Political Theory

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Bert — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 04:40:16 GMT

I sort of think this went over your head, and you still don't have the picture. Though I don't see the point in discussing traditionalism/perennialism with someone who's completely unfamiliar with it's views and contributors. It seems anytime (the few times) this has been brought up it's bashed by someone who's completely oblivious to what it is, and then the moment Heathenry is mentioned someone talks about stupid shit like comic books.

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

vive la insurrection — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:01:18 GMT

Heathen was a derogatory termed used against those that didn't except Christianity during the conversion of NW Europe, those that kept the old ways were called heathens, for those who "dwell in the heath" as converting those in rural areas was harder for the missionaries, and when the kings accepted Christianity they allowed those who didn't convert to practice the old ways in private. The word heathen can be found in literature as old as Beowulf to refer to those who held on to the old religion, but there is nothing essentially negative in the word itself, so we're called Heathens. If you want to get into it and asked someone of that time what they were they'd probably just say "these are my ways" or whatever cult they followed (seeing how there were various cults to Odin/Woden, Thor/Thunor, Freyr and Freyja, Tyr, etc. across NW Europe

Which is all I as pointing out

Imitating? What am I trying to imitate except follow the way of my ancestors before some foregn middle eastern religion took root?

You answered your own question. My whole thing is though all these thoughts are fantastically irrelevant - "ancestors", grand narratives, geographic and political instutions, or events that happened 1000 + years ago is akin to worrying about square circles. And mythologies by Stan Lee, "the ancients", Homer, Twilight, Jerry Falwell, Left Wingers, or Evola are all equally valid - except Stan Lee, Falwell, Twilight, and especially Leftists know how to make money or are smart enough to seek subsidy to survive - so good for them.

Crazy revisionist history? Like what?

Wow, I was actually thinking about nothing that would concern you - like Adam and Eve walking with dinosaurs on a 7K year old universe. Being that you got defensive, mentioned a "foriegn Mid East religion impedeing on your ancestors, (disturbing the purity and pristiness of their history, and Thor forbid their breeding lines?)" I'm sure you ave a hell of a "history" to tell...but I'm not going to discuss it. Nor am I going to discuss this anymore, the last word is yours if you want it.

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Bert — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 04:09:22 GMT

I'm not sure what you mean here, sorry.

Until I finish Philosophy of Right this will be of discussion, because I won't be able to discuss Philosophy of Right in full yet (or to fully understand it only 2/3rds in).

If there's no objectively necessary foundation or structure (i.e. one dictated by external reality), then any/all foundations and structures are necessarily subjective.

Ultimately, your explanation for the superiority/nobility/morality/honorability of your ethics - and everyone else's, including my own - rests upon one or more premises. Those premises are necessarily arbitrary from the standpoint of logic, as are all premises.

...and...

Sure, but those social/cultural/traditional norms themselves may well be based somehow on moral instincts. (I think this is highly likely.) My point is, however, that such norms nevertheless reside entirely within the mind. There exists no magical force or set of forces which takes the choice of whether to follow this or that norm away from an individual.

This can lead to some foundations or structures as those set by tradition and custom, or one of which does not exist (or which is of the making by the individual to suit the individual). One could say that such norms are of those of trial and error. Customs and structures that worked toward a positive outcome (to that of a negative) in one way or another (whether be material or not) and those that did not work were disregarded. It can be up to the individual to choose one or another, and one that person finds fitting.

I could just conclude this by saying it's all subjective it it's cultural tradition and customs compared to that of none and ethics and morality rests solely on the individual on what that individual believes to be right or wrong, and therefore it's up to individuals acting in concert to decide what's right and wrong, or good and evil. If that's the case, what consensus is there for right and wrong, or good and evil? There would be none, and you'd have individuals with their own views of either, but what would happen to those indivudals? Would those of like minds cooperate towards what they believe or see to be in the best interest through trial/error and structure of which they form a foundation on (of which will rest their world view)?

