ON THE MEANING OF LIFE

INTRODUCTION

Your purpose in life is simply to help on the purpose of the universe.

- George Bernard Shaw

“Simply”? Great, thanks George, but what the heck is “the purpose of the universe” – indeed, does the universe have a purpose at all?

Many believe not – considering the existence of the universe to be a physical accident – seeing even the miracle of life within it as just a spontaneous outcome of that accident. The corollary of such beliefs is that our existence is therefore essentially meaningless, ultimately purposeless. But just as many believe that life does have a purpose, and that it is written in a “B” Book. Who’s correct, what’s the Truth – indeed, can there be any “T” Truths in a relative universe – or only relative “t” truths?

Welcome to the Philosophy of Meaning – a many-splendored and wonderful thing!?

I didn’t study philosophy at Sydney University when I was there in the 60’s (being much too involved with my studies towards a Bachelor of Billiards – majoring in good wine and bad women) but found myself tangled in it later, unintentionally.

How?

It was because of water divining.

I will tell the story, begging the indulgence of those who came here for the meaning of life, because water divining is a good example of the difference between the “T” Truth and our relative, personal “t” truths – and was the spark of the essays into the meaning of life which follow.

OF WATER DIVINING

I was living in the city of Sydney during the 70’s – happy and prosperous – wife, two sons, two dogs, nice house, etc. One night, on the television I saw a program about water divining. It was a comprehensive debunk of divining and diviners – produced by Phillip Adams (atheist, “S” Sceptic, journalist, leftist, ex-communist, and philosophical pundit). I had no previous opinion or interest in the subject and watched the program with an open mind. The program was convincing and left me with the conviction that divining water was a sham. This was no big deal for me – I had never thought about the subject before, and considered I would have no need to think about it again.

Some years later, my wife and I tired of city-living, so we upped and moved to the beautiful Kiewa Valley – at the foot of the Victorian snow fields. We bought a property with an existing homestead and planted its 15 acres out to chestnut trees. One day, Freddie – a fellow chestnut-grower – dropped in for a chat. The conversation got onto water, as it often does with farmers, and he declared he would show me how to divine water. Philip Adams’ show about water divining came back to my mind, and I was inclined to scoff – but Freddie was a big man and I thought that telling him I believed it to be a load of crap might not be a good idea. So I watched respectfully while he did a little stroll around divined water in a couple of spots. I – behaving as one should in the presence of a (large) idiot – nodded, smiled sweetly, and offered him a cup of tea.

The next day another neighbour came over about a different matter and, out of curiosity, I asked him about Freddie. He said that Freddie was a well-known water diviner in these parts and that people had often used him successfully in searching for water. Co-incidentally, this particular neighbour had grown up on our property and I asked him if there was water in the places where Freddie had divined it. “Yes”, said my neighbour, “that’s where the old well that supplied the house was, and that other spot used to be a bit wet so that’s why we planted that tree there.” I filed it in my brain under “Interesting – but who cares?”, and proceeded to forget it.

Co-incidentally (ever wondered in your life about those occasional strings of coincidences that set you on a certain path?) that weekend Phillip Adams wrote an article in his newspaper column – the gist being a “S” Sceptic rant about God, UFO’s, and water divining. So I wrote to Adams describing how I had witnessed water divining working. I duly received a reply – full of vigorous fear and loathing. I was intrigued by this – what’s the big issue? – and I resolved to do a bit more research. I made up my own divining rods by cutting and bending fencing wire into L-shapes, giving them p.v.c. tubing handles large enough so they were free to move as they would without my influence. I put a line-level on the wire (to ensure I was holding the rods level) – all in an effort to make the experiment as objective as possible. When I tried them out, sure enough, they worked in the same places indicated by Freddie.

I sent another letter to Adams about my experiments. In reply, he sent a lecture about artesian water being everywhere – combined with the usual amount of fear and loathing. It occurred to me that he had a vested interest in water divining being bunkum, having gone public about his beliefs – his reputation as a leading Sceptic was at stake. Probably his comfortable, personal materialist philosophy as well – why search for any “T” Truth – potentially inconvenient.

