more accurately some real life relationship interactions (e.g. when the hose 'springs a leak' ).

I personally think I experience this harmony, this 'playful flow', as something spiritual, something numinous and powerful. I have to resort to ideas of divinity, of fate and destiny, to the idea of soul mates and souls mating, to adequately express it.

Meaning Part 1: Play, Flow, Focus and Awareness

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players… ~Shakespeare

Not that you won or lost – but how you played the Game. ~Grantland Rice

Life's a game. ~Common saying

I've already discussed how no one likes to feel as if they are playing a role in a relationship, but if life's a game in which we play for the high stakes of meaning and significance, then we're all playing a kind of 'role' already. It might then be more accurate to say we just don't like conscious awareness of playing a role in a relationship, because taking two roles on at once easily results in tension, stress, anxiety, conflicts of interest and other assorted dissonance. And if our 'primary role' is about life meaning and purpose, while the 'relationship role' is about relationship meaning and purpose, surely our primary role will have precedence as a matter of course, but the harmony of these two creates a happiness unparalleled in the game of life.

As a metaphor, as a symbol for incorporated conscious experience, the idea of life being a game reminds me of the ancient Greek concept of happiness as eudaimonia, 'living well' or 'being equal to the task', of Friedrich Schiller's idea of 'play' and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's concept of 'flow', but with the added variables of meaning, focus and awareness of experience.

'Flow', that moment of 'optimal experience', is probably most recognizable as a moment of complete focus on doing something; athletes experience it in sports, but so do chess players, artists, martial artists and musicians. Flow is being wholly 'in the moment', 'being on the ball', 'in the zone', 'in the groove', and 'keeping your head in the game'. It's the moment when the task is so complex, takes so much skill and is so challenging, that not only can the relative importance of 'winning' or 'losing' be forgotten, because it is irrelevant towards getting the task done, but also the awareness of the task being 'just a game' can be forgotten.

In a very real sense 'flow' is the experiential awareness equivalent of the 'suspension of disbelief' in storytelling. And raising the curtain of awareness on our interior focus can be ruinous for the task, because the task is so demanding even the least bit of focus it takes to say "I'm doing, I'm doing it!" distracts us, and suddenly we are not doing it.

Yet as readers, athletes, artists, and as humans frankly, we seek out this mode of consciousness intentionally because we know it's the one that can get done what 'needs' to get done within the 'given rules' of the task. And this is what reminds me of Schiller's concept of play, a bridge between the 'formal drive' and the 'sensual drive', between human need for limitations, definitions, rules, forms and regulations on one hand, and on the other hand the humanity's boundless creative energy, imagination, spirit and soul. Children at play understand the need for rules, but they also will easily ignore the rules when they get in the way of their creativity, their imagination, and the 'flow' experience of 'fun'. However if 'play' is a 'perfect balance' of form and spirit that results in the intensely focused, time and awareness losing, happy and 'playful' 'flow' of existence, it is extremely difficult to stay in this moment very long.

The ancient Greeks (and some eastern philosophies), however, maintained more conscious awareness; the Greek eudaimonia; 'living well' was living all of their life (not just a task or game, a few moments, here and there) in a manner equal to their individual humanity. Eudaimonia is being 'all that you can be' at whatever it is that you are, with all the virtue you possess. Thus not just those few moments of flow are required to 'live well', but the athlete (for example) must both in and out of the game and at all times strives to be the best athlete he can be, with all the goodness of humanity the athlete possesses.

The positive effect of a good game off the field has been well noted, but in addition I think one needs a certain amount of mental reflective space to appreciate an experience's meaning and significance. For instance, in longer term games and projects we may have shorter bursts of flow but not continuously, yet in a long term task it is precisely these reflective moments when we assess how we are doing that we feel retrospectively 'equal to the task' and feel happiest. In a long term project perfect 'flow happiness' is harder to achieve because the task has more variables to consider and reflect upon in order to evaluate how well one is doing. Thus creating a balanced awareness of how well we are doing is important, an awareness that does not detract from our focus but achieves adequate 'mental reflective happiness'.

