Meaning and the Human Condition
Created | Updated Feb 24, 2002
Meaning and the Human Condition
The mind of an infant is not entirely blank, for it has preferred directions of growth and the potential for various abilities. But in terms of learned or experienced knowledge it is barren. It contains virtually nothing of the external world.
The model an infant will construct needs one characteristic of fundamental importance; it has to be coherent. An incoherent model would have the fatal flaw of inconsistency; it would not allow the human being with which it was associated the ability to live successfully. Distortion and inaccuracy would lead to death.
But a merely physical model, one of the elements as it were, is far from sufficient; human beings are conscious, and thus social, and so experience non-physical realities such as the experience of having to live, the experience of death, the experience of having to make decisions, and the experience of needing to form relationships. All these require a coherent framework transcending one describing mere physical reality. Such a framework is required by every human being. It is impossible to live without one.
Such models are constructed both from external cues, such as parents and society, and from internal cues such as creativity and emotional wholeness. And the mental models of human beings have to be coherent over a wide range of experience. As humanity evolved, this introduced a phenomenon which was to prove a foundation of the human condition. Meaning.
Human meaning is coherence. Meaning is the holistic construction of a coherent inner world. It is the depth lying beneath the surface.
In the early days of humanity's evolution, four broad questions presented themselves for answering, questions arising from the experience of conscious life and from the fact that other human beings existed. These questions were: how and why did the universe and humanity come about; what is the purpose or the meaning of life; what happens after death; and by what morals should human beings live their lives. Answers to these questions were essential, for without them life would be incoherent; the questions were rooted in the very heart of human experience, relating to crucial experiences. So, through myth, through ritual, and through culture, all bound into religion, it came about that the questions were answered. Religion provided the necessary framework for human beings to live. Enshrined in a culture, transmissible from one human being to another, religion solved the problem through the only medium available. Society.
All religions address themselves to the questions, though in different ways and with different emphasis: all religions explain the origin of the universe and the origin of humanity; what the purpose of life is; what happens after death; and all promulgate a moral code. Religions are abstracts of the mores of an age, mores which depend, not on the condition of humanity, but on the level of cultural and moral evolution of humanity at that time. In this manner, every human being born is able to build a coherent model, explaining, through religion, these four main areas of concern, and many others. The stability of religion, rooted in the stability of society, allows consistency and security.
Later, society would change from one suffused with religion to one in which there was a secular aspect. This aspect was politics, the operation of government, which is a framework though it does not deal with many of the fundamental questions of life, concerning itself with the morals of day to day living (ie. how secular life should be acted out). As for atheism, that too is a religion, since it allows science to answer the questions above.
But traditional religion has a flaw. Since it is constructed wholly from the thought and feelings of human beings, often in a primitive state, it stands apart from reality. Religion is unreasonable, founded in faith alone and not in the testing and experience of reality. Thus, when, as was inevitable, a new structure came about that did test reality, religion could not compete and it died away - though not at speed since so many fundamental human concerns were rooted in it. This new structure was science.
Initially it was felt that science was compatible with religion. Early scientists saw their examination of the real world and the remarkable discoveries they made as evidence of religious truth. But later such thought was untenable, since so many absurd religious beliefs were superceded by science. Yet though science was able to answer many questions, it did not answer them all, for it had nothing to say on human morals or the meaning of life. Science is amoral.
Humour
Very few people, perhaps none, never experience laughter bubbling up within them from time to time. Laughter is contagious when people are in a group. It can be stopped only by extreme self-control. It is an integral part of life, much appreciated and sought after. Humour is sometimes even quoted as being the characteristic of humanity - so it is very significant.
Humour is an emotion, a communicative reaction to some evaluation of reality. It wells up from the unconscious, imparting its message to the self and to others.
It is recognised that humour is a reaction to three broad types of phenomena in reality; confusion during life, strangeness and the unknown, and pain. Yet these three things share a common feature at a still deeper level of explanation. They are all inexplicable to the human mind.
