Patina

\PAT-n-uh; puh-TEEN-uh\, noun:
1. The color or incrustation which age gives to works of art; especially, the green rust which covers ancient bronzes, coins, and medals.
2. The sheen on any surface, produced by age and use.
3. An appearance or aura produced by habit, practice, or use.
4. A superficial layer or exterior.

~~~~~~~

(This is a continuation of the below post)

After determining how something functions, we are often drawn to ask why. Not the simple why, by which we calculate what causes precede the effects of stars exploding or genes mutating, but ultimate questions, like why does the universe exist? Why do we exist? How do we fit in the universe? Why can we understand the universe, and why do we want to?

And these are not trivial questions in the least—in fact, most people would prescribe them much more importance than understanding the mere functions of the universe. Thus, when we say “physical evidence only takes you so far”, we don’t necessarily mean that physical evidence can’t bring us truth, but that the kinds of truth we value the most aren’t always hiding behind physical evidence and true theories. Instead, these kinds of truth require very human (or very godly), and very subjective (or very infallible), inquiry and answers (deistical prescriptions and suggestions).

It is my opinion that these answers come from a mix of understanding the universe, the self, and the purpose one wishes to personally build and fulfill throughout one’s life. Others have found this sought-after meta-meaning in god, or spirituality, or something that lives among us but is not physical. These meta-meanings do not only inform us, but inspire and enliven us, such that our search for truth is made possible and valuable.

I think the meaning of one’s life is a subjective construction that we actively build, and which can be informed and directed by understanding the natural world and our interactions with those we love and don’t. But certainly I’m not such a hard-nosed naturalist that I think such a meaning can be derived from the motions of the universe alone.

The point I’m stumbling my way across is that there are two distinct kinds of truth that often overlap because humans seek “truth” as a whole, and blur the line. There is the truth we can find in the universe, which is rich and layered, complicated but satisfying to grasp, and which, in conjunction with turning the mirror on ourselves, can serve to greatly enhance our understanding of, and ability to act knowledgeable within, the universe.

Then there is a second type of truth, a self-wrought or spiritually-given purpose, by which our most crucial insecurities are anxious and tentative, and through which we find meaning for all the things we do. I do not think meaning can be found in the motion of the universe, nor do I think the universe (excluding sentience) can have a meaning. We are the makers of meaning.

“Physical evidence can only get you so far” if the road to truth includes meaning, and it most certainly does. But physical evidence is not the only requisite for finding meaning, nor the final word on the questions we care most about answering. Those questions, instead, are posed and answered by us.