Is meaning an attribute of changing the world or does it change how we see or interpret the world? When we encounter evil or disease, is meaning more a question of actively working to change those conditions or is it seeing evil, for example, in a larger or new context? Huston Smith offers the example of a child losing an ice cream cone. For the child, it is a great tragedy. But for an adult, it is trivial. The tragedy for the child is transformed by the larger perspective of the adult. For the scientist and the pragmatist, meaning is the ability to change things for the better, and they therefore tend to ask "How?" rather than "Why?" In contrast, myth and philosophy focus on apprehending meaning in situations that are comparatively not susceptible to change. They neither ask for a causal explanation nor anticipate a different future. What they seek is an interpretation of what something means and a perspective or context to which it can be related. Meaning is once again discovered, not made.
A misfortune becomes meaningful when it is interpreted as retribution, a test of faith, or simply bad luck. Above all, the biblical Job wants an explanation. A familiar Zen Buddhist saying highlights how changing one's perspective— paradoxically— changes both everything and nothing: before enlightenment, we chop wood, carry water; after enlightenment, we chop wood, carry water (reality stays the same, perception of reality changes).
No comments:
Post a Comment