The existentially indifferent appear to live a life of complacency, with few highs and little or no introspection. As Schnell puts it, “Without commitment to sources of meaning, life remains superficial. But superficiality is not necessarily a state of suffering.” They aren’t classified as having “psychological stress,” but they “can hardly be viewed as living a life of health and well-being,” according to Schnell. An existentialist would say they are asleep.

“Existential philosophers and psychologists, from Heidegger to Frankl … have discussed distinctions between an authentic, complex life and a shallow, ‘everydayness’ mode of existence,” Schnell comments. The existentially indifferent characterize this “everyday” mode of existence, and as if to defy existentialism, are perfectly fine with it. To replace meaningful pursuits, they have a wide array of superficial weaponry. “Surrogates for meaningful commitment abound: They range from material possessions to pleasure seeking, from busy-ness to sexuality.”

Problem: there are at least two kinds of existential indifference. What these researchers seem to be taking for indifference is the kind nefariously in bed with apathy. But not caring about meaning is not at all the same thing as being indifferent to meaning once it has been considered: indifference that is in fact a response to consideration. Apathy implies a blatant lack of concern before meaningfulness is even properly considered, or at least a lack of concern despite what ‘meaningfulness’ might even be. However, if life’s meaningfulness is considered, and deemed an epistemological dead end, then this warrants further speciation of those considered existentially indifferent. This variant of the existential indifferents consider the question of meaningfulness, unlike their cohorts the apathetics, but treat the problem itself with epistemological skepticism (can we really even know what meaningfulness is? does Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle apply? ) and may choose to shelve it with other categories of unanswerables like religion.

There is a learned secular pragmatism to this type of indifference: if the problem is at least possibly unsolvable, why waste time engaging it? A parallel of this situation can be observed in the sundry and fruitless religious debates we are all forced to occasionally tolerate. If I can’t prove my religious views are objectifiably true (I cannot), and you can’t prove your religious views are objectifiably true (you cannot), then why are we discussing it? Time waster.

Meaningfulness is an elusive quality like happiness or spirituality and perhaps not necessarily best dealt with head on. The true existential indifferents are just going about their lives, hoping perhaps that meaningfulness will catch up with them at a later date. This is not nihilism or apathy. The idea here is that it is not easily quantifiable (if at all), and as such, should not be obsessed over. And note that this is not categorical indifference, but simply indifference to the epistemologically impossible task of accurately defining meaningfulness. When those hedonistic indifferents play video games and have sex as opposed to sitting around tallying up all the meaning their lives lack (presumably in Quicken’s Meaning Calculator), it is because they have better things to do than spinning wheels over impossible philosophical terrain, things that may one day result in meaningfulness actually being achieved. Quit trying so hard, people.

Here it is really: invest in expensive tools, like DeWalt, or if there is a better brand, that. Don’t buy the cordless screwdriver that can’t even drill through jello just because it is cheap. Save yourself the agony, the extra time, and years of accumulated dead batteries and crappy tools. This extends to all tools as well, like lawn rakes, edger trimmer machines, snips for wire stuff, snips for plant stuff.

Also, don’t invest in anything besides tools at this point. Not stocks, nor bonds. Not gold, nor bronze. Maybe original art.

Sometimes I think the kid in me just might live forever.

This bit kills me:

He believes that as the car of the future studies the driver’s voice, facial expressions and emotional state using a camera and even blood pressure monitors in the steering wheel, it could change its tone to match your mood. In other words, it’ll know when you’re about to blow your top because someone cut you off, and soothe your nerves with a friendly voice.

Are you kidding dude? If my car talked to me when I was angry I would pull over and light it on fire.

However, add a little AI therapy to the mix, and perhaps a benzodiazipine dispenser, and we might have something.

“Our research indicates that the strategy that works best is what we called cognitive reframing, which involves not letting the negative emotion start in the first place” he says. “So rather than try to repair the emotion, you try to prevent it. Someone cuts you off and the car says, ‘Five miles ahead, the road will clear,’ something that changes your view from anger to something more positive.”

Hal: “Relax, Manunderstress. Five miles ahead, the road will clear.”

MUS: “Give me a Xanax, Hal. And shut the fuck up.”

At most, an astronaut without a suit would last about 15 seconds before losing conciousness from lack of oxygen. (That’s how long it would take the body to use up the oxygen left in the blood.) Of course, on Earth, you could hold your breath for several minutes without passing out. But that’s not going to help in a vacuum. In fact, attempting to hold your breath is a sure way to a quick death.