I read Frankl's book as a depressed person who saw lack of meaning as the root of my problems, namely of anhedonia (used casually, not medically). Frankl's book is written for normal functional people. What wasn't clear is that the state of anhedonia is not a result of lack of meaning, anhedonia is lack of meaning.

I was reading it hoping for an algorithm to find any meaning at all.

For you "meaning" seems to mean something. For me "meaning" was a null pointer exception. The variable name "meaning" is understood in a general sense, but when you try to manipulate the idea or collide it with other ideas, everything breaks down. If you can't de-reference "meaning" then Frankl's work is quite opaque since "meaning" is primarily a feeling and most people's understanding of it is intuitive rather than prescriptive. Frankl is never able to jump out of the intuitive understanding of meaning, and so for someone who the idea of "meaning" is not intuitive his work was quite inaccessible.

Once you understand that meaning is feeling, then you can think about meaning in a more prescriptive sense and his work starts to make more sense. I would probably have a wildly different experiencing reading it now than when I originally read it.

I had a childhood where my feelings did not matter very much. My dad was a narcissist and my mom was too busy bread-winning. This resulted in suppression of emotions since they had very little value. As an adult the lessons learned as a child are carried through.

Childhood emotional neglect is the state of not learning how to have purpose because you don't matter. The depression stage of grief seems closer to the state of having lost meaning.

I guess for a summarized critique of Frankl, it's that much like the article posted is saying, meaning is not a linear monolothic idea. If you frame the conversation around meaning as Frankl's book does, that's a very different conversation than one framed around emotional regulation. The emotional regulation conversation helps find meaning, but the meaning conversation is unlikely to help a person with emotional regulation.

I agree with you on that there is no clear definition or discussion about "meaning" itself. But I don't agree with the idea that meaning == feeling. It sounds to me that if I apply that definition to how I live my life it'd only leads to a hedonistic one that only pursues momentary satisfaction of my feelings.

Don't know about `==`, but I take parent's comment as: you intuitively know that you have found meaning, because of the way you _feel_ when doing/thinking certain things, like playing with your child, working on a project, running, reading a book etc.

If I feel content while doing something, then that something gives me meaning.

> For you "meaning" seems to mean something. For me "meaning" was a null pointer exception.

No it’s the same for me. The thing is that I don’t care at all about that when I’m well. I haven’t thought about the meaning of life for a year probably (ok I’m very busy). When I was in a bad place (also was raised by narcissists), I obsessed over meaning and purpose all the time. But that’s just a symptom of depression IMO. Like I said, my take is that the search for purpose is a proxy for concrete problems that need solving. Something that the conscious part comes up with that feels like finding a solution to would make us feel better.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The childhood you're describing resonates with me.

Have you found ways to overcome or manage the effects of that neglect?

> The emotional regulation conversation helps find meaning, but the meaning conversation is unlikely to help a person with emotional regulation.

I guess you meant "[...] to help a person _without_ emotional regulation"?

Can you expand on this? Are you suggesting the lack of emotional regulation is what prevents people from finding meaning (whatever that means)?

> Have you found ways to overcome or manage the effects of that neglect?

No, but I haven't tried professionals or medication. I watched a number of Stanford lectures on psychiatry and while I was rabidly against medications (unless they had a street value because that indicates they do something that people value), I found the lectures pretty convincing and they changed my mind. Sapolsky in particular has some great lectures.

> emotional regulation

That's a fun bit of ambiguity. Am I saying help a [person with emotional regulation] or help a [person] with [emotional regulation]? I meant help a person regulate their emotions.

Running on empty talks about it. I can't say I am sold on her treatment protocol which involves work including writing reflections focused on bringing attention to emotions and being able to better describe them.

But yeah, blunted emotions and dis-regulation inhibit the ability to do work. It creates comfort seeking behavior rather than growth seeking behavior. If you can't imagine emotional payoff, how are you going to motivate work? Not work like a job, but work like learning to read sheet music, or put yourself in social situations where you might face rejection.

I think the authors core idea was that emotional neglect as a child creates a situation were you de-value your emotions (because you don't want to burden a parent with them, for example), which creates suppression and blunting of emotions, which then manifests in all types of mal-adaptions which ultimately creates a situation where the fuel for life, emotions, isn't there and then you feel like you are "running on empty."

The author explicitly states that emotions are that fuel. Emotions are what prevents a person from feeling like they are out of fuel.

I think there is a class of people for which they are looking for "fuel" to their life, and I think that is the same thing as looking for "meaning."

> Are you suggesting the lack of emotional regulation is what prevents people from finding meaning (whatever that means)?

So taking the idea that meaning is emotions, lack of emotional regulation makes it hard to feel the feelings you want, which is nearly tautological.

So the question becomes "Do I have trouble finding meaning because I have suppressed my emotions?" I certainly figured out quite young that it's easier to stop wanting something than to seek it out and struggle or fail, particularly without help. Do I really not want the thing, or was my desire suppressed? Would there be meaning in me getting it? Would there be meaning in seeking it out? Even if I suppressed my desires, is that desire still there? Have I suppressed my desire for meaning because the work is onerous?

I am not sure if those are the right questions or what the answers are but I think they poke in the emotional regulation/work/meaning/emotions direction and start sketching a framework upon which to think about the problem.

I recommend her book. I thought it was going to be a slog, but 1-2 chapters in and I felt like I was reading my own biography, I read it in a day. It's pretty mechanical rather than wishy-washy. Most concepts are well defined and technical in nature. She doesn't make many appeals to intuition and everything is pretty "cause and effect".

> unless they had a street value because that indicates they do something that people value

This usually only means that doctors restrict access to those drugs because they have a potential for addiction and abuse, and people seek them out on the street once they're addicted and their doctor has recognized this/declined to continue them on it/they want an abusable quantity. Exceptions for things like insulin which has other unique reasons.

Potential for abuse and addiction is not a good sign of value. It's a sign of it's potential to ruin or end your life.

I agree and I don't.

All the anti-depressants come with a warning label that says may end your life, yet they have no street value and I've never heard them referred to as addictive (although they seem to have withdrawal).

Ketamine, mushrooms, LSD, etc. have street value and you hear way more "mushrooms helped my depression/ketamine is like a light-switch for depression" on the internet than you ever hear positive stories about SSRI's and the like which is more likely to have stories around sexual dysfunction or withdrawal syndrome than glowing reviews. Nobody says psychedelics are addictive.

Street value represents demand and lack of street value represents lack of demand and lack of demand represents lack of effect.

So I think the idea that potential for abuse is what drives street value is wrong, wrong in the sense that there is an element of truth, but it isn't the truth.

I think that reasoning is sound.

I think there is a fine dunning kruger line to be walked here and as I admitted (in the context of what you quoted) that I think there is truth to what I just wrote, but I don't think it is the truth.

SSRIs "end life" because it causes changes in mental health, which is often a turbulent thing for people who take SSRIs. It's not the drug itself.

Self reports of extreme efficacy on the internet happen for things like homeopathic medicine and isn't really evidence. I am aware of studies that do show efficacy for these though.

Psychedelics aren't addictive but they cause severe impairment which is dangerous. Also they're fun which the DEA hates.

As I said, it isn't just abuse. It's also addiction and danger and fun police.

Disclaimer: I'm pro legalizing everything