wCHAP.11

(9/7/98)

CHAPTER XI

VICTOR FRANKL AND THE MEANING OF LIFE

Victor Frankl is one of the few modern thinkers to write about meaning of life in a deep and thoughtful way. His books are important and worth studying in order to explore different ways of looking at this matter.

Below is a review of a book for the general reader [1]. In it the author has collected Victor Frankl's basic ideas on meaning of life. Because meaning of life has been a key concept for me since my college days, I obtained a copy of this book soon after it was published. Although I had read Frankl earlier and dismissed his writing as badly focused, I met Fabry in 1968 and was influenced by this special connection. However, I wasn't able to see any new slants to promote deeper thinking on this issue so set this book aside, also. But stimulated by a San Jose visit of Frankl in 1991, I decided to re-explore his ideas. Part of my goal was to see if I'd been letting my disagreements with some of his core ideas keep me from seeing the value of other ideas. Also, my discovery of the technique of dialogue with an author gave me a tool to utilize in examining an author's ideas in ways I hadn't previously been able to do.

Below is my dialogue with ideas from Fabry's book.

(p. 9) "What I gained from logotherapy [translation: "meaning therapy"] is the recognition that central to people's life is the pursuit of meaning, and not the pursuit of happiness; that we only invite frustration if we expect life to be primarily pleasurable; that life imposes obligations, and that pleasure and happiness come from responding to the tasks of life."

On this point I am in general agreement with Frankl. And, this issue turns out to have vitally important ramifications that are not immediately obvious. As Frankl points out elsewhere [2] pursuit of happiness underlies pursuit of money, power, sex and anything designed to fill a drive. Because these things do not satisfy our deeper needs the most they can do is provide temporary relief. The person must then assume that the reason they are not yet happy is because they don't have enough money, sex, power, beauty, etc. So they must get more in order to be satisfied. Obviously, this is a vicious circle which can never lead one to a fulfilled state.

Since the Declaration of Independence of the U.S. holds up "pursuit of Happiness" as one of the "self evident truths," this idea lies at the heart of the American idea about life. It has guided our culture in a way that produces mixed blessings. It has directed people to take an active role in life and the world in their efforts to achieve "happiness." But, it holds out a carrot that is inherently unachievable, which has led many people to throw their life away through booze, drugs, beauty, gambling, food, power, money, etc. in their efforts to achieve happiness.

(p. 9) "I further gained from logotherapy an awareness that this search is personal (although it can be carried on in groups or within the framework of organizations) and that each person has to engage in it even though they never can be certain that they are on the right track, or what exactly is their goal. We undertake the search in the face of ultimate uncertainty."

I am in basic disagreement with the foregoing ideas of the personal nature of the search for and achievement of meaning. As indicated below this conflict comes out of my disagreement/difference with Frankl's fundamental assumptions about meaning of human life.

(p. 11) "Here [at the neuropsychiatric clinic of the University of Vienna] the fundamental formulations of logotherapy took shape: [1] that all reality has meaning ( logos) and [2] that life never ceases to have meaning for anyone; [3] that meaning is very specific and changes from person to person and, [4] for each person, from moment to moment; [5] that each person is unique and [6] each life contains a series of unique assignments which have to be discovered and responded to; [7] that it is the search for one's specific assignments, and the response to them, that provide meaning; and [8] that happiness, contentment, peace of mind are mere side products in that search."

[1]. "All reality has meaning:" To me it is a meaningless statement to say that all of reality has meaning. I believe that human beings are the source of meaning and purpose. Anything has meaning only as it is provided by human beings. Human life does not have meaning in the sense that Frankl discusses it (cosmic meaning). Persons can have a feeling that their life has meaning when they have positive, dynamic states; when they look forward to the future; feel good about themselves, what they are doing and their life in general. However, my goal is to help develop a world where people have a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning. Sustainable brings in an empirical element. Sustainable requires science and a wisdom that has integrated modern knowledge with past experience. Therefore, sustainable requires a Wise Community. The foregoing achievement would ensure that the path towards TRUTH remains open and would help each individual stay on this path.

[2]. "Life never ceases to have meaning for anyone:" On the contrary many individuals in today's world never achieve a Feeling that their LIfe Has Meaning (FLIHM) and not more than a hand full of people have ever achieved a Sustainable Feeling that their LIfe has Meaning (SFLIHM). Since meaning of life is a feeling it can be produced in many different ways. Most people who feel that their life has meaning have achieved this state as a result of ignorance. If they had more knowledge they would lose the key elements that provide them this feeling; e.g., belief in God, tribal affiliations, devoting their life to their work, etc.

[3]."Meaning is very specific and changes from person to person:" I disagree. There may be a few minor elements of meaning that are unique for each individual especially in their specifics. However, at least 99% of the things that provide a sustainable feeling that life has meaning apply to everyone, at least within broad categories. It may be that people fall into several groupings based on some innate differences between individuals, and that the things that provide a feeling that life has meaning (FLIHM) differ in relevant ways from group to group (writers, athletes, inventors, adventurers, etc.). See Chapter XXVI.

[4]."Meaning is specific for each person, and changes from moment to moment:" When a SFLIHM is achieved it is permanent, even in the face of the greatest catastrophes (of course this is what separates it from a FLIHM).

[5]."Each person is unique:" Each person is unique, but the elements of a SFLIHM fall into general categories, as indicated in #3 above. This individual uniqueness is one component of a SFLIHM.

[6]."Each life contains a series of unique assignments which have to be discovered and responded to:" No human being has any assignments. To have assignments there would have to be an assigner who communicates with the individual. There is no evidence for such an assigner that can withstand the most superficial study.

Each person does have something unique to feed back into the human knowledge bank that no other person is able to provide because they are "one of a kind." Part of a SFLIHM is finding how to utilize one's unique abilities since it is possible no one can show them how. The foregoing is important because this unique element will add a special character to their life. Also, this uniqueness is important as it provides humanity a resource of tremendous value. Achieving this unique element, however, is dependent on mastering the other 99% of a SFLIHM that one's society and culture must help one achieve.

[7]. "It is the search for one's specific assignments, and the response to them, that provide meaning:" Not at all. Since meaning is a feeling which can indeed vary over a broad range, one can achieve it almost completely (see #3 above) and never fully master the unique possibilities dependent on who they are as an individual. But, certainly a major effort should be to help each person find how to develop their special contributions at the highest level possible.

[8]. "Happiness, contentment, peace of mind are mere side products in that search:" True. On this point I am in full agreement with Frankl.

(p. 11) "Despair, Frankl decided, was suffering behind which the sufferer saw no meaning."

