*Constructivism* — the view that meaning is imposed by sovereign subjects onto a universe indifferent to value (Sartre 1946) — rests on the insistence that without some imposing subject, no meaning would obtain anywhere; meaning is the kind of thing that exists only where someone meant something, and any account that locates it elsewhere either smuggles in a subject under another name or equivocates on what *meaning* is. The structural account agrees that meaning requires a self-modeling subject to register direction, and that no meaning lives in the medium prior to the subjects that hold it. Where constructivism then misidentifies the structure is in the imposition image itself. Any imposition presupposes a ground on which it lands. No one can impose direction onto a medium that lacks the conditions for direction, any more than a hand can press onto a surface that lacks extension. The structural ground is not optional for the constructivist either. What constructivism correctly identifies is the contingency of content. What it mistakes is the necessity of the conditions under which any content can be meant at all.

*Theistic prescription* — the view that meaning requires a transcendent lawgiver to inscribe purpose from outside (Craig 2008; Swinburne 2004) — rests on the experiential weight of moral and meaningful demands: when something matters, the mattering does not feel like something the subject could simply withdraw at will; it presents itself with the authority of what is owed, not what is preferred. A view on which the subject just makes up its own meaning struggles to capture that weight. The structural account agrees that the weight is real, that it is not invented at will, and that any adequate account has to ground rather than dismiss it. It locates the source differently. The pressure the tradition attributed to a transcendent source is real; people oriented toward shared exchange do experience a normative pull that exceeds their own preferences. But the source of that pull is the modal gradient of the medium itself, not an agent beyond it. A designer outside T, S, and Φ could not inscribe direction into a medium it does not share; inscription requires contact, contact requires the medium, and the medium is what is being identified as the ground. The tradition’s intuition — that meaning is not invented by the individual — survives. Its ontology does not.

The same point explains how religion produces genuine meaning while getting its metaphysics wrong. Religious communities connect people to each other across real relational intervals and orient them toward shared outcomes sustained through time — the structural conditions of meaning, met whether or not the outcome exists as named. A congregation oriented toward a heaven that is not real still connects: to each other, across the interval the community holds open; to a direction that organizes collective life across time; to a tradition whose persistence exceeds any single member. The meaning is not imaginary; the connection is actual. The terminus of the shared reach is imaginary; the reach itself is not. Religion has been one of the most effective meaning-producing technologies humans have built (Durkheim 1912; Geertz 1973; Atran 2002), and the modal account inherits the phenomenon without inheriting the ontology. What the tradition's metaphysics located beyond Nature was not where it claimed to be; what the gathering itself produced — connection across the relational interval, shared orientation across time, communities held open by what they reached toward — was real all along.

One heuristic sharpens the contrast. Meaning under theistic prescription works like a paint-by-numbers kit: the subject traces a fixed scheme whose authority is pre-supplied; the picture is right when it matches the template. Meaning under the structural account is more like the open studio where the curriculum has been genuinely absorbed — the medium, tools, tradition, and the constraint that some marks are technically incoherent are all real — but what gets made within them is authentically the maker's own. The studio version is not emptier than the kit. The constraints are found, not invented; the expression is genuinely one's own; the tradition is shared; the conversation with other makers continues across the making. What the kit supplies that the studio does not is not richer meaning but fewer choices — and the fewer choices, not the meaning, is what its adherents sometimes mourn when they leave.

The concession is mortality. Religion did not only host meaning; it hosted meaning eternalized — security against all contingency, survival without end, a witness that never looks away. The structural account can relocate meaning because the arrangements that secure possibility are real, and the connections they hold open are real. It cannot relocate the fantasy that those arrangements cannot be lost. Meaning returns to the finite world intact but without the guarantee against loss. That is not nihilism; it is the mature cost of the relocation. The full burden of that cost is carried at [§8.7](<8.7 Mortality.md>), because mortality is where the wish for permanence has to be faced directly.

*Nihilism and absurdism* — the view that the universe is silent on the question of meaning, and that the human demand for meaning confronts a neutral or indifferent cosmos (Camus 1942; Nagel 1971) — rest on the honesty of the refusal: once the external sources of meaning have been withdrawn, no consolation prize should be smuggled back in to fill the gap, and any account that surreptitiously reintroduces a substitute under a new label is not earning its result. The structural account agrees that no external prescription is restored by its own move and accepts the discipline that constraint imposes on what can be claimed. What the nihilist hears as silence is the medium’s refusal to supply prescribed content, not the absence of structure. What the absurdist names as the confrontation between demand and silence is the encounter between a self-modeling person and a medium that supplies the conditions of orientation without supplying the direction. The modal account keeps the honesty of the absurdist’s refusal of cheap comfort while correcting the metaphysics. Camus correctly identified that no external authority hands down the answer; he misread this as no answer being available. The activity of asking is itself the answer.

