The Meaning Crisis Part II

In The Meaning Crisis, Part I, I talked about the steady increase of underlying anxiety and restlessness that I have seen within myself, my clients, and society over the last 20+ years of working, teaching, and coaching individuals in the health and wellness space, despite the application of the latest modalities and techniques of psychology and personal development.

I shared that I've been intensely focused on studying meaning and purpose over the last few years as a potential remedy for this underlying angst.

I've studied the works of Victor Frankl, the author of "Man's Search for Meaning," Simon Sinnek, "Finding Your Why," and Steven Kotler, "Art of the Impossible." All of these deeply explore human motivation, resilience, perseverance, and a human's ultimate desire to find meaning and purpose.

I've implemented many of the concepts of these brilliant authors and professionals with myself and my clients and have had incredible results.

Although I could see substantial improvement, these strategies seem to only kick the "anxiety can" down the road. They lacked a more sustainable solution. They all seemed temporary, and people, including myself, were always left with a sense that something felt incomplete.

A strong "why" and/or alignment with meaning and purpose were essential to solving life’s puzzle. However, I realized that having a why wasn't as important as having a meta-why.

I called this meta-why your Meta-Purpose.

A Meta-Purpose is a purpose to which all other purposes are subservient. One whose drive and motivation are sustainable and expansive throughout your life and allow you to engage in all other meaningful and purposeful activities you encounter across your lifetime.

The Meta-Purpose answered THE question:

What is the meaning of life?

Acknowledging that philosophy and religion are the main areas that have attempted to tackle this question, we explored the ideas of the more popular philosophers and religions.

The three categories we covered in Part I were:

• Non-theistic spirituality

• Atheism

• Theistic spirituality

I shared the main principles of these general philosophies and my pros and cons list for each, including Indigenous, Folk Religions, and Indic Traditions like Hinduism. I then began exploring the Abrahamic traditions of Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

In Part II of The Meaning Crisis, I will elaborate on the pros and cons list, specifically moral relativism and the double-edged sword of authority.

REVIEW OF THE PROS & CONS OF PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITIONS

The main drawbacks and pitfalls that show up within the ideas and principles of these philosophic traditions are:

• moral relativism

• each individual as their own authority

• doing evil in the name of "God."

The main strengths and upsides within these philosophic traditions are:

• techniques of meditation, reflection, and prayer

• application of reason, critical thinking, and evidence-based reality

• moral authority is dictated by a supreme being or ideal

• unifying ideals and morality

• actions have consequences

• reverence for creation

• all humans are divine and should be treated as such

Let's start to pull some of this apart.

Moral Relativism

Moral Relativism comes from the philosophy of postmodernists. These philosophers emphasized that truth, morality, and meaning are not absolute but subjective and contingent on cultural, historical, and individual contexts. The beneficial aspects of the post-modernist perspective emphasize the importance of critical thinking and challenging oppressive structures. The biggest danger is the denial of objective truth. Postmodernists like Derrida and Foucault shared that since anything can have infinite interpretations, there can be no absolute truth; therefore, each interpretation is true in its own way.

I have found this to be the big draw of non-theistic spirituality: the freedom it gives individuals to create their own “truths,” drive their journey of experience and relationship with God or the divine, and answer to no one but themselves.

I've heard countless people, including myself at a time, say that they aren't going to let anyone mediate their relationship with God.

This means they will primarily interpret the meanings of their spiritual experiences and awareness.

This was a lingering concept from the 17th and 18th centuries of Enlightenment. A cultural and intellectual movement that has shaped modern society.

The Enlightenment emphasized concepts like:

• Reason and rationality: logic and critical thinking overriding "superstition and dogma."

• Individualism: focus on promoting individual freedom and self-expression

• Empiricism and Scientific Method: science can be the basis and explain what we need to know about reality

• Secularism: this was the move to take "God" out of the equation and allow people the freedom of belief

These seeds eventually bear fruit in the post-modernist perspective in the 20th century, which I will discuss later.

In Part I, I also shared the danger that philosopher Frederick Neitzche accurately predicted when he announced the "death of God" and humans being tasked with defining morality late in the 19th century. The “death of God” was a result of the ideas of the Enlightenment.

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”
-Frederick Nietzche, “The Madman”

Neitzche specifically warned that the two biggest potential consequences of the death of God were NIhilism and Totalitarianism.

Nihilism is the belief that life has no inherent meaning or purpose. This mindset is increasingly reflected in today’s society, where disconnection, apathy, and a deep sense of emptiness seem more widespread than ever. It manifests in a specific condition that I encounter daily in my coaching practice, which I will share in the final section of this newsletter.