(p. 11) "Most of those contemplating suicide...saw the meaning of their lives in one direction only....And there were those who saw no meaning anywhere; who simply felt empty and could not bear an empty life."

The above indicates very well the situation when one does not feel that their life has meaning. My guess is that the prime problem here is that persons in pursuit of happiness who are not able to find it, end up with a feeling of emptiness that results when primary ingredients of a FLIHM are missing. To me this is the challenge, to provide ways for all people to achieve a SFLIHM. This is the primary responsibility of a Wise Community. To the degree that a society fails to provide its members a feeling of meaning, to that degree it is not a society at all since the only thing one normally needs to experience a FLIHM is to be a valued part of the bigger society.

(p. 12) "Above all, meaning could be found in accepting the unavoidable and, by doing so, turning it into a challenge."

The foregoing gets at a key element of difference between Frankl and me. When something happens that is unavoidable and painful, my goal is to say, How can I make the most of this bad situation? Frankl says, This experience was especially sent to me (by God [?]) to give my life meaning. I must respond the right way to have this meaning. Can I determine its meaning? What is its meaning? Etc.?

I would say that the feeling of meaning most likely comes out of the belief that God cares for the person, is watching out for them, and sending something painful from time to time to test them.

To me there is no meaning in anything that happens to anyone. To try to give such things cosmic meaning is to purchase a FLIHM at too dear a price.

However, everyone needs to have a technique for dealing with painful experiences. Developing such processes are necessary in order to achieve a SFLIHM.

(p. 14) "Even when everything one 'has' is stripped away -- family, friends, influence, status, possessions -- no one can take [away] the freedom to make this decision [of who they are and who they will become], simply because this freedom is not something one 'has' but something one 'is.'"

There are many issues involved in the foregoing. One of them is that Frankl's philosophy is designed for life under extreme circumstances; i.e., life in a Nazi concentration camp. Another is that it, like Freud's approach, focuses on the individual and almost totally leaves out society. Another, is the fact that what one "is" is always changing. What one "is" depends on a complex interaction between genetics, experiences, knowledge, etc. If a society's goal is to destroy the person [3] then one is "whistling in the dark" to think this cannot be done. All the people who succumbed to the barbarous treatment they received from the Nazis are evidence to disprove Frankl's point. As he, himself, says, "We who have come back by the aid of many lucky chances or miracles -- whatever one may choose to call them -- we know: the best of us did not return." [4] As George Orwell points out in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR there are within us all, areas of weakness and fear that can be exploited to destroy us. To me the challenge is to build a Wise Community not to learn how to endure an evil one. I want to help develop the kind of world where no one would think they had anything to gain from hurting another human being let alone destroy them. For me this is the greatest safeguard against destruction of the individual not only in concentration camps, but in factories, conformist/ limited societies, and pernicious/deadly relationships in general.

THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF LOGOTHERAPY (p. 18)

"...that one's life has meaning under all, even the most miserable circumstances...." This statement is on its face absurd. If one were to say that the potential exists for anyone to experience a SFLIHM under any circumstances, we might be motivated to accept this statement after more clearly defining "even the most miserable circumstances."

Obviously this feeling does not exist under every circumstance. Many people commit suicide each day because they feel their life is in fact meaningless. Many others live on in silent despair.

Frankl is talking about some kind of cosmic meaning which I do not find very useful. The forgoing quote seems to me to imply that it would never be proper to take one's life even when there is unbearable pain and little chance of relief. For me a SFLIHM includes the idea that at some point one will die; i.e., their "I" will cease to be. That point can be anywhere from the moment one achieves a SFLIHM on. For an increasing number of people (because of the advance of medical knowledge) there will come a time when ending one's life must be a conscious decision. For anyone there must come a time when ending life is the reasonable, practical, humane thing to do.

By the same token it is not clear to me the relationship between a SFLIHM and "the most miserable circumstances." I have been primarily looking at the best case situation, trying to determine the ideal circumstances, the elements that ensure a SFLIHM. I suspect that some individuals might achieve a SFLIHM under very adverse conditions. Many others may not. My goal is to find the elements necessary to build a Wise Community, not to determine how to prepare the individual to endure an evil society. However, this issue is examine in Chapter XII, "The Meaning of Pain."

"...that one has a deeply rooted conscience that can help them find the specific meaning of their life." I don't see conscience as of primary value in achieving a FLIHM. (See, also response to p. 75, below.) The most essential ingredient in developing a SFLIHM is a research project directed at this goal. We need much work to clarify the issues around meaning of life. There will also be many difficulties to overcome to develop the organizations needed to help individuals achieve a SFLIHM.

"Logotherapy further asserts that people are free...to decide...what kind of person they are going to become." Each of us needs all kinds of help in order to become our best self. The challenge of any society is to provide all its members sufficient help so they can become Wise Persons thereby achieving their full positive potential. People do not become brutal, cruel, hurtful individuals out of their freedom to choose who they will become, but out of traumas that have restricted their freedom and moved them in self destructive directions.

"...people must assume...responsibility for their own choices." True. There is no way of sidestepping this conclusion. Even when one's society lets them down and hurts rather than helps them, they are responsible for whatever they do, or fail to do. However, part of the issue of accepting responsibility for choices requires careful study of the traditional implications of individual responsibility. Traditionally responsibility translates to punishment. A "responsible person" is thrown out of the tribe. A "responsible" person is horse whipped. A "responsible" person is placed in stocks for public ridicule. A "responsible" person is executed.

All of the foregoing things miss the point of what I mean by responsibility. To me choices come out of who one is including one's knowledge and one's ignorance. If one is acting in a socially destructive way, this comes out of their ignorance. Destructive behavior must always be destructive to the acting person. However, many times the ignorance is totally in the society because the behavior is not in fact socially destructive. The individual's behavior may in fact be necessary to the society if it is to prosper; e.g., Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Freud. But, when behavior actually is socially damaging, this behavior must come out of ignorance. When one is ignorant, they must look to their society for wisdom. Obviously, a society also has its own areas of ignorance. It, too, may lack the information, knowledge, wisdom to take the individual from ignorance to knowledge. However, it is the responsibility of the society to focus all the energy possible (in terms of all its priorities) to develop such information to so teach/treat its members. In the absence of knowledge a society must deal with the individual in the best way it can.