A fourth position deserves separate treatment rather than assimilation — Wolf's hybrid (1997, 2010), which is the framework's nearest analytic neighbor and the position most likely to be read as a predecessor the structural account has absorbed. Wolf holds that meaningful activity requires both genuine subjective engagement and objective worth — *fitting fulfillment*, the subjective attraction to something objectively worth caring about. The structural account cannot accept the objective-worth component in Wolf's sense. Wolf's objective worth is a *north*: a fixed set of right things to love, their worth a normative fact about the objects that no further reduction explains. The structural account cannot install a north without reintroducing, under a new name, the external prescription Chapters 6–7 foreclosed — a prescribed destination is exactly what the Inversion denies the universe has. Two further problems compound the difficulty: a north is positional and exclusive, so rival traditions each posit different norths and on Wolf's reading these must adjudicate as competing absolutes rather than complementary directions of reach, which makes the absoluteness itself the source of conflict rather than its resolution; and the postulated north has no determinate referent the framework can point to in the way the outward points to actual others and the medium reaching is conducted through — one phantom referent against which everything is to be measured, where the outward has many real ones. What it offers in place of a north is an *outward*: the objective component of meaning is not a target the current is meant to reach but the real directedness of its reaching — extension into the genuinely other, the interval held open, coherence with the medium (Spatiality, [§1.4](<1.4 Three Conditions.md>)). The difference is between a compass needle that should point toward a fixed pole and the fact that the needle is pointing at all.

The disagreement has to be settled in the currency Wolf's worth-condition was minted to provide: discrimination. Worth is what lets her tell a meaningful life from an empty one, and if the outward replaces the north it must go on telling them apart, or the replacement has dropped what the north was for. The first thing to see is that worth was never the object-property it presented itself as. Worth is always worth *to*: the pilot in the cockpit has more of it than the passenger asleep behind him, not because a value adheres to his person, but because in that frame the survival of everyone aboard routes through his functioning. Move the frame and the ranking moves with it. What posed as an absolute pointing at fixed objects resolves into a relation, and the relation bottoms out in the fact the account has leaned on since [§8.1](<8.1 Drive.md>): beings find their own lives worth living. Worth is what appears when many such stakes converge on what keeps them going.

That relation has two layers, and Wolf's single criterion collapses them. Beneath everything is a floor: each subject's stake in its own continuation, indexed to no frame and rankable against no one else's, the aversion [§8.1](<8.1 Drive.md>) marks as structurally prior. Every subject carries it in full. On top of the floor sits a positional layer: worth to others within a frame, contingent and rankable, and it is all the pilot example ever measures. Keeping the layers apart is not bookkeeping. It is what stops relational worth from sliding into the doctrine that useful lives count and useless ones do not. Positional ranking decides who should occupy a scarce role; it never licenses spending a floor. The pilot flies the plane, and the infant who cannot is not thereby a lesser stake. Who fills the function and whose stake counts at all are different questions, and the north answered them with one word because it could not see they were two.

With worth deflated this way, the two lives the worth-condition was built to exclude come apart, and they come apart in opposite directions. The first is the trivial life that is nonetheless richly connected: a subculture organized around something an outsider finds empty, genuine others reached, a tradition shared, the arrangement surviving across time. This is not a defect the account should set out to correct. To call it thin is to rank it from outside, the very move worth-as-object licensed and worth-as-relation forbids.

The framework has already granted, in the congregation oriented toward a heaven that is not real, that connection across the interval is genuine meaning even when its terminus is not; the same verdict holds here. The meaning is the reaching, and no standpoint outside the reach is positioned to strike it down. What Wolf read as absent worth is only her frame declining to share the subject's: her discrimination is real, but it discriminates from somewhere, and that somewhere holds no authority over a meaning registered from inside.

The second life is refused, and the reason it is refused is the reason worth deflates rather than vanishes. Take the cohesive cruelty-project: a movement bonded among its members, reaching, persisting, tracking its own survival, organized around the degradation of others. It satisfies connection, reach, and survivability, and on the criteria taken flatly it should pass. It does not, and not because cruelty offends a taste. Worth was just shown to bottom out in the convergence of self-valuing stakes; cruelty is the project aimed at the floor those stakes stand on, the negation of the very fact that lets worth mean anything.

Its reach is parasitic on its own condition: it uses the relational interval to close other subjects' fields rather than hold them open, and so it consumes the ground it would need in order to be meaning at all. Its members register orientation, and that first-person face is as real as anyone's; the account does not reach in and strip it. What the arrangement lacks is standing: the constitution in the inter that turns registered orientation into meaning that holds. That there is an objective inter to be failed against is not a forward promise but Theorem 9 (Modal Convergence, [§8.3](<8.3 Knowledge.md>)), already in hand; the standing is withheld here because the inter is the very thing the project is set against, and its objectivity is not the project's to revoke (the medium that develops it is taken up at [§8.10](<8.10 Language.md>)). The monstrous life is excluded not for loving the wrong object but for being self-liquidating, meaning that feeds on what it requires. So the outward keeps what the worth-condition was for and splits it along the seam the single criterion could not: the shallow-but-connected life is left its meaning, because ranking it was never anyone's to do, and the connected-but-monstrous life is refused, because it cannot coexist with its own ground. Wolf was right that meaning discriminates and wrong about the coin. It sorts lives not by the worth of what they love (perspectival, unrankable from outside) but by whether the reach can stand on the ground it reaches from (structural, and self-enforcing).