Totalitarianism unfolded in the next hundred years after Nietzche’s prediction. It remains one of the most brutal periods that humans have ever seen. The highest concentration of totalitarian regimes in human history was in the 20th century. With Hitler’s Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, Imperial Japan, and China under Mao Zedong leading the way, the total number of brutal human murders and genocides from 1920 to 1979 was estimated at 110-180 million. This is roughly one-quarter to one-third of Europe’s population during that time!

Nietzsche’s declaration of the ‘death of God’ was not just an observation—it was a warning. He foresaw that without a transcendent moral authority, humanity would struggle to create a stable ethical framework. While economic and political factors also played a role in the rise of totalitarian regimes, what made them especially dangerous was their attempt to fill the void left by the absence of God with their own manufactured ‘moral’ systems—ones that justified mass murder in the name of ideology. The lesson is not that all secularism leads to tyranny but that when objective morality is replaced by human-invented morality, history has shown us that the results can be catastrophic.

Some secular ethical systems, like humanism, attempt to create moral frameworks without religious belief. However, these systems often unknowingly borrow from Judeo-Christian ethics, such as valuing human dignity, justice, and compassion. The real question is: what prevents morality from being redefined in dangerous ways without a transcendent authority? History shows that societies that reject objective morality often drift toward ethical instability, where right and wrong are determined by those in power rather than by any absolute standard.

The Fine Balance of Freedom & Constraints

The other idea that emerged in the 19th and 20th centuries was existentialism, led by Jean-Paul Sartre. This idea emphasized radical freedom and absolute free will and argued that individuals should be free to define their meaning and purpose.

Although this idea can promote personal responsibility, authenticity, and growth, it again overlooks the downside of total autonomy and freedom. Bearing total responsibility for your life and making the “right decision” can be daunting and create tremendous overwhelm and anxiety. This existential anxiety is one of the most common conditions I have encountered coaching clients over the last decade—the paralyzing fear of making the “wrong decision.”

We have discussed moral relativism, which is a problem with total freedom. However, I must also point out that it is not entirely clear that humans can even be “totally free.”

Neuroscientists and psychologists suggest that human behavior is shaped by genetics, subconscious processes, and environmental conditioning, contradicting Sartre’s assertion of absolute free will.

Modern science increasingly shows that habit, upbringing, and even brain chemistry play a significant role in decision-making, challenging the idea that we are completely sovereign over ourselves.

The real question is, What does one mean by freedom? Free from what? Free to do what?

The most reasonable answer seems free from oppression, especially unjust oppression, which makes complete sense.

The tricky part is who determines what is just and what is unjust. Postmodernists suggest that each individual should be able to decide this. Yikes!

This quickly evolves into people relating freedom as the right to do what they want and not to be “oppressed” by someone who disagrees. They don’t want to abide by “your rules.” Therefore, any standard or unifying ideal presented immediately symbolizes oppression.

They don't realize that they are exchanging one enslaver for another. Instead of having an outside authority tell them right from wrong, they are now under the control of an inside authority. Instead of an external tyrant, they are enslaved to their internal tyrant. Their emotions, sensations, and feelings become the authority. There is no freedom. Your whims become your master—essentially, you become a 2-year-old who can create a narrative to justify their actions.

It reminds me of a quote from Michael Gerber’s book E-Myth, in which he describes the experience individuals have after they leave their jobs as employees to pursue entrepreneurship. They all leave under the pretense that once they escape their oppressive boss, they will finally be their own boss and be free. Then they meet their new boss.

“As the boss, they are even more demanding, tyrannical, and harder to satisfy than the last. Now, they're working for a lunatic!"

The learning curve to becoming an authority figure in your own business is steep, and there are consequences along the way. However, the consequences of humans figuring out the ultimate ideal and morality are infinitely more devastating.

It has gotten so bad that now people want to be able to do whatever they want and don't want you to judge them. If someone speaks out and points out the insane things that are happening in our society in the name of freedom (like mutilating young children's genitals), they are the ones ridiculed and shamed for their "intolerance."

Even when discussing an ultimate ideal or identifying a unifying narrative around an ideal, one is immediately labeled as intolerant, arrogant, and evil.

This is exactly the experience I had when I shared some of these ideas with someone while writing this newsletter. As I shared some of my ideas, this individual told me throughout the conversation (which are direct quotes from the text thread) that I was arrogant, prideful, judgmental, condescending, aggressive, had no empathy for anyone, was selfish, and was intolerant of people. They also added that I would create a lot of suffering in the world and probably already have. The irony of the whole thing was how aggressive, accusatory, judgmental, and intolerant they seemed of me…weird.

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

I recently thought back on the morality presented within the experience of the "Enlightened" community I was involved in. Thinking back on some things deemed “ok” was quite horrifying. It terrifies me that I could be "okay" with some of the narratives I had heard about right and wrong over the years. I'm honestly embarrassed to admit it, and writing them down makes it even more uncomfortable. I hope it illustrates the slippery slope of being in control of determining right and wrong.