Since understanding is the foundation of the human mind, it is essential to have some mechanism for diverting, neutralising or changing these three aspects of reality. Without some profound method of expressing non-understanding to the self and to others, human beings would be unable to cope with the limitations of their own minds. Humour is a crucial adaptive quality, a way of finding union with others in the face of the inexplicable. And this is why it makes people happy, makes them feel joy. To experience non-understanding is distressing; it gnaws at the foundations of consciousness. So humour is a positive, joyous, affirmimg emotion, diametrically opposed to isolation and gloom, for it has the function of reversing the unbearable experience of non-understanding. This is why humour is so sought after.
Confusion during life is the experience of reality as it really is, independent of the human mind, a place where things go wrong, do not do what they are supposed to do, in short, where the unexpected and annoying happens. In reality, inanimate objects break and seem to lead perverse lives of their own, little mishaps happen, and the unexpected lurks in waiting. Experiencing these things, human beings find they need a way of reacting to them without thought; they need an emotional reaction more profound than could be provided by the intellect. Without humour, the experience of these aspects of reality would crack the foundation of their mental models, since these models could not cope with the sometimes chaotic real world.
Strangeness and the unknown too, since they are by definition not within the mental models of human beings, require an emotional reaction when they are encountered. The minds of human beings are ordered, coherent, containing reasonable models of reality; but when reality is bizarre, or not known, a dilemma appears. Such separation between reality and a mental model requires a reaction through emotion, because the experience cannot be ignored by the mind. So an unavoidable emotion, laughter, emerges. In this way people are able to cope with phenomena that, by their very nature, are not immediately understandable. Resolving the paradoxical, the incompatible, the odd, creates humour.
Physical pain too is inexplicable in the sense that, because it is so terrible, no human being can imagine where it comes from and why it happens. Pain requires a psychological response to complement the physical agony. This complement is the emotion of non-understanding, which articulates feelings to the self and to others.
Pain can be physical, but it can also be 'social pain' such as embarrassment, or having some hidden truth told to others. That is, humour is required to divert or sublimate the experience of painful non-understanding - the sensation of an abyss between what a person experiences as true about themselves and what had been revealed. The knowledge imparted by humour is one neutralising both the pain and the non-understanding.
Jokes are a method of expressing some hidden truth or feeling. The essence of most jokes is to imply something that cannot be directly said. The universal experience of limitations, of the imperfection of humanity and human understanding, ensures that laughter will be the response. And as everybody knows, to destroy a joke, it simply has to be explained rationally.
This sensation of non-understanding, which is rooted in mental models, also gives rise to the individuality of people's senses of humour. Since each person experiences their own model of reality, each one a unique creation, what they do and do not understand is rooted in the coherence and accuracy of these models, and also in their life's experience, leading to individual senses of humour. Humour is the most profoundly cognitive of the emotions.
All deep human problems are approached with humour. It saves humanity from psychological annihiliation by consolidating what is already modelled and by deflecting or neutralising the awful experience of the inexplicable. Humour is therefore crucial to psychological stability. Humour unites human beings, unifies them, and allows them to identify with one another. That universal experience of the human condition, to not-understand, is shared by people through humour.
It is possible too to laugh at yourself. People who can laugh at their own foibles and imperfections know this. In doing so they consolidate their models of themselves, and react to the experience of a truth. Laughing at yourself is a form of self-identification. The knowledge imparted by laughter is of the stability, coherence, and freedom of the self. Those who cannot laugh at themselves cannot because their selves are laboriously constructed in the face of inhumane circumstances - fragile selves - for which the experience of the truth, even by the soothing method of humour, is unbearable.
Finally, the nature of humour has a curious consequence in religious thought. The less primitive religions, such as those of patriarchal times, postulate a god who is omniscient. What I have said about humour above explains why such gods have no sense of humour. Because they are considered to know everything, they have no need of a reaction to the inexplicable. They are know-alls. Humour is unnecessary. Human beings understand the source of their own humour, at an unconscious level, and so the omniescent deities they created lack humour. And the dogma promulgated, since it represents absolute truth, since it claims to encompass all understanding, is also not funny...