TURN, TURN, TURN

I could understand why Adams was not interested, but something was going on, the rods were turning in my hands – not everywhere – not over the supposedly omnipresent artesian water, but only in certain spots. It started to bug me, I had no vested interest in cheating myself by somehow making the rods turn – very puzzling. I thought back to Adams’ original TV program – it was fairly conducted – a neutral, reputable referee oversaw the procedures and the chosen water diviners (declared by Adams to be “Australia’s leading diviners”) were happy with the task they had been set. That task being to find which of several pvc pipes laid out before them had water in them, and which not. None of the several diviners succeeded greater than chance.

MAYBE BOTH WERE WRONG?

So what exactly had Adams proven? He had definitely shown that the “t” truths of the water diviners (that you can find water in pvc pipes) were not the “T” Truth. But, meanwhile – back at the ranch – my wire rods were still turning. So, what’s going on? Obviously, both the water diviners and sceptics couldn’t be right here – but maybe they were both wrong? Maybe Adams’ “t” truth (water diving is fraudulent) and the diviners’ “t” truth (you can find water in pvc pipes) were both wrong? Something was being obscured here – maybe a “T” Truth – possibly a useful Truth?

So I tried a few more experiments. Firstly, I examined Adams’ test of water divining. I had many pvc irrigation pipes on my place, so testing was easy. I found that, sure enough, the rods would not turn over pvc pipes – full or empty of water. Round one to the Sceptics: it is a “T” Truth that you can’t locate water in pvc pipes – the diviners were wrong to imagine they could find water in pvc pipes.

But is it enough to show that because some diviners are mistaken about what is happening, then nothing is happening – that water diviners are cynical hoaxers and/or, if earnest, somehow hoaxing themselves? The diviners’ rods did turn occasionally during the TV program – so were they making them turn by some sleight of hand hoping to fluke which pipes had water? Everybody (especially a con-man) knows that to beat chance several times in a row is impossible, so why would they fake the turning of their rods when they knew they would inevitably be revealed as cheats – all on national TV?

Didn’t make sense to me. I tried a few more experiments. My wire divining rods, as well as turning here and there in the paddock, also invariably turned over wire fences and other metal objects, and over drainage trenches full of blue-metal gravel. So, the question had to be asked, was it water making them turn – or something else? To test this, I found that the rods would not turn over a plastic bucket full of water, but they would turn over an empty metal bucket. Further, they turned over a dry, rocky creek bed but would not turn if I was standing in the dam up to my knees in water.

A “T” TRUTH EMERGES

So, a “T” Truth had emerged – water was not making the rods turn. What was doing it – what’s the next Truth? It could only be concluded that the rods were turning over weak magnetic fields – such as those around metal objects (like a metal fence) or concentrations of metaliferrous rocks (like a creek bed or a drainage trench full of blue metal gravel).

A USEFUL TRUTH?

So, what’s the use of that – can it help in finding water?

Detecting an underground creek bed, or an aquifer, with divining rods increases your chances of encountering useful water (only “increases” because underground creeks or aquifers can be dry, or perhaps too low-flowing to be of use). Any such underground water will be flowing, and sweeter than artesian water (better for household use) also, because closer to the surface than the artesian basin, cheaper to drill for and cheaper to draw water from. If you combine the turning rods with other clues that are present on the surface (reeds, types of grass, landforms etc.) you increase your probability of finding water if you drill there – before sinking a costly bore every piece of information you can gather could save you money. Why not just look for surface clues? There are many surface clues to the presence of water that don’t prove to be anything other than a soak which doesn’t have sufficient supply to draw from.

This is how most farmers approach the matter of water divining – using it as ancillary information – and usually only paying diviners on results. Some diviners do well financially. I have also encountered tradesmen and local utilities workers who have divining rods thrown in the back of the truck to locate errant metal pipes, conduits, and power lines.

