"The point of this analysis is that life in general consists of many details that by themselves are meaningless, unless you look for a meaning in them."
This article touches me personally and especially. A couple of years ago someone wrote my birthday on a post-it, although he did it with a mistake, the detail shook my floor. Someone was interested in remembering my birthday. Although I never saw the note, even today I consider it the most valuable gift I could have had.
Nice story! And isn't life just full of such episodes, when thinking about it? Most often, we hardly notice — so much is going on in the universe that we can detect only a tiny fraction of it, analysing even less for significance.
In my opinion, it all has a meaning, but it will have that whether we know it or not, so when we aren't always trying to find it, we tend to believe that it isn't there. But the universe couldn't function if only bits and pieces of it were connected; it all is, of course, and therefore each bit has the meaning of being connected with other bits to, altogether, a full universe.
Of course, you can find meanings that are more direct and connected to you rather than the universe, and meaning connected to your neighbour, and any other person, place, thing...
When the existentialists talked about the world existing only because we were thinking about it, it wasn't all that stupid.
I really appreciate your response and perspective. This story is really important to me, try for a moment to imagine myself, this woman, in a state of frenzy, not because "he" but because "someone" made that gesture towards me, "somene wanted to remember..." it was as if I had won the jackpot of the biggest lottery in the world, I was in ecstasy, madly, furiously almost pathologically. Imagine the level of loneliness a person must have to burst with emotion for this, but "this" for me was and still is, the most precious thing I could have had. It was like the final revelation if a living God, like the final proof that I exist. Although others may see this as a flat and sick exaggeration.
Life itself is an exaggeration! And as the bar philosopher said, "we exaggerate our friends, our enemies, our importance", I think that in the end, a post-it is a hug, a hug is a word, a word is a living being, a living being is a star, a star a thought. There is nothing separate or different, it is life itself, in a continuous and eternal manifestation. Thank you for this chance my friend.
Enjoyed the text. I think that every strategy can be a valid one, even if we post notes that “have nothing to say”. Sometimes notes like “what a beautiful day” gain huge response while they “shouldn’t”. On the contrary, a brilliant post sometimes remains invisible. This is how it works. Ultimately, those who have knowledge, style, sweet spot and consistency will become visible.
Another question worth addressing is - why do some people get annoyed when “stupid” notes get engagement? For instance, it’s not that stupid notes annoy me, yet, I cannot prevent myself from noticing how stupid (or generic) they are😂
It is such a thing that many people would like to understand, I suppose. We observe, but cannot make sense of what we see. That sparks a bunch of follow-up thoughts to the initial "what on Earth..." — and curious people then want to discuss these with other curious people. That makes good sense to me.
I also shake my head at times, when the meaning of life gets no attention, while a word play of a very local nature, incomprehensible to most readers, becomes the top post of the day. But shaking my head may be a good thing. I hope.
My original note was not about what meaning is. I wasn't at all denying that something anodin can be meaningful to some people; I'm pretty sure of that. It was about the fact that a lot of people who want to get noticed on Substack actually write notes because they feel they have to (or because they heard somewhere that they should), without really thinking about what they want to say.
That's true. There are rumours that notes work the best for attracting new subscribers and so people give their best shots. Maybe "have nothing to say" is wisdom from their viewpoint:)
What a surprise to appear in your post. My original note was not about what meaning is and how something anodin can be meaningful to some people; I am pretty sure of that. It was about the fact that a lot of people who want to get noticed on Substack actually write notes because they feel they have to (or because they heard somewhere that they should). In my opinion, they should start by thinking about the content, be it serious or not, be it a personal story or not.
Caring about the person(s) who will read your note is not a bad thing.
Thanks for clarifying. Your words are of course yours, and my post is simply elaborating on some further considerations I had after our conversation on Notes. You inspired me, but I will not claim that any of the thoughts I express here are to interpret your words – my words are my own, based on how I see the world.
I agree with you that posts on Notes and similar places could be much better. If spending a few seconds extra, maybe the words can be turned a bit to become useful and insightful rather than the often seen low-value contents.
However, I do feel that people have a need for talking about nothing. It is somehow part of the human nature to exchange simple thoughts that do not add to any understanding other than just telling that you still exist – meaning that it connects people on the basis of a social sense more than intellectual meaning.
I can imagine how people in the stone ages were saying all kinds of silly things to each other in the caves, making that place sound like a busy train station, full of noise that in itself was meaningless but together created that connected feeling of "us".
Today, we have each our own cave, using social media to create that same kind of buzz.
I honestly don't think that it is enough for people. They will after a while feel that they need the buzz from people who are visible and reliably there, people in the real world. Social media was a wild shot, trying to cover an immediate need, but doing so badly, therefore being on the way to be replaced, as soon as we find out by what to replace it.
You make a very good point when you say, "people have a need to talk about nothing." I agree. They often need to ease the loneliness of existence.
