This is the real question. I think there are only three choice categories:

* Reject everything. This is basically the path of the Yogi.

* Assign meaning to something. It could be your kids, your spouse (I wouldn't recommend that one), philanthropy, a "vision," or whatever. If people ask why it's important to you, don't explain in logical terms. "I decided that it would be."

* Stop thinking about it. Chase the dopamine. I think most people do this, even the most thoughtful people. It might even be impossible to escape attachment and emotion.

In the end, attachment and emotion are truly illogical experiences. Do we embrace that illogic completely, try to "control" it, or struggle to reject it entirely?

Why do you recommend not assigning meaning to your spouse?

I think the Yogi is eventually one with it. He doesn't try any of the methods you offered. Controlling it, embracing it, or rejecting it. He just let's it be. And in that way he becomes free from it.

In my (admittedly limited) experience, people are taking a big risk by making their spouse a critical source of meaning in their life. I think the problem is that it's reliant on reciprocation, whereas the others aren't (except children to some extent).

With respect to your comment on the yogi: note that most yogi follow some number of vows [0] and abstentions [1] that seem to me to be very much an attempt at "controlling it." Eventually I guess they don't need to "control it" anymore, once they reach Samadhi, but in practice the path of the Yogi is typically one of repression.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamas

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niyama

I totally agree. I think in real life most people decide following these path's will allow them to reach enlightenment or at least come closer. Despite that I don't think one who has reached enlightenment feels they're controlling anything at all, nor does that bother them in any way.

I was under the impression that the Yogi was able to reject everything because he had disciplined his mind to become a self-activating dopamine dispenser. Isn't there a neuroscientific study somewhere that points to this?

Nothing is left and the human life is truly devoid of meaning.

Moderation in everything including abstinence and excess.

You should not look at any of these as a sole path but enjoy all of them in moderation.

I moderate my moderation. :)

I think it's silly to try to subscribe to a set of rules that just aims to get rid of all the bad stuff. It makes more sense to me to simply balance the consumption of these "drugs" (narcotics, alcohol, food, games, children, sports, etc). In fact, don't even call them "drugs"; call them "desire satisfiers". Satisfying any given desire has a cost and a benefit, and we all exist in this huge, messy web of conflicting desires that have varying and dynamic costs/benefits. The challenge of living is trying to balance the satisfaction of all our various desires.

Nirvana, according to some.

They aren't taken away. You can still experience those great things, but don't make those experiences the purpose. The result is emotional balance and fulfillment.

Just work, and staring at a wall.

you have a lot of opinions on what we all should do

christian I presume?

Did you read the article? He's quoting that...

Also is it necessary to bring an unrelated belief system into this...?

Ha. I wanted to edit my post and add "(And please don't say God)". So the answer is no :)

That is basically the point of Ecclesiastes. King Solomon had access to everything, being king of one of the most powerful kingdoms of the time, worked his way through that whole list, and then at the end decided it was all pointless. He was a smart Paris Hilton, just with more money and absolute power.

And the most oft-repeated phrase in Ecclesiastes is, "Eat, drink, and be merry"