CAN EVERYONE DO IT?

Next I tested if everyone had the same abilities to “divine”. Giving the rods to friends I found out that anybody could do it over strong electro-magnetic fields –– although the rods worked better on weaker fields for some people than others (maybe differences in our own body’s electromagnetic fields and/or conductivity is involved here – bit like how some people seem to be more prone to static electricity shocks?).

A TOTAL MISNOMER

So, in summary, “water divining” is a total misnomer – the phenomenon has nothing to do with the rods reacting to actual water – nor is it a “D” Divine gift.

BUT USEFUL

However, using metal rods as detectors increases your chances of finding water by locating underground gravel beds and/or aquifers – which are more likely to be conveying water than ordinary ground. This is water which is usually flowing shallower than any existing, broad artesian basin, and usually sweeter as well. And divining rods do have some other practical uses – helping find the path of metal pipes in the ground or long-lost absorption trenches (usually filled with blue metal gravel). I have also been able to determine the extension line of a known underground creek (“known” because our house well was sunk on it) back from where it springs to the surface – handy if you want to sink another well back along that line.

I sent all this information to Phillip Adams and even included a pair of divining rods so he could test it for himself. More fear and loathing in reply.

I gave up with him, he was obviously comfortable with his “t” truth (and the fame it had brought him) but the whole experience had taught me about some interesting things about the difference between the “T” Truth and our “t” truths.

The “t” truths of the water diviners whom Adams tested were:

1. You can find water in pvc pipes.

2. Their rods were reacting to water.

3. Water diviners are in possession of a “gift”.

The “t” truths of Adams and fellow “S” Sceptics were:

1. Water divining is useless at best, fraudulent at worst.

2. The turning of divining rods is somehow contrived.

3. Sceptics are clever.

But the “T” Truths of the matter were:

1. Something was genuinely happening – i.e. it was not being fudged.

2. Neither side was correct – both sides were, in fact, wrong.

3. Metal rods turn in magnetic fields.

4. Locating underground gravel beds can increase your chances of finding water.

5. Wire rods are also useful for finding underground metal.

6. “S” Scepticism is not a bad thing, but it won’t lead you to the Truth on its own.

7. To demolish the “t” truths of others is not to demolish the “T” Truth.

OUR TRUTHS ARE ABOUT US, NOT THE TRUTH

I learned from the whole exercise that we all have our vested “t” truths and, while they may not be the “T” Truth of the matter, they immaculately speak the Truth about us – our selves. And there is another philosophical lesson in this story – to demolish someone’s truth about something is not the same as demolishing that something.

So, how did all this lead me into the philosophy of meaning?

OF ADAMS, GOD AND MEANING

Coincidentally (again), not long after I had finished exploring the phenomenon of water diving (and put the divining rods in the shed along with the other useful farm tools) Adams wrote a column about God and the lack of any special meaning in life. It was the usual atheist rant based on Bertrand Russell’s argument against the Old Testament god (“If God created the universe, who created God?”), the existence of evil, the incredibility of religious doctrine, and the brutal history of religion. I had no particular interest in religion (being disinterested at best) but I could see that Adams was possibly making the same mistake with God and meaning as he had with water divining – contenting himself with disproving others “t” truths and not troubling to find any “T” Truths there may be. For him, disproving others’ “g” gods was as good as disproving “G” God, and to disprove religion’s incredible model for the meaning of life (a one-off test for a person’s suitability for heaven or hell) was as good as disproving any special meaning.

Again I became interested, maybe both sides – theists and atheists – were wrong, as both sides had been wrong in water divining?

THE DEATH OF GOD?

Was, perhaps, Nietzsche’s iconoclastic announcement of the death of God premature?

Is to dispose of the ancient, parochial, tribal, brutal, Judeo/Christian “g” god the same thing as disposing of “G” God? I would have thought that, before God can be interred, firstly all rational evidence of a “G” God needs to be explored for, uncovered, and then disposed of.

