If we judge things as trivial, inconsequential, nonsense, trash, we still have to explain their purpose if we are to believe that some things have purpose.
If purpose does exist, it either exists as a fruit blooming from a plant or as a fundamental experience of nature (like gravity).
Sometimes humans may experience absolute lack of purpose. Which is an experience of triviality, inconsequentialism, nonsense, trash.
Experience can be seen as a fundamental experience of nature, like gravity. Does gravity experience itself? Does experience experience itself?
Experience is always with us. We can theorize that everything is always with experience the same way everything is always with gravity. Or we can theorize that experience is a blooming fruit that only comes out of us because we have the capacity to produce experience.
Between universal presence and individual creation, there’s the third possibility that we don’t have the capacity to correlate meaning with concepts at all and that purpose, experience, gravity are just things that pop into being.
For universal presence, something like inconsequential purpose can be contrasted from consequential purpose like convictions, dreams, commitments.
For individual creation, inconsequential purposes are a paradox. They are labelled as trivial, inconsequential, nonsense, trash but individual creation sometimes has a change of mind and finds purpose where there was none. Suggesting that the individual creation is mislabeling the significance of purpose.
The difference between universal presence and individual creation is that the first theorizes that purpose is something, like gravity, that controls us at a fundamental level and can only be understood by contrast. Individual creation, the second one, theorizes that each purpose is bore from our actions. There is no purpose until something that can be called the self provides an action that results in a purpose.
The paradox of the individual creations comes from the importance given to the self in determining purpose. The self’s addition to purpose becomes an ego once purpose becomes dogmatic. But the self’s addition to purpose is always non-trivial. The duality where individual creation add triviality to purpose comes from the self defining the self as part of a separate purpose than a universal one.
How can we agree on a universal purpose?
We use the paradox of individual creation to embed faith against dogma. The individual sees its own purpose as trivial. Individual creation as part of a much more fundamental universal purpose that shapes itself, like gravity.
We can move around gravity as we can move around purpose. Reciprocally, as we “move”, gravity and purpose take new form. Basing our movements on a universal math allows for bigger patterns.
Or the third option can be the right one and things just pop into being.