Below are a few of the narratives that I heard justifying things that are not ok:

• engaging in pornography was acceptable as long as you did it joyfully

• abortion was not a big deal because that particular soul needed to incarnate and be killed - it was part of that soul's journey

• driving at insanely high speeds, ignoring all traffic laws, taunting, and running from policemen was ok because you weren't breaking the "laws of the universe."

• pedophilia can be misunderstood; it all depended on the situation

• it was also ok to date your clients if you reached a certain state of enlightenment (which, at the time I left this organization, only one person had reached this level - the leader)

Amazingly, how subtle and seemingly harmless an evil spirit or idea can present itself. Even simple ideas like:

• “You should and deserve to be free.”

• “Your relationship with the divine is yours.”

• “You decide what that relationship is.”

• “You no longer have to live under the tyranny of an authority.”

• “You have the power to determine right from wrong.”

• “You can be like God because he lives in you.”

This may sound familiar to some of you.

This is exactly what the serpent sold to Eve in the Garden of Eden.

"For God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Genesis 3:6

Whether you are a Christian or not, it should make you pause and deeply contemplate how and why a book written thousands of years ago was spot on about the danger of humans determining good from evil.

THE NEW AGE MOVEMENT

Many people enter New Age spirituality because they seek healing, peace, and purpose. These are good desires. However, the deeper one goes, the more one encounters dangerous distortions of truth—ideas that may seem harmless but lead away from true healing."

These enlightenment ideas have manifested into what is now known as the New Age Movement. This is a diverse, eclectic spiritual movement that includes practices like:

• Astrology

• Divination

• Meditation

• Crystal healing

• Energy healing

• Channeling & Mediumship

• Manifestation & Law of Attraction

Once again, on the surface, all of these things seem harmless and, in many cases, helpful. If you want to listen to three influential members of the New Age Movement discuss their dangers, I recommend checking out their podcast, New Age to New Heart, and listening to the first episode, "We Realized We Were Talking to Demons."

I have one final story from my experience with this personal development organization to drive home the point that these new-age ideas of universal consciousness—everyone is divine, God lives in you, and you can create your truth—are often the first step to engaging in a very dangerous ethos.

One night, after a weekend program we completed, the organization's leader shared a disturbing story with me that I realize now I conveniently laughed off with him. He told me about an experience with his Guru teacher from India. It happened during a deep, meditative, energetic session that she would do with her top students. At one point during the session, he opened his eyes to look up at her and saw her completely transform. She had transformed into this grotesque being he identified as the devil before his eyes. He was terrified at first and then slowly calmed himself down. He told himself at that moment that because his life had never been better, that

"If this is the devil's work, I'm good with it."

This is exactly what these evil spirits prey on - when you are lost, confused, and in pain, they promise you peace, love, and power. Individuals who have had a traumatic childhood sadly became prime targets for the temptation of a demonic spirit, promising freedom and happiness.

Many other individuals I have worked with, mentored, and coached in this new-age spiritual domain can easily justify sticking around with these organizations and practices, just like I did. People who have good hearts and want nothing more than to positively impact the world, people I considered good friends, are still involved in new-age organizations like the one I was a part of. They continue to ignore these things, just like I did.

It was easy for me, and it continues to be easy for so many people, to justify being connected to an ethos of evil as a "good thing" and “doing no harm.”

The Double Edge Sword of Authority

Having no moral authority leads to chaos.

Being our own moral authority invites bias and self-deception.

The ultimate authority is essential—but when corrupted by self-interest, greed, or power, it becomes catastrophic.

The ideal scenario is the ideal authority. The ideal authority would be loving, selfless, and have the proper balance of mercy and justice. A benevolent authority and leader that orients to Truth.

It certainly doesn’t look like the source of objective morality can come from human nature. Humans historically have a propensity to be self-serving and easily corrupted when given the power of authority.

For morality to be truly objective, it must come from a source beyond human subjectivity. Otherwise, moral laws become mere social constructs, changeable at human whim. But this raises an important question: how can we trust that humans correctly interpret divine morality? The answer is that while human interpretations can be flawed, this does not negate the existence of an absolute moral law. Just as science seeks to uncover objective physical truths despite human error, theology seeks to understand moral truths despite human fallibility. The alternative—leaving morality entirely in human hands—has repeatedly proven unstable.

This, of course, leads to the ideas of the existence of God and an ultimate Truth.

Does God even exist?

Is there such a thing as “Truth?”

And if God does exist, is there ONE true God?

Is there ONE right religion?

This is exactly where I will pick up in the next part of the Meaning Crisis.

In Meaning Crisis Part III, I will address the question of God's existence and the ultimate truth.

Until next time!

Yours in Vitality,

Matt