I know you're not a fan of evolutionary psychology, so I'll just present this as my own pet theory for you to speculate on.
In my view, complex biological beings inhabit one of two modes, and they alternate between the two. The first is conservation--doing what one already knows works; this results in stasis, but only if the environment remains constant, and does not produce novel challenges. The other mode is one of exploration--doing new things and seeking out novelties; this mode is designed to allow us to adapt to new circumstances in which our old behaviors fail to suffice. The mode of conservation is productive, because we know that--failing changes in the environment--it will produce predictable results. The mode of exploration is not so lucrative; many experiments will fail; only a few produce. So what is the point of the exploratory mode? It allows us to adapt to changes in our environment by acquiring new behaviors. The conservative mode is productive, but it is also vulnerable because old answers may not suffice in a new environment. Thus we are split, between being conservative and being exploratory. The organism has a drive to engage in both modes as those organisms which only drove toward conservatism exclusively, or exploration exclusively, did not prosper as much as those that engaged both of these dual behaviors. The one eventually yields to the other. When we are sated, we become anxious that we are missing something. When we experience the failures of exploration, we long to be sated. We live an alteration between being satisfied and one of being unfulfilled. I believe that this is our fate. That is my theory.
Thus we will never obtain complete meaning as we will by nature alternate between consolidating meaning and adapting our behaviors to new circumstances. We will vacillate between conservation and exploration, so worrying about what to do once meaning is achieved is somewhat pointless, imo, as peace of mind will be fleeting, if at all achievable.
There is also the hedonic treadmill to be considered.
One might ask the question of why pursue satisfaction if we can never truly achieve it? I would say, seek to be content, and find satisfaction as it arises. But be not concerned that despair visits more oft than one would want. The path is never straight. Do not be alarmed that it twists and turns on its way.
Do you think the ideal of immortality can be experienced as an immediate thing that one lives? I am an ex-Hindu, so I'm not acquainted with living as though one would live forever. Do you think that your Mormon road of believing yourself immortal could persuade continuously throughout your entire life? I find myself skeptical that immortality can salve the needs of a concrete, living man or woman. It seems too much the stuff of fantasy that must eventually fade. Is that the hedonic treadmill again? As a Hindu, the continuation of this existence was what was to be feared, as immortality only leads to endless struggle. Given my beliefs about conservation and exploration, I find the idea of an eternal existence more stultifying than not. Perhaps that is the lack you experience--that the road is no longer limitless, and in fact, is not even smoothly paved.
In my view, complex biological beings inhabit one of two modes, and they alternate between the two. The first is conservation--doing what one already knows works; this results in stasis, but only if the environment remains constant, and does not produce novel challenges. The other mode is one of exploration--doing new things and seeking out novelties; this mode is designed to allow us to adapt to new circumstances in which our old behaviors fail to suffice. The mode of conservation is productive, because we know that--failing changes in the environment--it will produce predictable results. The mode of exploration is not so lucrative; many experiments will fail; only a few produce. So what is the point of the exploratory mode? It allows us to adapt to changes in our environment by acquiring new behaviors. The conservative mode is productive, but it is also vulnerable because old answers may not suffice in a new environment. Thus we are split, between being conservative and being exploratory. The organism has a drive to engage in both modes as those organisms which only drove toward conservatism exclusively, or exploration exclusively, did not prosper as much as those that engaged both of these dual behaviors. The one eventually yields to the other. When we are sated, we become anxious that we are missing something. When we experience the failures of exploration, we long to be sated. We live an alteration between being satisfied and one of being unfulfilled. I believe that this is our fate. That is my theory.
Thus we will never obtain complete meaning as we will by nature alternate between consolidating meaning and adapting our behaviors to new circumstances. We will vacillate between conservation and exploration, so worrying about what to do once meaning is achieved is somewhat pointless, imo, as peace of mind will be fleeting, if at all achievable.
There is also the hedonic treadmill to be considered.
Quote:The hedonic treadmill, also known as hedonic adaptation, is the observed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive or negative events or life changes. According to this theory, as a person makes more money, expectations and desires rise in tandem, which results in no permanent gain in happiness. Brickman and Campbell coined the term in their essay "Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society" (1971). During the late 1990s, the concept was modified by Michael Eysenck, a British psychologist, to become the current "hedonic treadmill theory" which compares the pursuit of happiness to a person on a treadmill, who has to keep walking just to stay in the same place. The concept dates back centuries, to such writers as St. Augustine, cited in Robert Burton's 1621 Anatomy of Melancholy: "A true saying it is, Desire hath no rest, is infinite in itself, endless, and as one calls it, a perpetual rack, or horse-mill."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
One might ask the question of why pursue satisfaction if we can never truly achieve it? I would say, seek to be content, and find satisfaction as it arises. But be not concerned that despair visits more oft than one would want. The path is never straight. Do not be alarmed that it twists and turns on its way.
Do you think the ideal of immortality can be experienced as an immediate thing that one lives? I am an ex-Hindu, so I'm not acquainted with living as though one would live forever. Do you think that your Mormon road of believing yourself immortal could persuade continuously throughout your entire life? I find myself skeptical that immortality can salve the needs of a concrete, living man or woman. It seems too much the stuff of fantasy that must eventually fade. Is that the hedonic treadmill again? As a Hindu, the continuation of this existence was what was to be feared, as immortality only leads to endless struggle. Given my beliefs about conservation and exploration, I find the idea of an eternal existence more stultifying than not. Perhaps that is the lack you experience--that the road is no longer limitless, and in fact, is not even smoothly paved.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
