I get a prompt asking me to sign in, but with what since I'm not subscribed?
"Caitlin's article is about metaphysics."
Are you sure? "Dominated By Narrative" to me suggests a semantic level analysis. Metaphysics is a fuzzy concept that has a different meaning depending on who you talk to. Semantics OTOH seeks to nail down the precise meaning of the words we use to communicate, otherwise we risk talking past each other. Maybe Caitlin could tell us which category is appropriate here?
Metaphysics is fuzzy for some but not for others, it depends on the level of intuition inherent in the person from birth.
She talks about 'inner work' too. That means addressing ones own self in ones own mind. Investigating the source of pain, humiliation, anger, stress, hate etc. and who/why/when/what/etc. causes it.
The more one recognises what triggers the emotions that we act on, like crappy politics or murderous Lahaina fires as an advertisement for non-flammable Hardiboard, the more ones consciousness rises.
Consciousness is the name of the game. There is nothing else.
Re-reading my comments I see that I went off on a bit of a tangent, which I tend to do and for which I apologize. My main point, in keeping with Caitlin's observation on narrative control, is that we're often presented with false dichotomies or dialectics, such as left/right; democrat/republican; conservative/liberal, and so on - abstractions that create artificial divisions in order to distract our attention from the builders of narratives and their true intentions.
Best recent example of this is the pro. vs. anti-vax categories which fail to capture the nuances of the debate, but which are very effective at stopping dialogue between the various positions. Semantics (the meaning of words) comes into play when we're presented with false categories, such as the case of the mRNA 'vaccines' which aren't really vaccines at all, the narrative builders simply redefined the word to the point that even Miriam Webster changed their definition, a clear case of obscurantism serving a hidden agenda.
I don't discount metaphysics as playing a key role, but we have to step back and consider the words we use to describe these abstract concepts or we have no idea if we mean the same thing when we use them. That can also be a source of division, such as between different religions or spiritual beliefs. Again I believe some of that is being used to distract or divide us.
I get a prompt asking me to sign in, but with what since I'm not subscribed?
"Caitlin's article is about metaphysics."
Are you sure? "Dominated By Narrative" to me suggests a semantic level analysis. Metaphysics is a fuzzy concept that has a different meaning depending on who you talk to. Semantics OTOH seeks to nail down the precise meaning of the words we use to communicate, otherwise we risk talking past each other. Maybe Caitlin could tell us which category is appropriate here?
Metaphysics is fuzzy for some but not for others, it depends on the level of intuition inherent in the person from birth.
She talks about 'inner work' too. That means addressing ones own self in ones own mind. Investigating the source of pain, humiliation, anger, stress, hate etc. and who/why/when/what/etc. causes it.
The more one recognises what triggers the emotions that we act on, like crappy politics or murderous Lahaina fires as an advertisement for non-flammable Hardiboard, the more ones consciousness rises.
Consciousness is the name of the game. There is nothing else.
"Metaphysics is fuzzy for some but not for others..."
Which is exactly my point. If we don't share a common frame of reference or vocabulary we just end up talking past each other.
We can probably agree on things like Platonism. Or that if we drop a brick on our foot it would hurt like hell.
If it describes the world as it is then it is a common frame of reference.
Re-reading my comments I see that I went off on a bit of a tangent, which I tend to do and for which I apologize. My main point, in keeping with Caitlin's observation on narrative control, is that we're often presented with false dichotomies or dialectics, such as left/right; democrat/republican; conservative/liberal, and so on - abstractions that create artificial divisions in order to distract our attention from the builders of narratives and their true intentions.
Best recent example of this is the pro. vs. anti-vax categories which fail to capture the nuances of the debate, but which are very effective at stopping dialogue between the various positions. Semantics (the meaning of words) comes into play when we're presented with false categories, such as the case of the mRNA 'vaccines' which aren't really vaccines at all, the narrative builders simply redefined the word to the point that even Miriam Webster changed their definition, a clear case of obscurantism serving a hidden agenda.
I don't discount metaphysics as playing a key role, but we have to step back and consider the words we use to describe these abstract concepts or we have no idea if we mean the same thing when we use them. That can also be a source of division, such as between different religions or spiritual beliefs. Again I believe some of that is being used to distract or divide us.
Couldn't agree more.