Judging the (Past) Content of My Character

I have a dream that my four little children will one day … be judged by … the content of their character. ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have been thinking about regrets (again and again) and how I am fortunate to have so few now, largely because I am happy (enough) and do not want to change my present; but I did recently realize my regrets fall into two, sometimes overlapping, categories.

First I sometimes wish to have known 'then' what I know now, although this is usually because I want to have cleared the obstacles to what I have now more quickly and thereby have more of what I have now and to have been happier longer. This is not seeking to change the course of my history in any respect, it is seeking to be wiser and thereby have had a 'straighter' path. However these regrets do not bother me very much anymore because I believe I needed to make the mistakes I have made in order to value what I value today, finding worth in the things I find worth in today, be the person I am today who is (finally) happy with who he is. It may be true that we do not need to make mistakes in order to learn every little thing, but when it comes to life lessons, I feel certain there are some inevitable mistakes, some things we must learn by experience.

So it is that the regret (it is just one thing for me) still bothering me is when I feel I did not have the (moral) courage to have done something differently than I did before. While this category can be viewed as simply not 'knowing' something, i.e. the (moral) strength, or not having experientially learned something, i.e. the (moral) courage, and so making a mistake, I think this regret is different because it is not so much a regret of 'something done as the result of a choice' as it is a regret of 'a choice as the result of personal character'. Feeling guilty about what once was the content of one's character I think is slightly different than feeling guilty about a choice one once made - although they can obviously overlap.

The Edge of Understanding

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. ~ 'Yoggi' Berra

Part of the problem with the life lesson intersection is that it 'exists' on the edge of my experiential understanding; I don’t only have the problem of 'experiential compaction', because I also have the problems of 'differential blinders' and 'symbol stagnation'.

The place where thinking about things meets up with doing things is where we (in our common human experience) begin evaluating our experiences by the meaning(s) we gain from them. This process of valuing and discovering worth by insight, intuition and (or) reflection becomes a sort of mental modus operandi, a 'mental framework' that frames our understanding of the world and ourselves.

In life lesson two I referenced how I experience 'differential blinders', when I'm 'missing the forest for the trees' (and possibly also not having my priorities straight) because I am so absorbed in differentiating some minor (meaningless) point. And sometime ago pointed out how I have, in my mental framework, a differentiation predilection; I tend to differentiate needlessly beyond what I meaningfully experience. I think of this 'extra differentiation', and the symbols it creates, as 'experientially meaningless' because it does not have any engendering experience attached to it by which I might value it (evaluate it) and see its worth; I usually end up with concepts, ideas and theorizations that are literally '(experientially) worthless symbols'. Thus it is I rather think I need to develop some sort of bright-line warning system by which I might recognize when I am essentially not only (meaninglessly) wasting my time and mental resources but doing so at the expense (being blinded) of other meaningful experiences.

In 'symbol stagnation' we tend to seek symbols more than the meaning they are supposed to represent, or when we mistake a symbol for its meaning (they aren't the same thing). Those symbols might be love symbols, dominance and submission symbols, religious symbols, national symbols, philosophy symbols, cultural symbols, even language symbols, as no one likes hearing even unintentionally 'hollow words', but eventually I think we find the symbol mysteriously conveys less and less meaning. And when this happens, like passion addicts, we will either try using more of the same misaligned symbol to get more meaning, or we'll try rehabilitating the symbol by reattaching it to the engendering experience (perhaps in the same way as before or perhaps differently).

And of course when at the compacted edge of understanding, finding that 'differential bright-line' and stepping into 'symbol rehab' are just that much more difficult.

Navigating the Life Lesson Intersection

I have three (main) reasons why the life lesson intersection is difficult for me to navigate.

1) I often want to help my wife with symbols from my own interior, but these are so often symbols she doesn’t understand, and sometimes so unhelpful they create obstacles for her instead.