The importance of this responsibility is that it provides a basis for change, not for punishment, incarceration, execution, or retribution. At the same time one's society has collateral responsibility. The individual is totally responsible. And, the society is totally responsible! How is this possible? How can total responsibility be located in two different places? Here is my thinking:

Why is society totally responsible? Although, an individual has a genetic component that is a very large and critical aspect of who they are, key elements of behavior develop as a result of what comes into a person from outside. Some of these things even control the physical development of the individual, particularly the brain and nervous system. For example if one does not receive critical nutrients at vital stages in their growth, the body will not properly develop. By the same token if a baby fails to receive nurturing touch and rocking at critical times vital areas of the brain do not develop properly [5]. In the absence of this brain growth, certain negative characteristics follow. Also, one picks up values from one's society. Some of these can make various kinds of behavior more likely: violence, stealing, lying, etc. So, in a critical way we must say that the society is totally responsible (for good or bad) for all behavior of its citizens. Therefore, any society that refuses to assume its part of the responsibility for the loss of even one person cannot be called a Wise Community.

Why is the individual totally responsible if they are a product of their society? The individual is totally responsible because they are the active element. They are actually making the choices and they will continue making "bad" (or "good") choices until they change. Therefore, they have to be seen as totally responsible so proper effort can be focused to make whatever changes are necessary to correct behavior. Any individual who is not able to accept total responsibility for everything they are and everything they do will probably not be able to make the changes necessary to achieve a SFLIHM.

"...each person...[must] rely on their own personal conscience..." True. Each person must be the final interpreter of whether they have in fact achieved a SFLIHM. But, whenever an individual decides they have not achieved a SFLIHM, their society must re-examine every step of its responsibility to assess what it needs to change to correct deficiencies.

(p. 20) "A person is not composed of parts, but is a unity."

To me the foregoing is a prime error. Unless we can correct this error and build on a firmer foundation we must continue to talk much foolishness. Obviously a person is composed of parts. And all of these parts are changing all the time at different rates. Their unity comes out of the joining of all these separate parts to produce a single "I." But this "I" is also changing all the time. Unless we incorporate the foregoing ideas into our thinking, that thinking must suffer very seriously.

(p. 23) It is, "never too late, not till the last breath, to change [one's] attitude not only toward [one's] fate but also toward [oneself]." True. True.

(p. 27) "In this noetic [6] realm of our unconscious we make our unconscious decisions, hold our unconscious beliefs....And here, finally, we can listen to the intuitive voice of our conscience telling us our tasks and, by so doing, directing us to the meaning of our lives."

(p. 27) "...the uniquely human forces [are] in the patient's noos: their conscience, their creative urge, their commitments, faith, intuition, and even their humor."

(p. 30) "Frankl disagrees with Freud's statement that to doubt the meaning of life is a symptom of sickness; on the contrary, such doubting may trigger a person's search for meaning, and logotherapy uses this thirst for a meaningful existence to maintain or recover mental health."

(p. 30) "Doubting the meaning of life may lead to despair, depression, and a new type of neurosis for which Frankl has coined a new term -- noogenic neuroses...[which] originate in a person's noetic dimension and may be brought about by value collisions, by conflicts of conscience, or by the unrewarding groping for humanity's highest value -- an ultimate meaning of life."

From my perspective if any citizen lacks a FLIHM, this is evidence of deficiencies in the society. Primarily, this is due to deficiencies in their religious institutions which are the custodians of responsibility for providing the necessary knowledge and experience to achieve a meaningful life.

p. 33) What Is The Meaning of Life? "...Frankl's important point is that each person can answer it only for themselves, and never for more than the moment. For the person and the situation are constantly changing, and with them the meaning that they are required to fulfill."

Fabry claims that for Frankl meaning of life is in most instances used in the sense of commitment (not "the will of God" as it often appears to mean). "It is one of logotherapy's contributions that it is widening the area in which meanings can be found. For centuries the search for meaning was restricted to the religious area, and very often to a set of specific creeds or dogmas; the nonbeliever (of a specific approach to truth) was condemned to the hell of meaninglessness."

Certainly it is important to widen the area in which meaning can be found. This lies at the heart of my own efforts. However, it is difficult for me to accept Fabry's statements that logotherapy widens the range of meaning. It seems to me that Frankl poses under the guise of expanding meaning beyond traditional religion. But, in reality one must fit into a traditional religious framework to successfully use his ideas on meaning. For Frankl meaning is imposed from outside. Whether he calls this God, or something else is irrelevant. Unless, one removes the cosmic dimension from meaning it cannot be turned into a concept that is open to study. Frankl says meaning isn't open to study and it is clear why, based on how he defines meaning. However, for me a SFLIHM is definitely open to study. In fact it is almost impossible for anyone to achieve a SFLIHM until adequate research has been done to gather lifetime data on individuals and provide the result in a useful form. I predict that these studies must conflict with Frankl's ideas as well as with traditional religious approaches. As the results of such research become available, those with conflicting views must either change or become irrelevant.

(p. 34) Logotherapy is defined by Frankl as education to responsibility.

It is difficult for me to see the responsibility in logotherapy, since it seems in many places to be irresponsible: 1) Its view that meaning exists outside of people. 2) Its focus on the uniqueness of meaning for each person and disregard of the core factors everyone has in common. 3) Its support of traditional approaches that lead one to feelings of meaning based on ignorance not knowledge. 4) Etc.

(p. 34) "...the religious therapist has no right to lead the atheistic patient onto the religious path to find meaning; nor has the atheistic therapist the right to discourage religious patients from finding meaning through faith. All the therapist can do is to encourage them to make their choices, and educate them to make responsible choices."

In the final analysis each person must decide for themselves what constitutes meaning of life for them. If they are satisfied with the old symbols there is no need for them to move beyond those symbols. However, it seems clear to me that traditional religious symbols will not withstand the necessary examinations. Until one is able to cast off all the old baggage, they will not be able to follow where the new path leads. The old ways cause people's problems. The individual's fears, their despair, their inadequacy, their ineffectiveness directly come out of deficiencies in their religion. A society's problems whether war, poverty, hunger, disease, also come out of its religion.

The question is not the right to discourage individuals from following a religious path, or an atheistic path. The issue is to develop a religious path worthy of being followed -- that appeals to the best that is within each person. This is the goal that challenges any searching individual. Achieving this goal will require the combined efforts of all who believe in human beings and view their life as precious. In my mind logotherapists are no closer to an answer of how to achieve a SFLIHM than anyone else. I would expect their cure rate to be comparable to that for astrologers.

(p. 37) Three Tenets of Logotherapy:

"1. Life has meaning under all conditions.

2. People have the will to reach out for meaning and feel frustrated or empty if this will is not applied.

3. People have the freedom, within obvious limits, to fulfill the meaning of their life."

First tenet: "Life has meaning under all conditions." Frankl uses meaning to imply some intrinsic meaning as if there were a reference system independent of humanity that provides this judgement. There is no such reference system. There is only HBAURS. Therefore, meaning must be defined in relationship to HBAURS in order to make any sense. I define meaning as a positive state such that the person doesn't commit suicide or otherwise end their life. So in my framework meaning of life requires those things necessary to maintain this positive feeling state. There are all kinds of conditions that prevent the maintenance of such a feeling state. Therefore, a society has a responsibility to prevent and counteract those conditions to the degree possible.

