"After a while you start to understand that nobody is seeing reality as it actually is — including you."
And that's the gist of why things get so screwed up on this planet. We all claim to know what's going on, but never express the humility that we should when we realize how we're each experiencing reality in our own unique way. We're all basically, loners without a shared vision. Someday that might change and we'll start sharing the same vision of reality at the same time. Then we will have peace and harmony. Until then, it's going to be a bumpy road--or should I say a narrative with a lot of twists and turns and not necessarily a happily ever after.
Hmm... My organs are "inside" and what I see in the mirror is on the "outside", so why can't humans have an "inner consciousness" to match our external form?
I am fine with Caitlin using the term “inner” metaphorically. I use it that way, too, to refer to soul or spirit. Materialists will reject such terms as philosophical or religious, so they have to use a material narrative, generally neuroscience or biochemistry. I’m okay with those scientific efforts, too, even though, imo, they are dead ends, because consciousness is not material. My point is that whether we approach the “inner” self with philosophy, psychology, religion, or neuroscience, each of these has to be mapped onto a narrative. But, as Korzybski noted, the map is not the territory. Worse, it seems inevitable that all narratives/maps are eventually captured by the powerful to misguide us. Narratives can be useful, but they can also control us. So maybe “inner work” is about getting beyond all narratives.
"After a while you start to understand that nobody is seeing reality as it actually is — including you."
And that's the gist of why things get so screwed up on this planet. We all claim to know what's going on, but never express the humility that we should when we realize how we're each experiencing reality in our own unique way. We're all basically, loners without a shared vision. Someday that might change and we'll start sharing the same vision of reality at the same time. Then we will have peace and harmony. Until then, it's going to be a bumpy road--or should I say a narrative with a lot of twists and turns and not necessarily a happily ever after.
Alas, that we even have an "inner" to work on is also a narrative.
Hmm... My organs are "inside" and what I see in the mirror is on the "outside", so why can't humans have an "inner consciousness" to match our external form?
I am fine with Caitlin using the term “inner” metaphorically. I use it that way, too, to refer to soul or spirit. Materialists will reject such terms as philosophical or religious, so they have to use a material narrative, generally neuroscience or biochemistry. I’m okay with those scientific efforts, too, even though, imo, they are dead ends, because consciousness is not material. My point is that whether we approach the “inner” self with philosophy, psychology, religion, or neuroscience, each of these has to be mapped onto a narrative. But, as Korzybski noted, the map is not the territory. Worse, it seems inevitable that all narratives/maps are eventually captured by the powerful to misguide us. Narratives can be useful, but they can also control us. So maybe “inner work” is about getting beyond all narratives.