I think the meta discussion of particular views must always fail to justify itself - can only justify own fundamental views by brute fact, which is not a discussion, has zero power of persuasion to holders of different views because they have exactly the same justification for their views.
you can discuss how language and narrative function. and you can present a model of values etc without an argument for them. which is what I see in tao te ching. not an argument, just some thoughts from wise old *******s. which is really the spiritual mode of thought. seeing something as aesthetics and a model rather than as logical premises. others might find the aesthetic and models of behaviour etc of the bible to be attractive. and that's just how it functions.
I think people can get really far from the creation of meaning. and creation of meaning, creativity itself is the only magic I believe in. it functions by free will, arbitrarily, even if those are deterministic, it's something I think is insanely amazing. if you forget it, you might be lost in dogma, someone else's creation
in that way a lot of logic, reason etc is totally dogmatic and domineering just like religion. there are things they want to crack down on, things they reject in others completely. but if you see it as creativity and magic then you can see others as co-creators rather than opposites/oppositional. I feel like that's a healthier viewpoint, for me anyway. and I can see the value in the dogma also, it was created, had a function, changes over time, etc etc.
i think the result of meta-analysis tends toward acceptance rather than putting one ideology above another. acceptance that I am A and someone else can be B and those things arent mutually exclusive, even if A and B ideologies are logically mutually exclusive. in every mind there is a whole world which functions in a unique way. I try to accept that my world is not the world. it's a simulacrum. reality is in the mind.
which comes back to magic and miracles. because we needn't work on the supposed reality "out there" (which is beyond our reach anyway), our understanding is an understanding of non-reality, of a simulation, of mind only. to alter perception/mind/belief is to alter the reality which we actually live in. therefore to believe in a spirituality/god is to create a spirituality/god.
the rejection of the fact that others minds function differently than ours and therefore believe different things is a kind of solipsism. it's very egocentric to believe that of all the minds yours is the "correct" one.
Originally Posted by tao te ching chapter 1
The Way that can be walked is not the eternal Way.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of Heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of all things.
Free from desire you see the mystery.
Full of desire you see the manifestations.
These two have the same origin but differ in name.
That is the secret,
The secret of secrets,
The gate to all mysteries.
when you do the meta analysis you see how it functions - the mystery. with attachment to your ideology you push your ideology - the manifestation. the two have the same origin - we can't discuss anything without eating from the trash can of ideology, cant achieve complete detachment. complete detachment is the Buddhist dream, not the aim of taoism. we can see the pattern without the particulars, like seeing an asymtote.