It is my position that human beings are the source of meaning and value and the individual person is the only worthy focus for a society's ultimate concern. To me this means we as a society must do everything we can to ensure that each person achieves their maximum positive potential and that they extend their existence as long as possible while it continues to be a meaningful experience. There are several aspects to the foregoing: a). Learning more and more how to treat life-threatening, painful, destructive diseases and conditions. b). Ensuring that each person receives all the help possible in order to achieve a SFLIHM. c). Realizing there is not a direct relationship between pain, suffering, deficiency and a FLIHM. Also, see response for page #18 above. One's beliefs and abilities are important mitigating conditions.

Second tenet: "People have the will to reach out for meaning and feel frustrated or empty if this will is not applied." Basically this statement seems to me to be meaningless in its present formulation. Anything a person does not do, they don't have the will (or knowledge) to do. I would say that each person needs to feel that their life has meaning. A person is willing to do anything to achieve that feeling. If they cannot achieve this feeling, then they cannot feel any loss in ending their life. It is a society's responsibility to help its members find a SFLIHM.

Third tenet: "People have the freedom, within obvious limits, to fulfill the meaning of their life." Freedom in this context is a meaningless word. In many cases the elements of a meaningful life are missing and the person has no idea what to do about this. Collectively, humanity must study meaning of life, gather data, establish structures, and in all other ways provide the necessary things that no one person is able to do on their own.

Also see response for pages 40-45.

(p. 37) "Logotherapy sees people as beings whose life consists of a string of situations, each of which has a specific meaning for them, and them alone. Their fulfillment, happiness, and even mental well-being depend on finding, to the best of their capacities, the meaning of each situation in their life. They may find these meanings in the framework of religious orthodoxy, religious liberalism, humanism, atheism, or agnosticism -- it makes no difference. What does make a difference, though, is their awareness that they are free to fulfill the meaning of their life, that they have the obligation to do so, and that no one can do it for them. The pursuit of the unique meanings of their own life makes each individual a unique personality -- a chosen person, as it were, not because they belong to a certain religion or nation, but because they are a human being."

Of course Frankl is speaking of cosmic meaning here. Since cosmic meaning does not exist, one can define it any way they want. "...life consists of a string of situations, each of which has a specific meaning for them and them alone." is on its face absurd. No situation has a cosmic intent or significance. We can take whatever happens as a challenge to make the most of and use in whatever useful way is possible. Or, we can beat our breasts and moan and look for reasons for our "punishment." One approach makes us victims even though there must be some satisfaction in thinking the whole universe exists just to make us miserable. The other approach makes us partners in choosing what kind of a universe we want to live in.

To me the job of a Science of Religion and a Religion of Wisdom is to provide the support structure that could actually allow each person to achieve a SFLIHM. A SFLIHM includes the idea that meaning would be experienced under all conditions.

A feeling that one's life has meaning has at least two levels. One is a positive, good feeling; joy; its good to be alive; involvement in useful, important activities; want to get up in the morning, move through the day with enthusiasm; look forward to the future. This is the inner side of a feeling that life has meaning.

Another aspect is a strong feeling of purpose. This part comes out of our bonds with people: our society, our family, our tribe, etc. This bonding makes what one is doing important. One's actions have significance because they need to be done. It is this bonding that might lead one to go into a burning building to rescue one's children, leap on a hand grenade to save the life of friends and comrades, work to exhaustion to find a cure for a disease, etc. It is this bonding that is responsible for the above mentioned feelings and which lies at the core of any sustainable feeling that life has meaning.

However, meaning is a slippery concept. The term has so many possible interpretations that it is very easy to move into the mystical realm and start considering this meaning to be external to human beings. Once the foregoing happens any hope of bringing in science and initiating a process that can utilize data and knowledge is lost. It is clear to me that no human experience has any meaning independent of how it effects a person or people. To talk about assigning a meaning from outside to an experience seems not only erroneous, but self destructive.

It seems to me that there is value in having a model to help one deal with/react to experiences, particularly traumatic ones. I think the best approach is to say that it is always possible to find some positive value in every experience. The goal is to focus on the positive and not dwell on the negative. The foregoing approach is most likely to enhance the quality of one's life.

This can either be focused outward, What needs to be changed in the world so these things don't happen? If one has the ability or can develop the ability to make these changes, this is a positive focus. Or, one can focus inward. What am I doing that is allowing, or encouraging these experiences? But, if one starts thinking, "What is this event, or this series of events telling me?" And we take it as a conscious message from the universe rather than a reflection from an indifferent reality, we put the answer outside of ourself and don't need to accept responsibility for our choices. Obviously, we are interpreting what the event means. But, we have lost the opportunity to use our consciousness; our rational, most highly developed brain centers. As a result we must rely on our subconscious. We get caught up in magic, mystery, and metaphysics. Sometimes this can tap into one's most creative and deep seated areas of the brain. However, this is also where childhood irrationalities dwell. It seems to me that under many circumstances, reliance on "conscience" is more likely to move one in hurtful, destructive ways than in a positive, mature, constructive direction.

To say it makes no difference where the interpretations of meaning come from, I feel, is totally incorrect. In fact if there is any value in tackling the issue of meaning of human life it comes out of recognizing that the old ways are no longer working and that we must find new ways. In order to find these new ways we must be willing to develop structures that support a meaning based on knowledge, understanding, science, universality, etc. Each of us is a unique person of infinite value and this lies at the core of the search for a SFLIHM.

(p. 38) "To Frankl, people's will to meaning is their primary human motivation, and the pursuit of meaning their inalienable right."

I agree that meaning of life is the primary human need. Anything else will be sacrificed when it conflicts with this need. The terms "will to meaning" and "pursuit of meaning [is] their inalienable right," however, seem less useful.

(p. 40-45) Frankl indicates that there are three areas in which a person can find meaning. They are:

1). Activities (while people cannot choose the meaning of their life, they can choose the commitments that will bring them meaning.)

2). Experiences - truth, beauty, love, music, nature, creativity, etc.

3). Attitudes (Particularly important during "tragic triad" -- suffering, guilt, death.) "Given a cause even the ordinary person may become a hero."