The mind of an infant is not entirely blank, for it has preferred directions of growth and the potential for various abilities. But in terms of learned or experienced knowledge it is barren. It contains virtually nothing of the external world.
The model an infant will construct needs one characteristic of fundamental importance; it has to be coherent. An incoherent model would have the fatal flaw of inconsistency; it would not allow the human being with which it was associated the ability to live successfully. Distortion and inaccuracy would lead to death.
But a merely physical model, one of the elements as it were, is far from sufficient; human beings are conscious, and thus social, and so experience non-physical realities such as the experience of having to live, the experience of death, the experience of having to make decisions, and the experience of needing to form relationships. All these require a coherent framework transcending one describing mere physical reality. Such a framework is required by every human being. It is impossible to live without one.
Such models are constructed both from external cues, such as parents and society, and from internal cues such as creativity and emotional wholeness. And the mental models of human beings have to be coherent over a wide range of experience. As humanity evolved, this introduced a phenomenon which was to prove a foundation of the human condition. Meaning.
Human meaning is coherence. Meaning is the holistic construction of a coherent inner world. It is the depth lying beneath the surface.
In the early days of humanity's evolution, four broad questions presented themselves for answering, questions arising from the experience of conscious life and from the fact that other human beings existed. These questions were: how and why did the universe and humanity come about; what is the purpose or the meaning of life; what happens after death; and by what morals should human beings live their lives. Answers to these questions were essential, for without them life would be incoherent; the questions were rooted in the very heart of human experience, relating to crucial experiences. So, through myth, through ritual, and through culture, all bound into religion, it came about that the questions were answered. Religion provided the necessary framework for human beings to live. Enshrined in a culture, transmissible from one human being to another, religion solved the problem through the only medium available. Society.
All religions address themselves to the questions, though in different ways and with different emphasis: all religions explain the origin of the universe and the origin of humanity; what the purpose of life is; what happens after death; and all promulgate a moral code. Religions are abstracts of the mores of an age, mores which depend, not on the condition of humanity, but on the level of cultural and moral evolution of humanity at that time. In this manner, every human being born is able to build a coherent model, explaining, through religion, these four main areas of concern, and many others. The stability of religion, rooted in the stability of society, allows consistency and security.
Later, society would change from one suffused with religion to one in which there was a secular aspect. This aspect was politics, the operation of government, which is a framework though it does not deal with many of the fundamental questions of life, concerning itself with the morals of day to day living (ie. how secular life should be acted out). As for atheism, that too is a religion, since it allows science to answer the questions above.
But traditional religion has a flaw. Since it is constructed wholly from the thought and feelings of human beings, often in a primitive state, it stands apart from reality. Religion is unreasonable, founded in faith alone and not in the testing and experience of reality. Thus, when, as was inevitable, a new structure came about that did test reality, religion could not compete and it died away - though not at speed since so many fundamental human concerns were rooted in it. This new structure was science.
Initially it was felt that science was compatible with religion. Early scientists saw their examination of the real world and the remarkable discoveries they made as evidence of religious truth. But later such thought was untenable, since so many absurd religious beliefs were superceded by science. Yet though science was able to answer many questions, it did not answer them all, for it had nothing to say on human morals or the meaning of life. Science is amoral.
Humour
Very few people, perhaps none, never experience laughter bubbling up within them from time to time. Laughter is contagious when people are in a group. It can be stopped only by extreme self-control. It is an integral part of life, much appreciated and sought after. Humour is sometimes even quoted as being the characteristic of humanity - so it is very significant.
Humour is an emotion, a communicative reaction to some evaluation of reality. It wells up from the unconscious, imparting its message to the self and to others.
It is recognised that humour is a reaction to three broad types of phenomena in reality; confusion during life, strangeness and the unknown, and pain. Yet these three things share a common feature at a still deeper level of explanation. They are all inexplicable to the human mind.