2) I sometimes get so focused on the train of my interior thoughts (what I think, feel, believe and opine), so excited about what is happening between my ears, that I do not pay adequate attention to my beloved and what's happening to her and between us ("It's like I have no husband at all!"). on the other hand, this imbalance happens in the other direction as well when I get wonderfully attuned to my wife and what is happening between us, but feel as if I am missing the meaningful interior expression and the interior reflection I need to do in order learn the lessons I need to learn. This intersection requires not only attention to my interior, to my wife and to our relationship, but also to the balance and harmony of these.

3) The place where my interior pattern of meaning and our relationship meaning overlap is not well defined or differentiated (see here and here), and in the compaction of the experience I tend to get my symbols crossed:

-the emotions of love and romance,
-the tumult of sexuality,
-the meaning and significance of interacting with her,
-the spiritually numinous,
-the intellectual awareness of my experience,
All these things get compacted together in the experience, often in different combinations at different times, in this intersection.

Life Lessons

The very concept of a life lesson I think is based on a person's pattern of numinous experience and where they consistently find meaning and significance. I already have some things I consider life lessons, but in addition it recently occured to me there's a life lesson for me in learning to balance my interior space (i.e. my consistent interior valuation of interior mental space and philosophic pursuits over material and biologic progress) with helping her with her life lessons.

Life Lesson 1
I have worth,
I have value;
what I think
what I feel
what I believe
and my opinion
--even if no one knows them--
matter.

Life Lesson 2
I learn by loving,
I learn by doing,
and by doing all I can
to help her learn
her life lessons,
by doing what she wants
what she tells me,
I learn more of my life lessons.

Life Lesson 3
Balancing life lessons 1 and 2.

Cheating at Meaning III: Always Between

As far as meaning goes here on earth, we only have what we have, nothing more, which I don’t like because there's nothing more I can 'get' (i.e. 'get' as in 'to understand' but more fearfully 'to possess'), and nothing less, which implies a simple responsibility to sincerely try understanding what I may about my limited humanity.

Because every one lives here in limitation, between our human biology and our numinous experience, between our bodies and our minds we live between past and future, in the space between our experience and the symbols of our experience. We are neither the experience nor the symbol(s) of our experience, and no matter how much meaning I may obtain by it, I am neither my numinous relationship experience nor the symbols I use to describe it to myself.

At its most basic level a symbol is simply a tool for mental apprehension, and because symbols and symbolism are apprehended in a person's consciousness, a symbol can be anything. But symbols, helpful and functional as they are, are not who we are, are not as 'real' as we are.

This is why no matter what I do to mentally investigate my experience, if I am intellectually honest, I can never capture the experiential 'essence' of my experience in symbol(s), even in symbol representation to myself. Experience, as experience itself, is and will always be a bit of the 'beyond' we get to have while in between.

Cheating at Meaning II

On the other hand, part of what has always irritated me (until recently) about 'people' is their lack of desire to pierce the veil* as it were, to push past the ignorance imposed on our consciousness, by our engrossment in either holding pattern amusement or basic biology survival and reproduction. I have always craved (serious, deep) meaning from the time I was twelve.

Twelve: I remember I was at school, looking out the window, thinking about how many people there were in all those blank looking houses, how many houses there were all over the neighborhood, the county, the state, the world, how many different things those people were doing, and how very much the same they all were; quite naturally I wondered what it all meant, where was the meaning, and what meaning might I have when I grew up.

Story: Perhaps this is why we like stories and storytelling so much, they amuse us (i.e. waste time in holding patterns) and bind us together (i.e. better bonds to survive by). They not only convey meaning, but do it on a myriad of levels: cultural, sociological, moral, religious – birth, life, family, victory, defeat, shame, pride, death, there's just no end to the meanings we can wrap into, tap into, a good story (or even a poor one). Anything this useful to our biological meaning matrix would never be discarded by evolution (if evolution had a will with which to discard) or by any ruling divinity.