Has this been achieved, or are Sceptics, again, just contenting themselves with the cruel sport of slaying the dearly-held, but slow-moving, sacred cows of others? Maybe Adams and his Sceptic pals were urging us to dance on the wrong grave – that of an ancient, pre-scientific “g” god – a grave most likely empty as well? Adams’ article on God and special meaning only succeeded in proving something about some peoples’ truths about their god, it did not hunt for and dispatch any God – just as his TV program did not prove anything about the Truth of water diving, just something about some peoples’ beliefs about water divining.

I couldn’t resist sending another letter to Adams to point this out. You guessed it – more fear and loathing – but even more virulent. I was touching a nerve, and became intrigued again. In Adams’ situation there were obviously a lot of personal issues. The fear was understandable – Adams had been a Communist, and therefore had a vested interest in there not being a theist, judgmental God (communism, after all, killed more people than Nazism). As for his loathing, Adams has written much about his sufferings at the hands of religion – his father had been a doctrinaire religious minister (religious, doctrinaire backgrounds are common to many fundamentalist “S” Sceptics and atheists).

SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND?

I could see that I was not going to get to any “T” Truths with people who had an interest vested in comforting “t” truths. The snow was slow to arrive up at Falls Creek that year and, being at a loose end after the chestnut harvest, I started to look into the God and special meaning question for myself. Was there, perhaps, a larger, more useful Truth than the truths both atheists and theists were clutching to? Just as it was for water divining, maybe both sides were wrong, and again obscuring a useful “T” Truth with their “t” truths?

My correspondence with Adams ceased, but it had taught me several interesting things:

1. That many disbelievers are as fundamentalist as any believers.

2. That disbelief had become an “H” House, much like the House of God.

3. That the both the House of Disbelief and the House of God are homes for comforting “t” truths rather than bases for seeking “T” Truths.

AN ARGUMENT GOING NOWHERE

So, I entered the arcane world of the philosophy of God and meaning. The essays which follow are the result. Basically it didn’t take long to see that the House of God vs. the House of Disbelief debate is an argument that has dominated the philosophy of meaning for the last two hundred years – and is an argument that has gone nowhere in that time – because both sides are fundamentalist.

THERE IS NO HOUSE OF TRUTH

The first thing I discovered in my exploration into the philosophy of meaning is that there is no House of Truth. Strange, because Philosophy is meant to be the about the pursuit of Truth through wisdom and knowledge, but I found it to be about ideology, about winning arguments, rather than uncovering Truths. Religion, likewise, I found similarly occupied, and failing in its role as guardian of our spirituality – being almost entirely Darwinian – about control (over God) and bodily survival (in the present and the hereafter). Both our “H” Houses are about power over the hearts and minds of men, rather than finding and stringing together pearls of wisdom – like those produced by irritants like Socrates and Jesus (both dispatched of for their efforts).

Disappointed by these failures of both religion and philosophy, I have written three essays which are my attempt to explore for Truth. They are titled: An Examination of The House of God; An Examination of The House of Disbelief; Along the Road to Truth – the latter being a reference to Buddha’s statement:

“There are only two mistakes we can make along the road to truth – not starting, and not going all the way.”

While I am not a Buddhist (nor an anything elseist) these essays are my attempt to start on, and to walk as far as I can along, Buddha’s “road to truth”. It is intended to be a rational journey through the spiritual and temporal fields of life. I have nothing to sell, belong to no Church, and like to believe that I subscribe to no ideology. I have engaged in this exercise because it has interested me and my country idyll has afforded me the opportunity.

The essays and conclusion will be continually revised as more scientific discoveries, philosophical ideas, and spiritual insights come to hand. Send me an email (graememeakin@bigpond.com) to tell me what Truths your exploration along life’s winding road has discovered.

The essay titles are: ESSAY 1. An Examination of the House of God;

ESSAY 2. An Examination of the House of Disbelief;

ESSAY 3. Along the Road to Truth.

Conclusion

Graeme Meakin.