I'm not sure if you'll understand the Plato quote, but there are forms that can, or are, higher and lower. Again, this is subjective to what we percieve as right/wrong/good/bad/etc. Though, I'm sure you have your own views of higher and lower, good and bad, that you'd seperate from one another when you see something compared to another. These could show themselves in forms of music, literature, physical art, etc., in a way of how people carry themselves in accord with others. Have you ever thought to yourself when you see something that it's not to your level or standards or way of thinking, that it's "lower" or degenerate in some way? There are people who find pleasure in mindless and regressing arts that cause no real progress, it's stagnant, only breeding much of the same which is no higher. What is higher and lower may be subjective to the group or individual, but we do decide ourselves something that's less than and greater than in some way, and we put the negative away from us, and bring ourselves closer to a positive, higher, state of being.

I've noticed a certain anti-intellectualism going around this country; since about 1980, coincidentally enough. I was in Nashville, Tennessee, and after the show I went to a Waffle House. I'm not proud of it, but I was hungry. And I'm sitting there eating and reading a book. I don't know anybody, I'm alone, so I'm reading a book. The waitress comes over to me like, "What'chu readin' for?" I had never been asked that. Not "What am I reading?", but "What am I reading for?" Goddangit, you stumped me. Hmm, why do I read? I suppose I read for a lot of reasons, one of the main ones being so I don't end up being a fucking waffle waitress.

- Bill Hicks. Now, this quote seems out of place, but I feel it attributes to the Plato quote I posted in a very blunt way.

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Autolykos — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 03:39:36 GMT

Bert:
I suppose until I finish Philosophy of Right this will be [the end?] of discussion.

I'm not sure what you mean here, sorry.

Bert:
Do you think or believe there is something more to the material to reach a "higher" state of being, or that this plane is it, and you can only move forward in time not transcending states of knowledge and worth?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, either, but I don't think there's anything higher (or lower, for that matter) than physical reality.

Bert:
Would a foundation or structure be necessary? I have ethics regarding the material which is also self-ownership and non-aggression, but as you say nothing bounds me to those, but I can explain a foundation and structure for those and why I believe they are in some way superior, or more noble or moral or honorable than another.

If there's no objectively necessary foundation or structure (i.e. one dictated by external reality), then any/all foundations and structures are necessarily subjective.

Ultimately, your explanation for the superiority/nobility/morality/honorability of your ethics - and everyone else's, including my own - rests upon one or more premises. Those premises are necessarily arbitrary from the standpoint of logic, as are all premises.

Bert:
If more people don't act according to their own will to whatever suits them (for whatever sensations they want) then they fall back on moral instincts, but it could also fall back on social/cultural/traditional norms [upon which?] they have formed a structure and foundation.

Sure, but those social/cultural/traditional norms themselves may well be based somehow on moral instincts. (I think this is highly likely.) My point is, however, that such norms nevertheless reside entirely within the mind. There exists no magical force or set of forces which takes the choice of whether to follow this or that norm away from an individual.

Bert:
I want to use another quote that I find rather relevant from Plato's Republic.

Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean; and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they never pass into the true upper world; thither they neither look, nor do they ever find their way, neither are they truly filled with true being, nor do they taste of pure and abiding pleasure. Like cattle, with their eyes always looking down and their heads stooping to the earth, that is, to the dining-table, they fatten and feed and breed, and, in their excessive love of these delights, they kick and butt at one another with horns and hoofs which are made of iron; and they kill one another by reason of their insatiable lust. For they fill themselves with that which is not substantial, and the part of themselves which they fill is also unsubstantial and incontinent.

So, Plato, just what is this "true upper world", this "true being", this "pure and abiding pleasure"?

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Bert — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 02:47:02 GMT

Though I do find it odd one would call themselves an ultra reactionary term like heathen - not even the "heathens" you aren't imitating called themselves that...unless you are reading crazy revisionist history to support your aesthetic. If so, whateves.