Basically, I would agree with Frankl's above formulations of things that can provide meaning. But, I would interpret them in a different way. As elsewhere, what Frankl is proposing above is that these things magically give a person meaning. By activities, experiences, attitudes one just achieves meaning. This would only be possible if the meaning existed outside the individual and one's behavior either matched or failed to match the outside script. Since meaning comes from inside as a feeling we must take a whole different approach. We must ask, What is it that gives a person a feeling that their life has meaning? Obviously, there are two parts. First, one's internal processing of the experience. Second, the experience itself. I focus my question more specifically and ask, What is necessary to give a person a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning?

I see the foregoing question as one that can be answered using the tools of science. The value of any answer depends on the quality of the thinking and research that supports it. My best current thinking is presented in the Ways of Wisdom, presented in VOLUME I.

(p. 46) "Suffering itself has no meaning; but a person can assume meaningful attitudes toward events which themselves are meaningless."

If this means that one can benefit and be enriched by suffering, I would agree. See, SIXTH WAY OF WISDOM, VOLUME I: Develop and adopt a perceptual framework that integrates pain into the achievement of a SFLIHM, and Chapter XII, "The Meaning of Pain."

(p. 49) Yehuda Bacon, "Suffering can have a meaning if it changes you (the sufferer) for the better."

How one defines meaning to me is critical. In most usages meaning turns out to be meaningless, or something quite different from what one is led to assume. In Bacon's quote it seems to mean: meaning = value, benefit, usefulness.

(p. 49) "Only when we face tragedy will we show whether the meanings we have embraced are conditional or ultimate."

And, for me the foregoing is part of the empirical process. We must study how people's beliefs effect their feeling that their life has meaning. Which beliefs and experiences produce sustainable feelings? Which actually provide this feeling? Which turn out to be a mirage, or fantasy? This is where study (empirical observation) becomes essential.

How can suffering lead one to experience a FLIHM? Frankl attempts to accomplish this by saying that the suffering in and of itself has meaning. I don't believe there is any way to sustain this argument. The suffering cannot on its own have any meaning. Whatever meaning it has comes from what the person believes about the suffering. They may (erroneously) believe that the suffering is a "sentence" imposed by God to make them a better person. This connection with God can give the person a FLIHM. Or, the person can see the suffering as a challenge, either to overcome or to endure. To endure such pain or trauma may force one to strengthen their character and their sense of who they are. It may force them to focus their attention and give up frivolous and/or destructive activities and behavior. When they have done the foregoing they may reach to the core of their being and get congruent with the underlying components of who they are and what is important. They may experience a FLIHM because they admire what they have done and the clarity and direction they see in their life.

(p. 50) Frankl believes in ultimate meaning. "Ultimate meaning is an axiom which cannot be proved but must be assumed, a belief in an ordered world despite the obvious fact that life on the human level is confusing, irrational..."

We can believe in the possibility of an ordered world without believing in ultimate meaning. We can see the confusion and irrationality that have been part of human history and accept them as part of the challenge we must overcome. If we make chaotic, irrational experiences acceptable by giving them cosmic importance, I think the price is too high. When we give these things human meaning that is quite enough.

Ultimate meaning to me is not an acceptable hypothesis. It boils down to a supernatural concept. If one is willing to accept Ultimate Meaning, then one can accept anything. There is no ultimate meaning. There is only a FLIHM that comes out of what it means to be a human being. Human beings are the only reference system we can know. Anything else can only be conjecture. Therefore, I believe it is essential to assign infinite value to each human being. When this is done then everything else follows logically.

This is the place where religion, philosophy, and science have up to this point made a fundamental error. They have all three accepted a reference system outside of humanity from which to measure. Religion and philosophy have built their thinking on God as the reference system that gives everything else significance. Even where philosophy has attempted to divest itself of God, it has not been able to correct its fundamental error and recognize the proper role of human beings in all understanding.

Science, primarily through physics, has attempted to establish its reference system in "reality." This was a reasonable thing to do at the start of the scientific era. However, the development of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics have clarified the error in this approach. Physicists have always thought they were interpreting "reality" (rather than imposing their human reference system on phenomena forever beyond their view). As a result they have always lacked perspective in what they were attempting to do.

Relativity allows one to recognize that simultaneity is a human concept and therefore involves a human reference system. Quantum mechanics forces us to confront the problem of reference systems. Some physicists have gone to the belief that human beings don't just observe reality, but that reality doesn't exist until it is observed. They talk about an observer dependent universe and related concepts. Quantum theory places human beings at the center of their universe where they must be, but it has done so in a way which confuses rather than clarifies this point.

Another problem with quantum theory is the way it interprets probability. Because of positivist influences it has no underlying theory postulating cause. Rather it assumes that the foundation of the universe is randomness. Albert Einstein could not accept this assumption. Neither can I. It is too early to say whether or not physics will be able to get deeper than random causes in understanding the universe. Nevertheless it is critical to recognize that random is an empirical concept that lacks a theoretical foundation. It cannot stand as a fundamental characterization of reality. The universe is chaotic, not random. The foregoing indicates how far quantum theory is from describing "reality." Random is a description it is not an explanation. Regardless of what the future brings, the past indicates that it would be foolish to predict that physicists will be forever barred from understanding the foundation upon which quantum mechanics rests. But, the point is that when (if) this is done, it must still be interpreted/translated in terms of the human reference system and will not be "reality" any more than was Newton/Galileo's theories.

It is critical that science realize that the human reference system is primary and "reality," as Lincoln Barnett [7] says, "...is a skeleton structure of symbols. And the symbols change." And, "...there is no mystery of the physical world which does not point to a mystery beyond itself." [8]

To me the core reference system to which everything else must be referred is a SFLIHM. All knowledge, all experience, all effort must have a SFLIHM as its goal. And, the value and unification of all things must depend on how they contribute to this goal.

(p. 50) "Meaning is found rather than invented...."

This is definitely true. And, this is where study of others' lives provides guidance in finding those things that give human beings a SFLIHM. When individuals start their journey through life they cannot know what it will be like further on. This is where tribal wisdom (religion) has made its essential contribution in the past. However, a society's wisdom comes out of its ability to gather data generation after generation on what things are beneficial and what things are destructive. But for all kinds of reasons societies differ in the value of the data they accumulate. Primarily, their underlying theories have been poorly formulated and badly focused.

Humanity has moved to the place where we can see that no culture has yet provided what all of its citizens need in order to achieve their full positive potential. It can be seen how religions that have their reference system outside of humanity fail them. Our challenge is to integrate the experiences of all earlier people and societies. This is necessary to help each person select the path that looks best to them, not just for today, but for the next year, and the rest of their life.

(p. 51) "Others can give us example and inspiration, but not meaning."