I fear if I had the opportunity to attain such deep down meaning I would skirt the very borders of right and wrong in the attempt. This 'flexibility' is why I wonder and worry about my motives in investigating the numinous relationship experience.

~~

* I think (I could be wrong) the phrase "pierce the veil" is a reference to the Jewish temple holy seat, the literal place where God was believed to reside – again, the numinous and meaning.

Perhaps the Origin Doesn't Make the Species

I stopped caring very much about human origins years ago but couldn't explain to people (who obviously did care) exactly why I didn't care anymore, but now I think I can explain. It seems to me many people are preoccupied with the meaning and significance of 'how' we got to have the human experiences we have, and the idea that the origin of humanity might somehow help explain the purpose of humanity is perfectly understandable. So whether it was evolution, or a divinity (or divinities), or aliens, or some other process or some combination of processes, 'what separates us from the (other) animals' is usually part of a body of evidence either supporting or detracting from one or another of these theories.

Yes, it makes sense; except I don't think I really associate my human origin with my human purpose so much. The fact is (right now) our human origin is not a knowable thing (with any degree of acceptable certainty [to me]) while the facts of my experience are knowable things, and I feel very confident in the interactive nature of my physical body with my consciousness.

So if our 'human' consciousness, or what ever it is that separates us from (other) animal species, is an emergent phenomena from the sheer complexity of biology, genetics and evolution (as the scientist in this video seems to suggest), then that's all well and good (I'll honestly be an automatic fan of anything that 'makes me human'), but now I have these meaningful numinous (spiritual, religious) experiences that seem far more significant than the purpose (or lack of purpose) my evolutionary origin can satisfy.

While evolutionary theory can explain 'how' we came to have (some) experiences of meaning we have, it can't meaningfully explain 'why' as in purpose (unless the answer is 'no reason' - which [with apologies to Existentialism] is not meaningful ) without resorting to some sort of scientism. Unfortunately scientistic, evolutionary-biologic explanations of my experiences simply do not reference enough important pieces of my puzzle interior to have satisfactory explanatory power over the human biological meaning matrix.

What I recently realized is that the most meaningful piece for my interior purpose (and motivation) isn't what separates 'humans' (or human experience) from anything else (period), but rather what has the most explanatory power over what I experience as a human, over what I already have on my (human) interior framework. And one thing I already have there are some powerful experiences of meaning and significance that have now become a part of the order of my (human) existence.

On the other hand I am not arguing for 'divinely given purpose' for humanity either, for if I owe my origin to a divinity (or divinities) who claim a purpose for me then I have some faith the divinity would want my experiences (including experiences of and through my biology) to reveal the good purpose(s) the divinity has for me. And while I have been religious in the past, I haven't quite arrived at a divinely inspired personal purpose for my (human) life yet.

Thus, despite all the posible causal permutations and variations of human origination, it seems to me my experience always has primacy over my origin - at least as far as meaning is concerned.

Gendered Frameworks

My wife and I recently had a 'disagreement' and we had the following imagined conversation afterward to explain our points of view.

She: This sweater is itchy.
Me: You can take it off if you want but I don't think it's the sweater because the material is designed to not be itchy.
She: It's not very helpful when you just disagree with me.
Me: But it is helpful to contribute salient and relevant facts.
She: Except that people generally don't want help solving things; they can solve things on their own and if they need help with that they usually ask specifically for some kind of 'solving help'. What they really want normally is supportive help.
Me: Supportive help? With a sweater? I can understand Supportive help with the death of a loved one, but with an itchy sweater?
She: Yes, even with little things like with itchy sweaters.
Me: But that's the most obnoxious and crazy thing I've ever heard, look if--
She: (Looks meaningfully at me.)
Me: Yes, Dear.