But let's think further: Imagine three people in your city expressing their presence in different ways: (A) "I am here," (B) "I am here with you," and (C) "I am here for you." B and C probably get more attention and connection than A, right? When writing notes to show our presence online or to ease our loneliness, it's probably worth considering approaches more like B and C than A.
Yes, that makes sense. And perhaps even more so if people say something a bit less often, thereby making room for each other while at the same time speaking with more weight when finally speaking.
But that would be countering the concept of social media that really is to create as much buzz as possible (I believe that this is in order to create a stressful environment that numbs the sense of reason, thereby making it more likely that people in it will tend to do unreasonable things, such as click on a commercial).
Giving room on social media is the same as being forgotten. "A lot" of "a little" is the thing that seems to work, as so far anything really works, but it does create a relatively bigger sphere of presence, a bigger sphere in which you are seemingly known to others.
From time to time, one or another social medium is being spoken of as "more serious" than the others, but that is usually not an indicator of popularity. LinkedIn had that image once, but only now, when most of what is published there is AI generated fluff that adds no value to the world, has LinkedIn gained an increased popularity.
Xing was an alternative but stayed in the serious mode, this way never really growing out of Germany, where it started. Maybe Germans are more serious people, needing less of the meaningless buzz, or maybe the national focus has helped keeping the platform alive in that country.
But the most popular social media platform of them all is Facebook that, in my humble opinion, doesn't provide any kind of real value - apart from what can be brought in through special groups there, where people who share a common interest can isolate themselves from some of the buzz, feeling even more connected with each other, less with the bigger crowd. I guess this is comparable to the cave from before, where the tribe has grown and people start making break-out groups, families perhaps, each occupying their own corner of the cave where they buzz a bit differently from the other corners.
I honestly don't think that humanity can handle a serious level of total interconnectedness. It makes us feel lonely in the crowd, makes us either resign (as 98% of social media users do – never posting anything), or makes us shout louder and more often, to not feel that we are drowning in the crow.
Social media that tries to be the same for everyone, tries to treat everybody the same, is bound to fail. However, social media as it is today isn't that fair – it favours some users over others. LinkedIn, for instance, all the time, want people to follow Bill Gates and Richard Branson, believing that it adds an illusion of something valuable to the followers' lives. Substack keeps talking about the top names that earn millions, as if the rest of the world should circle around these people rather than find their own, meaningful, smaller circles. But despite these attempts by the platforms, people keep finding together in smaller groups where they find meaning by just being, and being heard.
So, yes. Meaningfulness adds something to talking. But it has tough odds on social media.
"The point of this analysis is that life in general consists of many details that by themselves are meaningless, unless you look for a meaning in them."
This article touches me personally and especially. A couple of years ago someone wrote my birthday on a post-it, although he did it with a mistake, the detail shook my floor. Someone was interested in remembering my birthday. Although I never saw the note, even today I consider it the most valuable gift I could have had.
Nice story! And isn't life just full of such episodes, when thinking about it? Most often, we hardly notice — so much is going on in the universe that we can detect only a tiny fraction of it, analysing even less for significance.
In my opinion, it all has a meaning, but it will have that whether we know it or not, so when we aren't always trying to find it, we tend to believe that it isn't there. But the universe couldn't function if only bits and pieces of it were connected; it all is, of course, and therefore each bit has the meaning of being connected with other bits to, altogether, a full universe.
Of course, you can find meanings that are more direct and connected to you rather than the universe, and meaning connected to your neighbour, and any other person, place, thing...
When the existentialists talked about the world existing only because we were thinking about it, it wasn't all that stupid.
I really appreciate your response and perspective. This story is really important to me, try for a moment to imagine myself, this woman, in a state of frenzy, not because "he" but because "someone" made that gesture towards me, "somene wanted to remember..." it was as if I had won the jackpot of the biggest lottery in the world, I was in ecstasy, madly, furiously almost pathologically. Imagine the level of loneliness a person must have to burst with emotion for this, but "this" for me was and still is, the most precious thing I could have had. It was like the final revelation if a living God, like the final proof that I exist. Although others may see this as a flat and sick exaggeration.
Life itself is an exaggeration! And as the bar philosopher said, "we exaggerate our friends, our enemies, our importance", I think that in the end, a post-it is a hug, a hug is a word, a word is a living being, a living being is a star, a star a thought. There is nothing separate or different, it is life itself, in a continuous and eternal manifestation. Thank you for this chance my friend.
Enjoyed the text. I think that every strategy can be a valid one, even if we post notes that “have nothing to say”. Sometimes notes like “what a beautiful day” gain huge response while they “shouldn’t”. On the contrary, a brilliant post sometimes remains invisible. This is how it works. Ultimately, those who have knowledge, style, sweet spot and consistency will become visible.
Another question worth addressing is - why do some people get annoyed when “stupid” notes get engagement? For instance, it’s not that stupid notes annoy me, yet, I cannot prevent myself from noticing how stupid (or generic) they are😂
It is such a thing that many people would like to understand, I suppose. We observe, but cannot make sense of what we see. That sparks a bunch of follow-up thoughts to the initial "what on Earth..." — and curious people then want to discuss these with other curious people. That makes good sense to me.
