("Aphorisms" carries with it a connotation of truthiness, hence the change in title)
Volitional acts are meaningful.
What is the meaning of "meaninglessness"? Seriously?
Meaninglessness is the absence of an end, of a drive, of a goal which one considers worthy of one's energetic engagement, an absence of attachment, an absence of passion, an absence of an aim for volition.
It can be averted by the introduction of a context.
Are you bored? Take Mario to World 8-4 and get the princess. Help the Haitians.
Some goals (fight corruption!) help others live longer, others (research at an ad agency!) not so much, still others (pillage Iraq!) lessen others' lifetimes.
A hierarchy of ends supposes a set of values. The question is, what is the source of those values, and since certainly the source is outside of you, what makes your intellect bow down to it?
Consider the quite universally held moral standpoints that beating a small infant to death is "wrong", that raping a baby girl is "wrong". The source of these morals is obviously sociobiological (what else can it be?), and if you say (rightly) that these acts are not "inherently wrong" (is there such a beast?), but merely counterproductive to achieve "the ends for the species", you lose the passionate force and taboo behind those morals. You may even reach a stage where a report of a criminal doing such things (or say, Bush invading Iraq) no longer arouse an emotional reaction and outrage in you. And I ask: is that such a good thing?
Meaninglessness is the absence of feeling, the absence of emotional attachment. Radical self-help (hard core spirituality, actualism) advocate taking it to the extreme and abiding in the void and detachment thereof.
(to be continued)