Seeing that you don't know anything about Heathenry I'll excuse the ignorance. Heathen was a derogatory termed used against those that didn't except Christianity during the conversion of NW Europe, those that kept the old ways were called heathens, for those who "dwell in the heath" as converting those in rural areas was harder for the missionaries, and when the kings accepted Christianity they allowed those who didn't convert to practice the old ways in private. The word heathen can be found in literature as old as Beowulf to refer to those who held on to the old religion, but there is nothing essentially negative in the word itself, so we're called Heathens. If you want to get into it and asked someone of that time what they were they'd probably just say "these are my ways" or whatever cult they followed (seeing how there were various cults to Odin/Woden, Thor/Thunor, Freyr and Freyja, Tyr, etc. across NW Europe). Imitating? What am I trying to imitate except follow the way of my ancestors before some foregn middle eastern religion took root? Crazy revisionist history? Like what? I base and construct my beliefs on archeological evidence, myth/literature of the time, language, and any hard evidence that can build a strong foundation and structure to understand and continue the beliefs and world view of my ancestors from that period. Essentially, picking up their ways right before conversion.

I don't read a bunch of kooky or "occult" nonsense. What I do is no different than any other mainstream religion, just a different set of beliefs and world views.

If you care, read this on Theodism/Heathenry.

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

vive la insurrection — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:54:30 GMT

Nothing is more to me than myself. And that is not an aesthetic, but a very real inescapable ontological fact.

As far as the other stuff - I guess when I get really drunk I like to ramble on in internet theology. Either way, all these forms of thinking about "transedence" are the same to me - they are all just as wrong no matter how "sophisticated" they think they feel. The fact that they retreat to esotericism is even more baffling to me.

The only use/ way I can call one better in some way over the other is if they can make more money for their entertainment value via art, psychologism, or whatever. Though I do find it odd one would call themselves an ultra reactionary term like heathen - not even the "heathens" you aren't imitating called themselves that...unless you are reading crazy revisionist history to support your aesthetic. If so, whateves.

If you want to call your self an "aristocrat of the soul" or the emperor of China - sure...but there is nothing you can say or do to make that relevant in any way that matters. Esotericism is bunk, everything conservative/reactionary, religous, transendental "poetic", immeterial or whatever has been refuted in practice, word, and basic basic everyday observations seven ways to Sunday. Say what you will about leftists, at least they know how to manipulate "priestly"/psychological languages to gain in actual social position and currency - which is real power. Not only that I bet their best "priests" sell better than Evola anyway which makes them better.

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Bert — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:35:47 GMT

There is no "higher"

Do you ever look at culture and see it as "higher" or "lower", that something could degenerate over time, and what or how that culture could have affected or conditioned someone to think a certain way?

This won't happen as it simply isn't our nature, we're to smart and self interested for such silly notions - and not enough people play D&D and care about Norse myths that aren't real Norse myths.

Uh, what? As far as my 'religion' goes I'm a [reconstructionist] Heathen, so I'm a bit confused on this. (Probably because I don't equate a board game with myth and culture and it's embarrassing when I get these comparisons because people aren't familiar with Heathenry and now people are more familiar with a myth-butchering comic book movie about a Teutonic god than the actual myths.)

Small tribal communal orginizations. This won't happen in full either. We are too smart, self interested, or prosperous for this at this point. Leftist priestly language can hurt us, but not fuck us over this bad, as this is essentially a nonsense sociological position.

In Heathenry there's kindreds which probably could count as "small tribal communal organizations", but I don't think kindreds are any different than a church or temple gathering.

On the rest of what you said I'm a bit confused on the point you're trying to make, seems to be a battle of semantics.

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

vive la insurrection — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:59:14 GMT

Do you think or believe there is something more to the material to reach a "higher" state of being, or that this plane is it, and you can only move forward in time not transcending states of knowledge and worth?

There is no "higher" What is, is... all and all unto itself as itself, for itslef, and from it's own "creative nothing" from which it sprung. This is basic, basic, basic sociological and obvious thinking. At the very "least" everyting else self refutes, and the best I can do is come up with word limiters like "determinism", "materialism", "will to power", or 100 other such terms to counteract nonsense phrasing - as a blood pressure medication can constrict or dilate the flow of blood to a various heart diagnosis, I can at best determine the type of category of nonesense. "Higher" or "lower" to self makes no sense... time to being, makes no sense. Logic of words and consequences of actions does .. Basic observation ought to confirm that at all times, at every time (if not I will say you are lying or mad). The funny thing is how this apes and flips idealism and rationalism on it's head i nto a radical empiricism hat the "hobby horse" scientism critics critics of Austrianism just don't get, nor do I expect them to...in the end, it is good to sound like the bastard grandchild of Spinoza though.