For the record I do not believe men and women are from different planets, or even simply communicate as if they are from different planets. I might accept men and women may occasionally demonstrate sociologically statistically significant (if only slightly so) different motivations that could be accounted for by evolutionary theory - but who cares, because we are ninety-nine percent more alike in our common humanity than we are different (i.e. neither sex or gender are aliens to the other, see also the human biological meaning matrix for some real basic elemental and meaningful gender sameness).

Thus, I rather see the difference here as one of frameworks, one framework being more compact (hers) where often differences (facts) are seen but ignored because they not experientially meaningful (see worth), the other framework being more differentiated (mine) where often not very meaningful non-experienced differences are observed, catalogued and filed away for future problem solving reference. And naturally people can only listen to the symbols they understand, so she wouldn't 'hear' the 'help' I was giving her, and I wouldn't 'hear' her request for 'support'. (Actually seeing frameworks in action like this, or inaction as the case may be, is so fascinating.)

I also think this is why educating people, of any gender (race, age, creed, etc.), against their will is never very efficacious; people need a certain amount of experiential meaning to 'relate', and that certain amount will vary person to person as their frameworks differ. Every framework has strengths and weaknesses, even blind spots, but this seems as if it is something all frameworks have in common.

Cheating at Meaning

I read something recently which made me wonder at my own motivations for investigating what I have named the numinous relationship experience. I do believe in my relationship with my wife I am experiencing something as meaningful and numinous, but it is a very valid question to ask if am I trying to force more 'divine experience' by my investigation, if I am attempting to gain more meaning by cheating, cheating on some experiential aspect that is necessary and required for obtaining worth (e.g. spiritual knowledge, spiritual wisdom) while living here on earth.

If investigating the numinous relationship experience in order to qualitatively improve the relationship, improve its innate meaning and significance, is all well and good, I thus start looking for the line in the sand. I wonder at what point is the investigation is trying to 'beat' the meaning game, trying to cheat the biological meaning matrix (for instance taking drugs to 'enhance' the spiritual journey is not my thing), trying to take a shortcut across the material genetic 'code', across sociological terms and rules, even across the nature of human reality, to somehow - win 'illicit' meaning.

The concept of rising above past and beyond the human competition and strivance for meaning in life bespeaks an attempt to skip out on or skip over the bounds and limitations of my corporeal existence - I am wary of the idea of becoming a 'little enlightened god' (through my numinous relationship experience or otherwise) while here on earth.

I do not think I am attempting to force a divine experience; I think I am naming what I experience, i.e. that there is something 'divine' about this relationship experience. I do not claim I am enlightened by the experience; I don't even think I am (re)naming or (re)labeling the experience as 'divine' merely in order to feel more spiritually enlightened, that would be 'empty' meaning.

When I previously asked (also here) how many numinous nodes of human experience could there be, it wasn't because I am trying to catalogue their exact placement and nature in the hopes of revealing some secret hidden knowledge about the meaning of human existence (I honestly don't think there is any such secret hidden knowledge), i.e. cheating on living through the engendering experience aspect of the process of gaining meaning.

Yet I do wonder if I understand everything I can from what I have already experienced, so what I am trying to do is understand the nature of the process by which we experience meaning. Where meaning happens in our lives may indicate the condition under which it happens, the conditions then might more directly sought in order to receive (i.e. not force) as much meaning as would come an individual's way. I want to gain as much understanding as I can from what I do experience, and so I differentiate as much as I can by mentally interpreting and reflecting upon what I experience emotionally, volitionally and spiritually.

What is Gender Good For

So this article asks 'what are men good for', of course the author was asking it on the level of sociological gender differences, but I found myself last night asking 'what are women good for' on a personal level. Aside from my sexuality, I am not sure it matters to me whether a woman is a woman or a man. Surely the fact of a person's gender is part of the mental frame through which I interact with that person; it's part of the mental frame through which they interact with the world, just as it is part of mine.

