|
It seems obvious to me that the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything (cf. The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy) deals about their mean, their use, their purpose, their raison d'être. The ultimate question is the question of why, why to everything. So obvious a deduction that providing it with arguments is beyond me. Therefore I let the part of argumenting on the point of view that this is indeed the ultimate question to others, if even necessary. Why oh why. The question that torments every self-respecting philosopher lacking a plausible answer (and even then). The following text consists such a plausible answer. Every unit of whatever (of any substance or of any other kind of entity) in The All -the synergetic sum of all things- is connected with every other unit across all true dimensions of time and of space1. This because any and every unit is connected with a group of other units and this group is connected with other groups and other units and so on, thereby connecting all units and groups of units2 through time and space. By 'connecting' I mean that these objects (units and entities) have contact with each other by laying next to each other or have a more distant type of influence on one another. Furthermore, the influence an entity has on other entities and/or groups of entities defines the meaning, the use, the purpose of that entity (and in part of those other entities and/or groups of entities). Moreover, if there is no perceived connection between two any given entities, this merely means that the processor of said perception lacks relevant informative input and/or objective processing power. Imagine for instance the connection between a brick -as a part of a sidewalk- and a person walking over that brick. On that moment in their time, one of the many uses etc. of said brick is to provide something -itself- for said person to walk over, ergo to aid the person in exercising its locomotion. Said person finds her/his use among other things in giving the brick a being to get walked over by. In this event brick and person give each other -and thereby also their selves- a use, a raison d'être, an answer to the question of why on the existence of their entity on that moment in their time. Both brick and person can be seen as a synergetic sum of smaller particles, giving those particles amongst others the meaning and use of forming said brick or person, or perceived as part of a larger entity3. Both can also be perceived in their connection with the entities they're positioned next to, the person is for instance connected with the air molecules (s)he bumps into and/or intracorporates (inhales) and thereby influences them. (S)he swaps meaning with the air molecules and many other entities. An entity can be perceived in its connection with any and all other entities over any and all dimensions of time4. This means that an entity also finds its meaning in the connections it has had, has or ever will have (and possible other reality-based dimensions of time, such as perhaps 'could have had').The person for instance is also connected by meaning swapping with the people and inanimate objects (s)he's on her/his way to. Said connection is both one over time as one over space (because of the movement towards the mentioned people). The meaning swapping can thus be seen in connections between entities through and across any and all reality-based dimensions of time and/or of space. To add to the cake, his meaning swapping does not only take place with/between (in)animate entities: it also happen between concepts and animate entities. A 'class' for instance consists of a 'professor' and a number of 'students'. The people involved give the concepts involved meaning by performing the functions they entail, by which they also give conceptual meaning to the inanimate entities that are part of these functions5. To summarize the theory as elaborated thusfar: Every entity consisting of whatever (not only of matter, but of any of all things) finds its meaning in the connections it has with other entities through all true dimensions of space and time and gives said other entities meaning by the same connection(s). Said connection is defined by any and every passive and/or active influence said entity has on an other. (An entity possibly consisting a group of smaller entities etc.) This meaning swapping of all parts of The All implies that The All (the sum of all entities, 'sum' not being an addition yet a conceptual gathering in their natural state) as a whole supplies its own meaning, is its own why. An other -equally plausible- theory states that 'meaning' is a devoid concept. This however does not contradict the ability of some entities -in concreto the enitities cognitively and/or behaviorally applying said concept- to grant themselves the illusion of meaning by asigning an alledged meaning to any and every perceived or/and assumed entity themselves. Such a perceived (and thus experienced) meaning can have less, as much or more meaning to the enitity asigning it as/than any true (in this theory hypothetical) meaning would have. Thirdly there are the numerous personal (often shared) religious believes and other faiths that don't like to be called 'religious' giving meaning to existence. These can all be seen as an addition or alternative6 to the firstly mentioned theory or as an application of the second. Notes: 1 I do not claim a certain number of those truly existing dimensions of time and space, other they're likely not below zero. 2 From this point on I shall call 'a group of units' that have a proclaimed functional -and likely a spatial- bond 'an entity'. An entity thereby consists of one or several units. 3 The brick is for instance a part of the sidewalk and the person a part of the people walking over the sidewalk and of the group of people (s)he's heading to -for meaning swapping-, using amongst others the sidewalk as a mean to get there. 4 So not only with entities it's in direct special contact with. 5 A classroom is a room because of its features (groups of inanimate units that give it meaning indirectly); but only because humans call it as such, thereby implying a certain use and meaning -to them- for it. And it's a classroom because of the functions performed 'in it' at that time by a group of animate and inanimate entities swapping meaning with each other. 6 An alternative to it if the source of the belief does not believe in the first theory. ADDITIONAL SIDETRACKS FOR WHO FANCIES THEM |