I also shake my head at times, when the meaning of life gets no attention, while a word play of a very local nature, incomprehensible to most readers, becomes the top post of the day. But shaking my head may be a good thing. I hope.
Shaking a head may be a good thing, because it can foster learning about what is without as well and within ourselves.
My original note was not about what meaning is. I wasn't at all denying that something anodin can be meaningful to some people; I'm pretty sure of that. It was about the fact that a lot of people who want to get noticed on Substack actually write notes because they feel they have to (or because they heard somewhere that they should), without really thinking about what they want to say.
That's true. There are rumours that notes work the best for attracting new subscribers and so people give their best shots. Maybe "have nothing to say" is wisdom from their viewpoint:)
What a surprise to appear in your post. My original note was not about what meaning is and how something anodin can be meaningful to some people; I am pretty sure of that. It was about the fact that a lot of people who want to get noticed on Substack actually write notes because they feel they have to (or because they heard somewhere that they should). In my opinion, they should start by thinking about the content, be it serious or not, be it a personal story or not.
Caring about the person(s) who will read your note is not a bad thing.
Thanks for clarifying. Your words are of course yours, and my post is simply elaborating on some further considerations I had after our conversation on Notes. You inspired me, but I will not claim that any of the thoughts I express here are to interpret your words – my words are my own, based on how I see the world.
I agree with you that posts on Notes and similar places could be much better. If spending a few seconds extra, maybe the words can be turned a bit to become useful and insightful rather than the often seen low-value contents.
However, I do feel that people have a need for talking about nothing. It is somehow part of the human nature to exchange simple thoughts that do not add to any understanding other than just telling that you still exist – meaning that it connects people on the basis of a social sense more than intellectual meaning.
I can imagine how people in the stone ages were saying all kinds of silly things to each other in the caves, making that place sound like a busy train station, full of noise that in itself was meaningless but together created that connected feeling of "us".
Today, we have each our own cave, using social media to create that same kind of buzz.
I honestly don't think that it is enough for people. They will after a while feel that they need the buzz from people who are visible and reliably there, people in the real world. Social media was a wild shot, trying to cover an immediate need, but doing so badly, therefore being on the way to be replaced, as soon as we find out by what to replace it.
You make a very good point when you say, "people have a need to talk about nothing." I agree. They often need to ease the loneliness of existence.
But let's think further: Imagine three people in your city expressing their presence in different ways: (A) "I am here," (B) "I am here with you," and (C) "I am here for you." B and C probably get more attention and connection than A, right? When writing notes to show our presence online or to ease our loneliness, it's probably worth considering approaches more like B and C than A.
Yes, that makes sense. And perhaps even more so if people say something a bit less often, thereby making room for each other while at the same time speaking with more weight when finally speaking.
But that would be countering the concept of social media that really is to create as much buzz as possible (I believe that this is in order to create a stressful environment that numbs the sense of reason, thereby making it more likely that people in it will tend to do unreasonable things, such as click on a commercial).
Giving room on social media is the same as being forgotten. "A lot" of "a little" is the thing that seems to work, as so far anything really works, but it does create a relatively bigger sphere of presence, a bigger sphere in which you are seemingly known to others.
From time to time, one or another social medium is being spoken of as "more serious" than the others, but that is usually not an indicator of popularity. LinkedIn had that image once, but only now, when most of what is published there is AI generated fluff that adds no value to the world, has LinkedIn gained an increased popularity.
Xing was an alternative but stayed in the serious mode, this way never really growing out of Germany, where it started. Maybe Germans are more serious people, needing less of the meaningless buzz, or maybe the national focus has helped keeping the platform alive in that country.
But the most popular social media platform of them all is Facebook that, in my humble opinion, doesn't provide any kind of real value - apart from what can be brought in through special groups there, where people who share a common interest can isolate themselves from some of the buzz, feeling even more connected with each other, less with the bigger crowd. I guess this is comparable to the cave from before, where the tribe has grown and people start making break-out groups, families perhaps, each occupying their own corner of the cave where they buzz a bit differently from the other corners.
I honestly don't think that humanity can handle a serious level of total interconnectedness. It makes us feel lonely in the crowd, makes us either resign (as 98% of social media users do – never posting anything), or makes us shout louder and more often, to not feel that we are drowning in the crow.
Social media that tries to be the same for everyone, tries to treat everybody the same, is bound to fail. However, social media as it is today isn't that fair – it favours some users over others. LinkedIn, for instance, all the time, want people to follow Bill Gates and Richard Branson, believing that it adds an illusion of something valuable to the followers' lives. Substack keeps talking about the top names that earn millions, as if the rest of the world should circle around these people rather than find their own, meaningful, smaller circles. But despite these attempts by the platforms, people keep finding together in smaller groups where they find meaning by just being, and being heard.
So, yes. Meaningfulness adds something to talking. But it has tough odds on social media.
Thank you for your insights on social media. Maybe we should continue this conversation in a different way.
Always open for a talk :)