As indicated above we definitely depend on others for example and inspiration. However, it is my belief that at the most basic level others do give us meaning. At a primary level, feelings that life is meaningful come out of our bonding and connecting to other people. Beyond that, people must provide the knowledge and support structure to permit us to achieve a SFLIHM.

(p. 51) However, "As with...[faith and love], meaning also must come in response to something or someone outside us."

Faith and love seem to me to be accurate models for meaning of life. They are both emotion states and as indicated, "come in response to something or someone outside us." One's love is not in the person loved it is in oneself, but is directed toward something outside. Faith is within us based on experiences with the outside world. If Frankl would have kept this model and developed it, I think, he might have really gotten somewhere. However, immediately after the above quote he goes back to say, "All we can do is to be open to meanings, to make a conscious effort to try to see all the possible meanings that a situation offers us, and then select the one which, to the best of our limited knowledge, we consider the true meaning of that particular situation."

Further on he makes other statements indicating that he believes (p. 52) meaning exists outside of people, and (p. 53) there is only one true meaning in a situation; e.g. (p. 54) "...someone or something outside us, beyond us, is doing the asking [of what is the meaning of x]...."

I disagree. Meaning is a feeling. There is nothing outside of human beings that has anything relevant to say about a SFLIHM.

Rather than looking for the true meaning of situations, a more helpful approach would be to become aware of times when one feels despair, depression [9], loneliness, empty, etc.; e.g., a lack of meaning, when a FLIHM is missing. What experiences are associated with these periods? What things end these periods? Are those things that bring a FLIHM to the person sustainable?

In my own experience these periods of depression are interrupted and/or ended when I have a nurturing interaction with other people. My ideal model of a situation totally free of depression is when I am sitting around a big table with family and friends, eating, drinking, joking, telling stories, laughing, and genuinely connecting with those around me.

The critical questions is, Are those things that bring a FLIHM for the person constructive, healthy, growth promoting, beneficial? Should these activities be encouraged or discouraged? Does science and the best wisdom support their usefulness? Or, is the individual being swayed by things that are not sustainable -- effects of trauma, deficiencies, ignorance, immaturity, weakness, a malfunctioning brain, etc.? The foregoing questions lead one to the process of moving from a FLIHM to development of a SFLIHM. Clear guidelines for achieving a SFLIHM is what is now needed everywhere. This is what will move us beyond the current world views which have failed humanity and must continue to fail us until they are replaced.

For me meaning has both a subjective and objective element. It is a feeling, and therefore the essence of subjectivity. Nevertheless, it can be studied from outside so we can learn more and more about the components of a SFLIHM. This study will thereby help more and more individuals achieve this state. In some ways studying meaning of life is like studying diets. Regardless of the beliefs of the individual or the science of the day the food eaten affects one's health in whatever way it does. And the foods available are themselves changing all the time. On the other hand people vary tremendously in their response to food. Foods that are healthy for one person may cause a painful allergic reaction for someone else. But, by studying foods we learn which ones are best for most people, how to balance them to provide necessary nutrients, etc. A SFLIHM may have similar complexities which can be learned from study.

(p. 55) Frankl: Meaning is that which is meant for the individual in each particular situation of their life. Each person's meaning is unique. "For the individual, the search for meaning is highly personal and distinct." However, we "can learn from others who were in similar circumstances."

Frankl: Values are universal meanings. (Unique meanings for many individuals that are so similar they are universal.)

Because Frankl uses a metaphysical definition of meaning it is not possible to pin it down and make sense out of it. It is like a whiff of smoke that at some times appears to take on a significant shape, but soon changes into a random swirl.

As a result he can look at universal experiences that provide individuals a feeling of meaning and call them something else, (values). He thereby loses the opportunity to move his argument somewhere useful.

(p. 56) "In all these instances [missed opportunities of the past] the unique meaning of a situation had been missed and was irrevocably lost." "Yet, in each case that meaning could have been found with the help of values, those time-tested rules of behavior."

My approach to a SFLIHM requires various organizational structures to provide teaching, therapy, experience, support, etc. One of the tasks of these organizations would be to help people to make the best use of each opportunity as it occurs and to take what is of value from those situations that have already passed. Assigning cosmic meaning to events and making them into "messages" is bizarre and unsupportable.

(p. 61) "Logotherapy is very insistent...that it is not the therapists' role to transfer their philosophy to the patient...."

(p. 64) "No one, neither the state nor the psychiatrist, can determine for others what their meanings and value hierarchy should be. What the psychiatrist can do, and what the logotherapist emphasizes, is to help the individual see that they have the capacity to discover meanings and among values a hierarchy, and to point to peoples' conscience as the instrument with which they can make their existential decisions."

No one can or should transfer their philosophy to someone else except as a teaching process. In this regard everyone needs much teaching in the area of meaning. Very few people are likely to achieve a SFLIHM without such teaching, plus organized ways to utilize this teaching. But, teaching must be a two way process in which individuals constantly feed back their experiences, learning, and ideas.

ON CONSCIENCE

(p. 65) To find "the [unique] meaning of a situation....people must turn to their conscience."

(p. 69) "Conscience is reality. True conscience is not just what father, or religion, or society tell us. All these forces are real, but at the core of ourselves we still have this strange little device. It plays a central part in our lives: how we listen and how we act upon what we have heard can make our life either meaningful or empty; it can cause happiness and fulfillment, or tension, conflicts, frustration, and mental disease."

(p. 69) "The Ten Commandments are among the best guidelines we have...."

(p. 70) "...our conscience...has [the]...ability to err...."

(p. 72) "...we are not determined by conscience, but led by it."

(p. 75) "If our conscience can say no to God, laws, commandments, government, society, inner drives, parents, spouses, our upbringing, and our past, then conflicts are unavoidable. Every moment brings choices, every choice brings conflict, every conflict brings tension....To reduce this kind of tension would rob us of our humanness."

In response to the above I would say conscience cannot lead one to a SFLIHM partially because necessary social components do not yet exist nor a satisfactory grand theory. Therefore, many of the necessary resources are not available to anyone's conscience today. Conscience may be more than father, religion, and society, but whatever it is incorporates our past experiences, teachings, our "tribal" propensities, etc. To the degree that these things were wrong or wrongly interpreted, our conscience will mislead us. Also, knowledge and understanding constantly expand, in individuals and in society. Many critical things still remain to be learned.

One's conscience is no better than their past training, upbringing, experience and knowledge. Since all of these are grossly deficient for most people, conscience is not an inerrant source of answers. However, conscience may under proper circumstances be able to keep one on the path they must pursue if they are to develop themselves fully and find a SFLIHM.

(p. 80) "...the answers we get [from analysis of available knowledge] ...can only tell us how people behave on the average and in sample groups, never how the individual ought to behave in specific situations."

