This is a good summary of what I understand about the work, though admittedly I haven't processed the whole thing. It's a fascinating read, though he spends mor

This is a good summary of what I understand about the work, though admittedly I haven't processed the whole thing. It's a fascinating read, though he spends more time talking about what meaningness is not rather than what it is. Let me preface the following: I've really enjoyed my time with this work and it's highly recommended if you're interested in these questions. We're all building up ad-hoc models of the world in our heads so I doubt anyone who takes these questions seriously would agree 100%. My problem with it is that it ignores the observer - we are pattern matchers and we're drawn to find patterns by biological processes. The pleasing aesthetic of meaningness is part of a neurological reward system to find patterns. We could think of meaningness in terms of information theory, but there are no true patterns that always repeat exactly, even patterns themselves are transient (the nebulous nature he refers to). That implies to me we're soft matching local patterns in an ultimately global noisey environment. I'm still struggling to see how meaningness is different than existentialism, and feel he straw-mans existentialism a bit to make it different than his own framework. I love the definition of meaningness, it's the most complete definition of that fuzzy feeling that we all get some times and I would expect it would have value in psychology or understanding brain structure, but I have doubts it "means" anything outside the context of our consciousness. But maybe that's outside the scope of this work, and he's not interested in meaning in a cosmic sense, but rather in the personal.