This is fairly mainstream stuff- the problem is people just tend not to associate it with economics, sociology, or psycology because it happens to not quite be in the priestly language of our time

Look here the three sociological basics in life:

1) War of all against all. barbarians in loin clothes . This won't happen as it simply isn't our nature, we're to smart and self interested for such silly notions - and not enough people play D&D and care about Norse myths that aren't real norse myths.

2) Small tribal communal orginizations. This won't happen in full either. We are too smart, self interested, or prosperous for this at this point. Leftist priestly language can hurt us, but not fuck us over this bad, as this is essentially a nonsense sociological position.

3) "boring' technocratic, bourgoise, epicurean, capitalistic, modern, rationalistic, liberalism. This is essentially the world, and forever more probably always will be. We are just trying to figure out the minor details the details at the moment and find out how to deal with the "leftist priestly language' that dominates culture. After that we are even more set and in the gravey than we already are...bonus!

Due to the amazing wealth created and division of labor -this world gives schlubs like us leisure time to do our worthless metaphysics on the state of "man' and 'the world'

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Bert — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:33:27 GMT

I suppose until I finish Philosophy of Right this will be of discussion.

If "fully realizing one's being" is subjective, then there's no objective grounding to it, is there? So then what (objective) position is there to reach for anything, except for the next moment with no thought for the future? Of course, I'd say that there is none and be done with it.

Objectively speaking, there is no necessary structure or foundation. However, human nature neither infinitely variable nor infinitely malleable. My own ethics follow from the notions of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, but those are just premises in terms of formal (logical) reasoning. There's no force in the universe which makes us bound to hold those premises, and no other, as true.

Would a foundation or structure be necessary? I have ethics regarding the material which is also self-ownership and non-aggression, but as you say nothing bounds me to those, but I can explain a foundation and structure for those and why I believe they are in some way superior, or more noble or moral or honorable than another.

No system of ethics is grounded. They all rely upon one or more premises - propositions that are simply assumed as true. People are, at least in theory, physically able to indeed change their purpose and ethics to suit whatever current trend or sensation they want to live out at that moment. The apparent fact that more people don't actually do so is a testament to the power of our "moral instincts" IMHO. Of course, that has nothing to do with philosophy.

If more people don't act according to their own will to whatever suits them (for whatever sensations they want) then they fall back on moral instincts, but it could also fall back on social/cultural/traditional norms they have formed a structure and foundation.

I want to use another quote that I find rather relevant from Plato's Republic.

Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean; and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they never pass into the true upper world; thither they neither look, nor do they ever find their way, neither are they truly filled with true being, nor do they taste of pure and abiding pleasure. Like cattle, with their eyes always looking down and their heads stooping to the earth, that is, to the dining-table, they fatten and feed and breed, and, in their excessive love of these delights, they kick and butt at one another with horns and hoofs which are made of iron; and they kill one another by reason of their insatiable lust. For they fill themselves with that which is not substantial, and the part of themselves which they fill is also unsubstantial and incontinent.

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Autolykos — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:25:52 GMT

Bert:
Far from it. Forcing anything on anyone doesn't work, and forcing something that can be seen as rather abstract is far from productive.

Well at least we agree on this. So it looks like our ensuing discussion will be "academic".

Bert:
I meant that to fully realize one's being is subjective, it can be subjective to the individual to what they may reach. When you ask if there's an objective point to someone's existence I feel like these are those questions that have sprung up in the past hundred (or 2 or 3 hundred) years when people forgot what they lived for (or maybe the past thousand years during the conversion of NW Europe), and you have existential philosophies trying to find the answer that push further into an abyss and far from an answer.

If "fully realizing one's being" is subjective, then there's no objective grounding to it, is there? So then what (objective) position is there to reach for anything, except for the next moment with no thought for the future? Of course, I'd say that there is none and be done with it.

