On the conception and transfer of "meaning".
On the conception and transfer of “meaning”.
It occurs to our narrator (me) that all physical relationship is meaningless and that it is the level of awareness to this fact that ultimately determines a person’s success or failure in the human world. The physical relationship is devoid of any prescribed “meaning” because through the eyes of the physical, the external, there is no mental, no internal. In the physical world, meaning and purpose are detrimental because when one stops to consider them, s/he dies. Touching something is touching something, nothing more, infinitely less.
It follows through this light, and to our subject (me)’s polite shock, that all our complex and tapestral interrelationships must generate and culminate solely in a non-physical landscape for them to echo as they do in our souls (to the degree in which they actually determine our actions); and that conveyance of the meanings behind our emotions from one brain to another requires a physical intermediary. Thusly, there must be at least a moment in the conveyance of human meaning from one of us to another in which the meaning being transferred loses substance - in essence, becomes meaningless.
This is why we have the inevitable losses in translation; for an important thought or emotion to travel and spread from one mind to another it must be broken down, destroyed, and recombined. From the moment it begins its journey it is doomed to lose at least a portion of its essence to that eternal vampire - energy.
Once one receives a freshly reassembled meaningful thing, it then becomes one’s own responsibility to realise it has become lesser in the transfer, and to then build the idea back to its former grandeur - a process that can only be done by the alert mind.