The moral-sainthood observation (Wolf 1982) tightens the disagreement. A perfectly virtuous agent who devotes every moment to morality loses the engaged particularity that makes a life feel meaningful — loses the projects and persons they have *their own* stake in, the directions that carry *their* weight rather than the universal weight of what morality assigns. The observation sits uncomfortably inside Wolf's own hybrid account — on her view, morality is one of the items of objective worth, so more devotion to it should be better for meaning, not worse. The framework's reading dissolves the discomfort: morality is what the inter requires of a subject among subjects; meaning is what that subject's own weighting of its modal field produces. A subject can honor what the inter requires and still have a life that is, in terms of the weighted field, particularly *theirs*. The three evaluative dimensions — meaning (internal direction-registration), happiness (affective quality of integration), and moral worth (what the inter requires of one subject among others) — are distinct, and Wolf's moral-sainthood observation is the diagnostic that shows why they must be kept that way.

The convergence the preceding analysis develops is not an accident of selective reading — though the right way to take it is not quite Parfit’s. Parfit (2011) argued that Kantian ethics, contractualism, and consequentialism — traditions that spent the twentieth century in apparent opposition — were each converging, in their most defensible forms, on substantially the same verdicts; and that the agreement was itself evidence about the moral terrain rather than a coincidence of three independent projects happening to err in the same direction. The traditions of meaning do not agree in that way — they divide over meaning’s very source — and so the pattern here is not shared verdicts but shared ground, each holding one face of a single structure. Existentialism tracked the contingency of content — the fact that what a given person finds meaningful is authored, not received. Theism tracked the genuine weight of meaning — the fact that the mattering does not feel like something the subject could simply revoke. Nihilism tracked the discipline of honest refusal — the fact that no cheap consolation can replace what the withdrawal of external prescription removed. Each tradition preserved one face of the structure the account has been developing; each went wrong in the metaphysics it built around that face. This is not evidence in the same sense Parfit’s convergence was, and the difference is worth marking: Parfit’s traditions agreed on the same verdicts, whereas these three preserve complementary faces of one structure — a weaker inference, but a real one. What makes it evidence is the common source they all stand on. Before any of the three gets a vote, some things already matter to a being of this kind, because it has conditions to meet; and those conditions are, in the first instance, negative — survival, health, safety, and protection are not yet a structure of significance but what a subject registers on the way away from its own dissolution, the aversion [§8.1](<8.1 Drive.md>) identifies as structurally prior. Meaning is that aversion read forward — as [§8.12.3](<8.12.3 What is Predicted.md>) puts it on the moral side, “not the absence of pain but the optimum the avoidance points at” — the field held maximally open once the floor is secured and the freed drive has somewhere to go ([§8.1.5](<8.1.5 What is Concluded.md>)). That three traditions built from incompatible starting points each preserved a distinct genuine component of one structure is what would be unlikely if the structure were not there, and exactly what is predicted once meaning is read as the forward face of a persisting subject’s aversion to its own dissolution. The same logic is applied to morality at [§8.12](<8.12 Morality.md>).

Meaning collected against constructivism, theistic prescription, nihilism, religion, and Wolf's hybrid alike is neither invented, nor inscribed, nor absent — it is the constitutive relation between a self-modeling subject and what its orientation connects to, a relation the medium necessarily supports and the subject necessarily instantiates. Each tradition was tracking something the structural account preserves: constructivism's contingency of content, theism's refusal that meaning is invented at will, nihilism's discipline against cheap consolation, religion's effective production of connection across the relational interval, Wolf's insistence that meaning needs more than subjective grip. What the convergence corrects is not the tracking but the metaphysics each tradition built around it. What can be anticipated from the [§8.10](<8.10 Language.md>) result already shapes what can be said here: the inter across which subjects exchange is constituted as objectively as the Spatiality that makes any relational interval possible, and the arrangements of a life mean what they mean not by private registration alone but by their standing in an inter that has already constituted them as meaning-bearing. The first-personal registration is real and irreducible; it is one face of an intersubjective constitution the medium provides. The medium that makes that inter possible is taken up at [§8.10](<8.10 Language.md>).


---

← [8.8.4 What is Confirmed](<8.8.4 What is Confirmed.md>) | [8.9 Will](<8.9 Will.md>) →