I think the foregoing focuses on the wrong point. Study of individuals and societies provide much more than information about average behavior in sampled groups. Studies provide proofs for the value or lack of value of different life patterns, world views, cultural beliefs, etc. This data must be provided so as to help interested persons obtain guidance in: developing life goals, working to achieve those goals, dealing with any other issue that in any way affects a SFLIHM.

I feel confident that enough data is currently available if it were properly utilized to provide most people a feeling that their life has meaning (FLIHM) most of the time. In order for this data to be properly used a grand theory is required. Utilizing this grand theory would allow progress to be made with a minimum of effort. Very soon after its adoption, I think, the number of persons lacking a FLIHM could be cut in half. From there each step forward might take increasingly large expenditures of time and energy. Major changes in underlying cultural theories would be needed to move persons from a FLIHM to a SFLIHM. But, this could happen rapidly and painlessly with the proper effort. Spectacular results could be achieved so successfully because a SFLIHM is the most important thing in any person's life. Once this goal is perfected and projected in a clear way there would be tremendous enthusiasm and energy available for it.

(p. 81) "...the by-products of a meaningful existence [include] happiness, security, peace of mind, mental stability...self-actualization and peak experiences."

(p. 82) "...pursuit of happiness amounts to a self-contradiction: the more we pursue it the less we attain it."

I agree with the foregoing. See response to p. 9 above.

(p. 101) "Human beings have come to realize that they are in search, not in possession of truth."

Perhaps, many have. But many more have not. However the real goal is to recognize that we can never possess truth (in its final form), but can only work toward it.

(p. 107) "Kant maintained that everything had its value but that people had their worth, and that they must never be regarded as a means to an end."

I am in total agreement with the foregoing.

(p. 108) "It has been said that it is the function of tradition to transmute knowledge into wisdom and pass it on to the individuals who cannot possibly accumulate the wisdom of the ages by their own experience."

The foregoing statement is perfect. It should help clarify the goal of a Religion of Wisdom and a Science of Religion. Transmuting knowledge into wisdom is the challenge of a CPASR. A Religion of Wisdom and a Science of Religion requires making a clean break with many traditional approaches and symbols. We must find new ways to express the underlying issues so they will be clear and useful to all of humanity.

(p. 108) "To have the guidance of childhood rules, ritual, religiously approved values, and civil laws gives people security and direction."

Basically, the foregoing is true in the same sense as the previous ideas (p. 108 above). In that regard, these terms all need clarification.

I agree that childhood rules and rituals are an essential part of a Wise Community. However, they must be congruent with and lead to a SFLIHM. Of course no current culture is working toward providing its citizens a SFLIHM. All of them are oriented in other directions such that this goal would neither seem desirable nor possible. Therefore, their childhood rules and rituals are deficient and require re-focusing. Some times this reformulation may be easy. In other cases it will be like major surgery.

"Religiously approved" must be interpreted to mean religion that is in congruence with science and has integrated modern knowledge into past experience. No folk religion or the values it transmits provides the necessary ingredients for a SFLIHM. (Although, some might be able to be transformed so that they could.)

"Civil laws" and/or our approach to them also demands a deep analysis. It may be useful to have a codified collection of rules of behavior for society, though it seems to me that our whole approach should be different. Particularly, we need to change everything relative to what happens when one violates the law.

(p. 110) "...according to logotherapist beliefs, the unique meanings of a person's life situation remain even if universal values [of current society] should become discredited."

"However, Frankl maintained that values can never disappear completely. Part of them can be cast off, others can change, but some universal values will always remain because no individual lives on an island: 'They share typical life situations with others.' From this common ground universal values keep emerging. Even in times when traditional values become discredited and most people float in a sea of apparent meaninglessness, he was certain that some individuals would have a conscience alert enough to discover the meaning of the changed situation. 'And the meanings of today become the values of tomorrow.'"

Frankl's failure to understand that meaning and values are exactly the same thing further confuses his discussions of meaning of life. Because he has failed to realize that the basic things that provide a feeling that life is meaningful are the same for all people he can make statements like the foregoing which confuse a relatively simple issue: For all human beings the most critically important thing for them is the feeling that their life has meaning. What Frankl calls values are in fact universal factors that provide this feeling.

He recognizes that many superficial things can satisfy the feeling of meaning and that these superficial things change. But, this prime need to experience a FLIHM is as steady as hunger, sex drive, etc.

The goal as indicated elsewhere is to examine, analyze, compare, gather data on all things that are thought to produce a FLIHM. This information must then be used to direct research to determine which things are sustainable and which are not. These results need to be organized and shared with everyone to allow more and more people to achieve a SFLIHM.

(p. 113) "...values cannot be taught...nor can meanings be given by the teacher."

As indicated before, this is the exact opposite of my beliefs. I think, people must be taught values and the elements of a SFLIHM. But, also study must clarify this issue by learning those things that do in fact work in real life and those that do not. And, this information can only come by studying the lives of real people, the more the better. The results of these ongoing studies must be taught as part of the foregoing process.

(p. 121) "People's freedom is now a fact, and at the same time their life has lost meaning."

(p. 122) Albert Camus has said that the reason people feel unfulfilled is because they are "losing traditional values...music has lost melody; painting, form; poetry, rhyme and meter; thought, conviction; history, sense; and religion, God."

What the foregoing means to me is that the symbols used by former ages are now being seen to be inadequate/defective. They are no longer adequate to provide a FLIHM. We have progressed to the point where we realize the inadequacy of the past models. But, have not yet recognized that we have to search deeper to find the underlying basis of those feelings that provide meaning. We need new symbols to capture the deeper elements of meaning to restore feelings that life is meaningful. I see this as the most important goal of our age (or any age!).

(p. 128) "Idleness does not fill but increases one's feeling of emptiness. Frankl speaks of the 'Sunday neurosis' which drives more people to suicide on their days off than on work days, when even a humdrum job fills their existence. He recalls the fact that retired people who have not filled their newly won freedom with some task tend to die shortly after their retirement."

To me this is the challenge of a Religion of Wisdom and a Science of Religion -- to provide ways to help people develop their lives so they achieve a SFLIHM.

(p. 131) "If the acceptance of responsibility is the cure for the meaningless life, why do people suffer from meaninglessness more now than in previous eras?" "Freedom without responsibleness...may lead to boredom, emptiness, anxiety, and neurosis."

(p. 132) "How wonderful a world it would be...to have meaningful tasks to fulfill, and also the freedom to choose one's tasks according to one's own conscience!"