Since understanding is the foundation of the human mind, it is essential to have some mechanism for diverting, neutralising or changing these three aspects of reality. Without some profound method of expressing non-understanding to the self and to others, human beings would be unable to cope with the limitations of their own minds. Humour is a crucial adaptive quality, a way of finding union with others in the face of the inexplicable. And this is why it makes people happy, makes them feel joy. To experience non-understanding is distressing; it gnaws at the foundations of consciousness. So humour is a positive, joyous, affirmimg emotion, diametrically opposed to isolation and gloom, for it has the function of reversing the unbearable experience of non-understanding. This is why humour is so sought after.
Confusion during life is the experience of reality as it really is, independent of the human mind, a place where things go wrong, do not do what they are supposed to do, in short, where the unexpected and annoying happens. In reality, inanimate objects break and seem to lead perverse lives of their own, little mishaps happen, and the unexpected lurks in waiting. Experiencing these things, human beings find they need a way of reacting to them without thought; they need an emotional reaction more profound than could be provided by the intellect. Without humour, the experience of these aspects of reality would crack the foundation of their mental models, since these models could not cope with the sometimes chaotic real world.
Strangeness and the unknown too, since they are by definition not within the mental models of human beings, require an emotional reaction when they are encountered. The minds of human beings are ordered, coherent, containing reasonable models of reality; but when reality is bizarre, or not known, a dilemma appears. Such separation between reality and a mental model requires a reaction through emotion, because the experience cannot be ignored by the mind. So an unavoidable emotion, laughter, emerges. In this way people are able to cope with phenomena that, by their very nature, are not immediately understandable. Resolving the paradoxical, the incompatible, the odd, creates humour.
Physical pain too is inexplicable in the sense that, because it is so terrible, no human being can imagine where it comes from and why it happens. Pain requires a psychological response to complement the physical agony. This complement is the emotion of non-understanding, which articulates feelings to the self and to others.
Pain can be physical, but it can also be 'social pain' such as embarrassment, or having some hidden truth told to others. That is, humour is required to divert or sublimate the experience of painful non-understanding - the sensation of an abyss between what a person experiences as true about themselves and what had been revealed. The knowledge imparted by humour is one neutralising both the pain and the non-understanding.
Jokes are a method of expressing some hidden truth or feeling. The essence of most jokes is to imply something that cannot be directly said. The universal experience of limitations, of the imperfection of humanity and human understanding, ensures that laughter will be the response. And as everybody knows, to destroy a joke, it simply has to be explained rationally.
This sensation of non-understanding, which is rooted in mental models, also gives rise to the individuality of people's senses of humour. Since each person experiences their own model of reality, each one a unique creation, what they do and do not understand is rooted in the coherence and accuracy of these models, and also in their life's experience, leading to individual senses of humour. Humour is the most profoundly cognitive of the emotions.
All deep human problems are approached with humour. It saves humanity from psychological annihiliation by consolidating what is already modelled and by deflecting or neutralising the awful experience of the inexplicable. Humour is therefore crucial to psychological stability. Humour unites human beings, unifies them, and allows them to identify with one another. That universal experience of the human condition, to not-understand, is shared by people through humour.
It is possible too to laugh at yourself. People who can laugh at their own foibles and imperfections know this. In doing so they consolidate their models of themselves, and react to the experience of a truth. Laughing at yourself is a form of self-identification. The knowledge imparted by laughter is of the stability, coherence, and freedom of the self. Those who cannot laugh at themselves cannot because their selves are laboriously constructed in the face of inhumane circumstances - fragile selves - for which the experience of the truth, even by the soothing method of humour, is unbearable.
Finally, the nature of humour has a curious consequence in religious thought. The less primitive religions, such as those of patriarchal times, postulate a god who is omniscient. What I have said about humour above explains why such gods have no sense of humour. Because they are considered to know everything, they have no need of a reaction to the inexplicable. They are know-alls. Humour is unnecessary. Human beings understand the source of their own humour, at an unconscious level, and so the omniescent deities they created lack humour. And the dogma promulgated, since it represents absolute truth, since it claims to encompass all understanding, is also not funny...