Bert:
Autolykos:
Can you explain what you mean by "active nihilism", or even just "nihilism"? Then can you explain why it's apparently necessarily a bad thing, as you obviously imply?

Nevertheless, and as I noted above, you seem to implicitly agree with me here.

Well, to this statement:

Autolykos:
What's the point of my existence? Objectively speaking, there is no point. So that means it's up to me to define it however I want, and there's no way to be (objectively) wrong about it.

By defining by whatever laws you want you can make up as you go regardless of anything. What structure and foundation do you have? You could change it at any time to fit your wants or needs, and what is the purpose, what's the goal, what do you build towards with that? What ethics do you fall upon?

Objectively speaking, there is no necessary structure or foundation. However, human nature neither infinitely variable nor infinitely malleable. My own ethics follow from the notions of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, but those are just premises in terms of formal (logical) reasoning. There's no force in the universe which makes us bound to hold those premises, and no other, as true.

Bert:
I'll quote Evola from Ride the Tiger on the extreme end of that spectrum:

[Snipped quote.]

To the existentialist, or to anyone with ethics that are not grounded, not held up by tradition or established cultural norms, or are essentially made up out of thin air, what position is their to do anything, except live for the moment with no thought for the future? The quote about would be an example of a nihilistic position lived out by people who see that their purpose and ethics can be changed to suit whatever current trend or sensation they want to live out at that moment. It seemed Sartre even had trouble and was conflicted with the position of existential ethics, because in the end there's nothing to fall back on (what's the foundation?).

No system of ethics is grounded. They all rely upon one or more premises - propositions that are simply assumed as true. People are, at least in theory, physically able to indeed change their purpose and ethics to suit whatever current trend or sensation they want to live out at that moment. The apparent fact that more people don't actually do so is a testament to the power of our "moral instincts" IMHO. Of course, that has nothing to do with philosophy.

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Bert — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:09:07 GMT

... Okay then. As long as you're not trying to force that meaning on others.

Far from it. Forcing anything on anyone doesn't work, and forcing something that can be seen as rather abstract is far from productive.

Then you necessarily agree with me that there's no objective point to anyone's existence.

I meant that to fully realize one's being is subjective, it can be subjective to the individual to what they may reach. When you ask if there's an objective point to someone's existence I feel like these are those questions that have sprung up in the past hundred (or 2 or 3 hundred) years when people forgot what they lived for (or maybe the past thousand years during the conversion of NW Europe), and you have existential philosophies trying to find the answer that push further into an abyss and far from an answer.

Can you explain what you mean by "active nihilism", or even just "nihilism"? Then can you explain why it's apparently necessarily a bad thing, as you obviously imply?

Nevertheless, and as I noted above, you seem to implicitly agree with me here.

Well, to this statement:

What's the point of my existence? Objectively speaking, there is no point. So that means it's up to me to define it however I want, and there's no way to be (objectively) wrong about it.

By defining by whatever laws you want you can make up as you go regardless of anything. What structure and foundation do you have? You could change it at any time to fit your wants or needs, and what is the purpose, what's the goal, what do you build towards with that? What ethics do you fall upon?

I'll quote Evola from Ride the Tiger on the extreme end of that spectrum:

This trend appeared with the "teddy boys," with their German analogs the Halbstarken, and the generazione delle macerie [generation of rubble]. Their style was one of aggressive protest, expressed through vandalism and lawless actions valued as "pure acts" in cold witness to their otherness. On the Slavic countries there were the "hooligans." More significant was the American counterpart, the "hipsters" and the Beat generation. Rather than intellectual attitudes, these were existential positions lived out by the young, of which a certain type of novel is merely a reflection. Compared to the British types, they were more cold and unadorned, more corrosive in their opposition to everything pseudo-orderly, rational, and coherent-everything that was "square," meaning solid, justified, and safe. They showed "a destructive, voiceless rage," as somebody put it, a contempt for "those incomprehensible characters who are capable of being seriously involved with a woman, a job, a cause". The absurdity of what is considered normal, "the organized insanity of the normal world," seemed all the more evident to the hipsters in the climate of industrialization and frenetic activity that, despite all the triumphs of science, was meaningless. Alienation from their surroundings, absolute refusal to collaborate or to have any defined position in society were the rule in this milieu, which did not only include the young, and which recruited its members not only from the lower classes but from all social levels, including the wealthy. Some preferred a new form of nomadic existence; others, to live at the most elementary level. The methods used by the hipsters to survive the existential void through strong sensations included alcohol, sex, jazz, high speed, drugs, and even acts of gratuitous criminality like those suggested in Breton's surrealism. They did not fear experiences of any kind, but sought them out to "receive tremendous blows on their own selves". The books of Jack Kerouac and the poetry of Allen Ginsberg were inspired in part by this climate.