I think I am uxorious because my wife is the person she is, and happens to be a woman; if she were a man, she'd either be my best friend or I'd need a different word than uxorious to describe myself and a different phrase to describe our relationship than 'female led'. (I am so not an apologist for female led relationships.)

So I sincerely wonder, on a personal level, after one's sexuality is discounted, is gender merely a part of my social reference frame, and then not even a very important part? What is gender good for? To what extent have we managed, will we ever manage, to surpass our gendered evolution? Does it matter?

Self Worth

Self acceptance, acceptance of one's self including all the less than perfect parts and the less than 'normal' parts, is not the same as self worth. I have already pointed out how a fact is different than a fact's worth, different than the personal valuation of a fact that is gained on one's interior through experience. One can accept another person or themselves as they are, not expect them to change, be different, be 'better', be more 'normal', than they are; but this is not the same thing as to value that person, to find worth in that person, or even to find certain worth in that person, or to value that person in a certain manner.

In a very real sense it is an obvious point, but today I found myself, actually telling myself in defense against another (who also felt I offended them), "I have worth, I have value; what I think, what I believe, what I feel, and my opinion, even if no one knows them, matter." And as I said these things to myself I realized I meant these words for myself and not for the other person, I meant to speak the truth and encourage myself, not to convince any other person.

I derive so much meaning from adequately representing and symbolizing my experience, to my self and when communicating with another, I think it is sometimes difficult for me when it seems no one can or will listen, seems no one around who can or will understand. It is at these times I find myself reminding myself I have worth, worth to myself, though no one else may see it, I, from my interior experience, still know.

System Superiority and the 'Real-ness' of Numinous Experience

It occurs to me: so often people scientistically figure we experience what we experience because of our evolutionary genetic 'program code', but what if they have it just reversed? Perhaps the purpose of our having the evolutionary genetic 'program code' that we have is so that that we experience the meaning and significance that we experience.

And this makes me think about why these East meets West grand theories are so problematic: while one side investigates the 'code' system (and infrastructure) and so sees its supremacy over experience, the other investigates the 'meaning' system and so sees its supremacy over the 'code'; one is scientism, the other ideology, but both are equally dogma in their absolutist claims. Perhaps more truthfully they may only be effectively superior to the other in some areas and ultimately neither is superior over the other in the larger picture. Perhaps together they make a single integrated interface with feedback loops on both scientific and experiential scales (both material and spiritual scales, both micro and macro scales, both individual and human-wide scales, both compact cosmological and diverse differentiated scales and 'both' etc. ad nuaseam).

And this naturally makes me wonder how such a system might come about, and it's a question I fear because I cannot fathom how there could be a single resolved 'originating both' (with real explanatory power on 'both' sides) as with the 'systematic both' cases above.

Andreas Kluth says here: "Sure, it might be helpful to see meaning (= believe in God), but that does not mean that there actually is meaning (=God). Sartre might be right after all." Yet I rather think Sarte had a belief, because he believed there no God, and this belief and its consequences had meaning for Sarte. Thus I agree with 'Phillip S Phogg' here when he says it may not matter whether we believe there is or isn't a 'God', what matters is that we believe something and thereby we have meaning. (Although unlike Phogg, I refrain from making any blanket [objective] statements about ' all so-called objective realities'.)

I somewhat agree with 'Solid Gold Creativity' who argues in the same place that "human beings are meaning-making machines". Although I'd use 'meaning-matrices' because machine connotes a certain scientism I'd avoid, and while 'making' underscores his thought that there is no innate meaning within the universe or cosmos, such a thought seems a dogmatic assuming presumption, as does that meaning is already there and that we simply 'find' it.

Similarly I believe I am an agnostic: while I believe humans can make no non-dogmatic statements about the absolute nature of the universe (or cosmos) or the (or any) divine, I yet derive meaning (and observe other humans deriving meaning) from the association of our numinous experiences with 'divine flavor'.

For me, meaning and the numinous experience are, and remain, my experiential bottom line, but I cannot resolve to place them in any hierarchy.