by Angel, Nov 19, 1010
I found everyone use the words " using meta- in real life."
That's fine, but what's "real" mean?
Imagine you've been sexually abused by your dad for years and it's tearing you up. With my meta- skills, I sense it and ask how you're doing. You respond with a "real world" answer like "I'm fine." Is the lie you're telling in the physical world really and truly more "real" than the deep pain I sense?
The internet is a virtual world. It's fair to say, "I have the internet world with my internet friends and I have the real world with my real life." That's reasonable. You're learning of the meta- on the internet so it's possible to say "I have my meta- friends, my gifts, and my meta- life. And I have my mundane life." But... Just because you're learning of the meta- on the internet, doesn't make the meta- world "virtual" or pretend. This comparison is like Harry Potter, et. al., referring to the physical world as "muggles." They don't say, "The magical world and the real world." Their magic *is* real to them. The muggles who don't sense the meta- are looked at with humor, pity or disdain. Like the magical world in Harry Potter, I feel that the meta is more "real" than your physical life.
In a hierarchy it goes something like this:
To remind yourself (if you agree with me) that the meta- is more "real" than real life, I recommend a new acronym. Something to refer to the meta- *as* real. Maybe, the Real in the physical world. Or, the Real in physical life. Which gives RIPL.