To the existentialist, or to anyone with ethics that are not grounded, not held up by tradition or established cultural norms, or are essentially made up out of thin air, what position is their to do anything, except live for the moment with no thought for the future? The quote about would be an example of a nihilistic position lived out by people who see that their purpose and ethics can be changed to suit whatever current trend or sensation they want to live out at that moment. It seemed Sartre even had trouble and was conflicted with the position of existential ethics, because in the end there's nothing to fall back on (what's the foundation?).

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Autolykos — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:15:58 GMT

Bert:
[It means a] lot of things. Fully realize my being? Not being conditioned by materialism and "lower" culture, finding a "higher" sense of being, living, and "enlightment" that has a positive impact on myself. To not succumb to the modern world and it's problems. Not being dictated by forces outside of my knowing.

... Okay then. As long as you're not trying to force that meaning on others.

Bert:
I don't take ["fully realizing one's being"] as objective.

Then you necessarily agree with me that there's no objective point to anyone's existence.

Bert:
Autolykos:
What's the point of my existence? Objectively speaking, there is no point. So that means it's up to me to define it however I want, and there's no way to be (objectively) wrong about it.

...and here lies the active nihilism of existentialism.

Can you explain what you mean by "active nihilism", or even just "nihilism"? Then can you explain why it's apparently necessarily a bad thing, as you obviously imply?

Nevertheless, and as I noted above, you seem to implicitly agree with me here.

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Bert — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:55:30 GMT

But I asked what it means to you. So what's your take on it?

A lot of things. Fully realize my being? Not being conditioned by materialism and "lower" culture, finding a "higher" sense of being, living, and "enlightment" that has a positive impact on myself. To not succumb to the modern world and it's problems. Not being dictated by forces outside of my knowing.

Anytime I hear/read statements like Wikipedia's paraphrasing of Evola's thesis, I sense an implicit claim that "fully realizing one's being" is an objective notion - that is, "fully realizing one's being" is claimed to be a fact about the world. I see absolutely no evidence for such a claim being true.

I don't take it as objective.

What's the point of my existence? Objectively speaking, there is no point. So that means it's up to me to define it however I want, and there's no way to be (objectively) wrong about it.

...and here lies the active nihilism of existentialism.

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Autolykos — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:24:13 GMT

Bert:
This is one of those things where you have to figure it out yourself. It can mean a lot to me, but to someone else who doesn't know, they won't know (it's redundant, I know). You can ask yourself if you've reached your full being, or a higher state of [insert whatever here]. What the point of your existence is, what your world view is, how you stand in "society", what you represent, etc

But I asked what it means to you. So what's your take on it?

Anytime I hear/read statements like Wikipedia's paraphrasing of Evola's thesis, I sense an implicit claim that "fully realizing one's being" is an objective notion - that is, "fully realizing one's being" is claimed to be a fact about the world. I see absolutely no evidence for such a claim being true.

What's the point of my existence? Objectively speaking, there is no point. So that means it's up to me to define it however I want, and there's no way to be (objectively) wrong about it.

Re: Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Bert — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:42:39 GMT

What does the emphasized part mean to you? I can't make any sense of it myself.

This is one of those things where you have to figure it out yourself. It can mean a lot to me, but to someone else who doesn't know, they won't know (it's redundant, I know). You can ask yourself if you've reached your full being, or a higher state of [insert whatever here]. What the point of your existence is, what your world view is, how you stand in "society", what you represent, etc