The enemy of meaning

One enemy of meaning is an over-reliance on one mode of knowing. John Vervaeke calls this propositional knowing: knowledge in the form of facts, beliefs and concepts. Iain McGilchrist would identify this approach as left-hemisphere dominant, focusing as it does on abstractions that we can grasp, over open-ended, lived realities.

This propositional fixation is rampant throughout modern culture, no matter where you look. It’s why a rich debate around religion is reduced down to the question of whether someone “believes” in God, why political debate is reduced to repeating slogans from your preferred corner, and why self-help fixates on positive thinking as a means of growth.

High screen usage amplifies an analytical, left-hemispheric view of the world. And our culture, with its utilitarian bias, encourages us to see everything from a left-hemispheric view—as problems to be solved through technical means.

This bias derails our search for meaning by reducing it down to some fact or belief that we can find and hold, to explain away the mystery of life.

This propositional approach to meaning (and life) cannot deliver what it promises. Why? Because it answers before it’s even asked the question, declaring that the answers will arrive in a particular form, and that we should discard everything else.

We can’t escape this trap whilst remaining in that mode of thinking.

To engage well with love, suffering, beauty, and calling, requires that we engage in all modes of knowing inherent to being human. That demands practice, not belief.