no, what i am saying is the text was only about the pessimism/optimism side of the spectrum

and we are talking about something else now

Okay.

I think reading Max Stirner pushed me into the latter.

"'meaning is objectively null, we must construct our own" is what absurdism stands for

So have I just been using the wrong term?

and yeah, i can actually understand how stirner can make your pursuit for meaning centralized on your own consciousness

which is not wrong or anything at all

like anything in philosophy

different ideas, different views

I followed this view in good faith, building on philosophy and following its conclusions.

i totally get your view and sympathise

that's a side i've thought being on too

The interesting part about '...we must build our own', is that is essentially returns you to your starting point, only now you are conscious of the implications of meaning.

And so to constantly try to reinforce this cycle is kind of redundant. This opens up the possibility of God, but maybe not in the same authentic way, at least not in the materialist framework, which post-Hegelian thought still holds onto.

I mean, it is internally consistent, but in a way I now feel dominated by it.

Having walked through the gates of meaning, I am now free to assert a much more rigorous faith than I would have ever been previous able to, totally unchained by reason and materialist thought. Which is an interesting paradox.

by eliminating the other possible 'meanings'?

Yes, exactly.

now what i need to state here is, this is where I reach too, a god, maybe not in the same concept with yours, mine is mostly a pantheist/taoist belief with centralizing on every**thing**, this is what my logic and pure reason reaches with all the accumulated knowledge from thousands of pages of different dialects and schools of thought, but i just acknowledge this is just the same with other 'meanings' too, might just be as pointless and might not be the truth at all, because at the end of the day, i can never be truly sure of **anything** existing, including the existence of myself

A supreme meaning is Absolute and singular.

just to give you a better view of where I stand

Thanks, very interesting.

*Indeed, the philosophers have no other proof than the observation of the occurrence of the burning, when there is contact with fire, but observation proves only a simultaneity, not a causation, and, in reality, there is no other cause but God.*
This blows my mind.

yes, that is where i reach and what basically structures my belief of a pantheist concept of **god**, i prefer to call it the **chaos**

Why would you settle for any meaning less than the Absolute?

no, what i reach is the absolute, if we are talking about the hegelian concept of absolute spirit

What I mean is why would you settle for pantheism over monotheism, when one is more ultimate than the other?

however this doesn't make my *meaning* any *less* than any others, this is only where i stand right now and it might change in time, i can just reach another station during one of my meditations because there is no end to this pursuit of meaning, so where i stand right now is just valuable as the meaning of a guy who believes the meaning of life is chocolate

no, pantheism is grander than monotheism in my opinion

Wew. Please elaborate.

"And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and **We are closer to him than [his] jugular vein**" (Qaf [50:16])

Isn't pantheism just materialism + divinity?

That quote implies what Ghazali said, that God is between events.

what do you mean by that? my view is realizing the reality we're being on right now is just a small fragrence of *actual* reality like a piece of sand in a beach or a drop of water in an ocean, and the *chaos* covers everything, it **is** everything

That's high level theology. I can't penetrate it easily.

simple really

what's on your desk right now, besides from your pc

Drink. Papers.

that drink is a piece of god

papers are