Generally, I would expect a Wise Community to provide the foregoing things. However, one of the biggest challenges for a Wise Community will be to learn how to provide meaningful tasks freely chosen by each person.

(p. 149) "A person cannot find individual meaning if they do not believe that it is worth finding, or thinks it is impossible to find, or accepts someone else's meaning as their own."

Everyone hungers for a meaningful life. They may appear to be uninterested because of a reaction against all the foolishness written/discussed about this topic. When individuals at some point realize that cosmic meaning does not exist, they may not understand there is anything else. They may also have become so confused by the images they are shown they think this whole area is not understandable. We must find ways to discuss a SFLIHM in a simple and clear manner. Clear statements and examples should help them realize there is a deeper issue that has been hidden by past erroneous thinking about meaning of life. When the foregoing is achieved, everyone will respond with interest, enthusiasm and commitment.

As indicated elsewhere we can't blindly accept other people's ideas on anything, but especially on meaning. But, people must learn about a SFLIHM as they must learn about everything else: from their society in general, from other people individually, from their own personal experiences. And, unless all of these are congruent, the teaching cannot be fully accepted.

(p. 150) "...life can be made meaningful retroactively even during the last hours [of life]...."

This sounds better than the slant given on p. 56 above. It should be possible to find a SFLIHM at any point in one's life. This does not erase the years of despair, pain, hopelessness that went before. But, it does assure this new state from then on whether an hour before death or two centuries.

However, Frankl is talking about something else. He is discussing cosmic meaning and making it into a deathbed conversion. If one has lived their life denying the existence of God, changing one's mind at the moment of death doesn't change anything. So with meaning of life.

(p. 163) "In psychotherapy the first step is to face reality. Logotherapy...includes the suprahuman dimension in which ultimate meaning is located."

(p. 165) "Just as an animal cannot understand the human world from its animal dimension, people cannot understand the suprahuman and its motivations."

Part of logotherapy's shortcoming is its presentation of many hypothetical concepts that to me not only appear meaningless, but that actually get in the way of dealing satisfactorily with the issue of meaning. "Suprahuman dimension" is such a concept. "Ultimate meaning" and "Plan" (see p. 166 below) are others. If one introduces a concept by saying it cannot be understood because of people's limitations, then it is pointless to introduce it. The odds are that the limitation is in the concept rather than in people.

(p. 166) "These peak experiences can provide people with an element of ecstasy, a feeling of the mystery of existence, of participation in the whole, a glimpse of assurance, a fleeting awareness of a Plan of which they are a part, a meaning."

The preceding is a mixture of useful and useless ideas. One doesn't have to feel they are part of a cosmic Plan in order to experience ecstacy, mystery, self assurance on a regular basis. However, they do need certain things and it is the challenge of our society to provide these.

(p. 168) "The reality of the suprahuman lies beyond scientific research, yet it, too, exists regardless of our understanding, or even our ability to understand."

Some folks say the same thing for ghosts, God, and souls.

(p. 169) "People's refusal to see reality beyond the merely human dimension can result in feelings of emptiness, meaninglessness, frustration, estrangement, loneliness, anxiety, and guilt."

However, these feelings come not because one denies the existence of Gods, spirits, souls, truthful spiritualists, and cosmic meaning. But, because the person has not been taught about a SFLIHM in a compelling way. The challenge of the modern world and especially of a Science of Religion and a Religion of Wisdom is to provide a clear understanding of the elements of a SFLIHM and the organizational structures to achieve it. As indicated elsewhere persons may experience a FLIHM through traditional religion and through the mystical, but their feeling is not sustainable because it rests on ignorance and error. A SFLIHM can only be achieve through an open minded search using the resources of science and incorporating the wisdom of today. Frankl's efforts can only lead away from the goal he holds out.

(p. 170) "Logotherapy simply states: people are searching. But it can never decide if they are searching for a God they have invented, for a God they have discovered, for a God they cannot find, or for themselves."

We need to do better than the foregoing. Until we realize that Human Beings Are the Ultimate Reference System all questions will be misfocused and our answers obscure.

(p. 175) "In Biblical times, religion was all-encompassing -- nothing in humanity's experience was outside it....This feeling of being sheltered and participating in a totality was the basis for people's mental health."

This is the kind of integration and totality that a Science of Religion and a Religion of Wisdom would offer and it is up to us to develop.

(p. 178) "People find life meaningless if they deny or repress their relationship with Ultimate Meaning."

Wrong. People lose an opportunity to achieve a SFLIHM if they are unable to discard the old symbols and help discover and utilize the new ones.

(p. 182) Frankl: "...religion is humanity's awareness of the suprahuman dimension, and the basic trust in ultimate meaning resides in that dimension."

Wrong. Religion is the bonding, integrative institution in society and it is limited by the symbols that it uses. We have potentials never available to humanity before because of our increased knowledge, understanding and experience. At least in the U.S. we are not limited by the history of any one culture. Every society can be studied as though it were an experiment. This study will help us advance synergistically applying what we learn from them. Obviously, the foregoing analysis will be possible only with the use of computers and well focused organizations to carry out the studies and analysis.

(p. 187) "Logotherapy assumes that ultimate meaning exists but that it is ultimately unknowable for the individual."

To assume something to exist that is ultimately unknowable is not the path of enlightenment -- not the path I choose to follow. A Science of Religion and a Religion of Wisdom based on it avoids obscurantist approaches except for their conjectural value which may at times prove quite useful. The approach used by a Science of Religion is to build on the known and to work to continue advancing what is known. But, what seems most obvious to me is that all of our efforts are most productive when they are focused on achieving a SFLIHM.

.

.

.

1. THE PURSUIT OF MEANING, Joseph B. Fabry, Beacon Press, Boston, 1968.

2. MAN'S SEARCH FOR MEANING, Victor E. Frankl, p. 170, Washington Square Press, New York, 1959.

3. Rather than to help them develop their full positive potential as a Wise Community would be trying to do.

4. Frankl, op. cit., p. 7.

5. THE FUTURIST, "Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence," Dr. James W. Prescott, p. 64-74, Washington, April 1975. OR CLICK HERE.

6. Noetic: having to do with noos, a person's innermost core -- one's self, "soul," "atman" (Hindu).

7. THE UNIVERSE AND DR. EINSTEIN, Lincoln Barnett, p. 123, The New American Library, New York, 1948.

8. Ibid., p 127.

9. A measure of the lack of understanding of the issue of meaning of human life in our culture is demonstrated in how depression is explained. Psychologists (the experts on this topic) have many conflicting explanations. Freud: Anger turned inward. Frankl: Doubting the meaning of life. Etc. However, in recent times Medical Doctors have now become experts and they are able to prescribe drugs to affect this state.

.