TWISTING SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS.
This is one of those repeated eerie logical moments of Teal Swan in which she wants to alert us of something but forget in the process to alert herself. Like she is asking, why are spiritual teachers so contradictory, but she forgets to include herself.
Luckily, her own unfolding logic puts her on the spot. And trust me, all her self-awareness in this video, is just what she herself call, “bypassing”. She seriously bypasses that she doesn’t know that she doesn’t know certain things right as she so desperately conveys the energy of a know-it-all type of spiritual teacher.
Keep this in mind, there is nothing new in what Teal is telling us. She is just opposing the three basic principles of Logic established in ancient time by Aristotle and then paying to it a lip service with some of the basic principles of postmodernism, which by the way opposes the same logical principles from Aristotle. But who knows and who cares?
Often Teal expresses she didn’t need academic indoctrination, and I couldn’t agree with her more, but at least being aware of philosophical movements from the postwars would have avoided her thinking she has something new on her plate.
Teal Swan precious dialectical acrobatics with words is ignoring some basic things.
We can define anything in a strict way or in a loosely way. We can define anything in a scientific way or in a poetic way. We can define anything in a conceptual way or in a metaphysical way. We can also define anything in a syntactic way or in a semantic way.
When we define anything in the first way, language is limited, is constricted and focused on delivering the exact, precise, partial meaning of a thing.
When we define anything in the second way, language is metaphorical, ubiquitous, limitless and concerned with manifesting an ongoing unfinished process.
However, Teal’s has used negative dialects to reinforce the very thing her mind set up to overcome and failed doing so by affirming that the ultimate foundation of reality is non-Oneness or that which cannot be named or expressed.
No, Teal, the question of whether there is or there is not an ultimate reality has both a defined, finite, precise answer and also an ongoing, unfinished ever growing answer.
The ultimate reality is only unnameable semantically not syntactically.
I know that Teal would agree to that, but her way of bringing polarities into union or integration is a mix of a forceful collage of those elements with whimsical associations. There is not intended or unintended organicity in her reasoning. There is not natural chaos in her emotions, but rather a chaos that is intended to charm and to shock.
On her stage everything is staged and scripted, else she will give you a piece of stream of consciousness half baked like a pastiche from Virginia Woolf.
Just when I thought that Teal was delivering an unbiased Socratic teaching to us, I came slowly but surely to the realisation that she is a very calculated Sophist.
I really wanted to believe her. I wanted to believe that the relational connections she was trying, almost effortlessly, to create between opposite elements were truly organic or even raw, but not, unfortunately, she bamboozled their meanings while sneakily present her logic unbiased right as she is confirming by the stablished rules of her own phoney word-game that is both, biased and unbiased.
Teal should have known that if she truly understood the flow of energy in this universe in the way she is willing to meticulously explain, she should have accepted the limits of her relativistic positioning without emphasising more the limits of an objective position while only favouring this last one predominantly when it is on the side of the relative and the subjective.
She tells us, and this is when her nonsense and trickery go too far:
“You cannot design something that is right for everyone. It is a vibrational impossibility.”
First, our bodies as embryo designed our hearts, our brains and all our organs. Even when some malfunctions and defects might happen, they are right for everyone.
The belief that we can continuously differentiate everything to the point that everything is particular and individual and the general is just a masked and forced identity in things and people is as delusional as the belief that the individual and the particular are the temporal masking of the true general structures of things.
Yes, all beings in this earth have different vibrations, but Teal is silencing that all beings in this earth also share equal vibration and the quality and intensity of such equality is not less than their differences.
Teal is now strategically emphasising differences knowing that the rules of her own logical game allow for undetected inconsistencies when and if they are not observed.
Teal is trying hard to appear philosophically and spiritually unbiased, but she definitely feels more at ease being individualistic, relativistic and inconsistently absolutistic.
This have nothing to do with how the universe, people and things are, but how the universe, people and things have been around Teal. Unfortunately, Teal recognises this basic reality, but she mixes these two things and simultaneously separate them when it suits her narrative. Teal understanding of context is manipulative, not contextual, meaning, she believes in context when it suits her purpose, when it doesn’t, she is absolutist and dogmatic, ready to hammer down statements with her verbal iron fist on any nail that is protruding.
Teal sometimes tells us:
“We need to let go off Truth because truth is subjective…”
Let’s not go here into why the fact that things are relative doesn’t mean they are relativistic. Teal viewpoints are not relative but relativistic.
She believes her truth to be real because is real to her, so in her verbal energetic movement she doesn’t really appreciate the energy of the objective, but she rather puts it at the service of the subjective. However, let’s not focus on that and find the inconsistencies of her own makings.
This idea of truth being subjective sounds cool and dandy, but it doesn’t quite get along with another belief of hers, which is that truth is relative. If truth is relative and depend on each perspective then truth is as much relative as objective or even absolute.
Teal doesn’t deal with such inconsistencies. Graciously, she skips them and jump immediately to feast our ear with a charming oxymoron:
“And if you want the most objective truth on earth is that Truth is subjective.”
The most objective is subjective, hmmm. I could muster that, if she gives me a context and if she were willing to do so the validity of her statement would be as strong as those which oppose them.
Maybe Teal soon will create an App that generates sound-bites aphorisms which “charm” relevant neural clusters in the brain, so she and her followers can do without the ordeal of truly understanding what she means.
Teal tells us that to give an objective truth might sounds like a cruelty, seriously? Does Teal understand the basic meaning of objective truth or shall we make her the favour of removing the word objective from language entirely? How can an objective truth be the truth of someone?
Well, we shouldn’t forget that we are dealing with Teal’s world and as the trainman told Neo in the film, The Matrix, in her world, she is queen. Teal built her world, didn’t she? Besides, she has already stated the the most objective truth is that truth is subjective, then the meaning of objective for Teal is just a mere camouflage, a facade, because the only thing that ultimately exists is the subjective.
Oh dear, we will have to go back to the old dilemmas of the Irish Bishop George Berkeley. No worries, no one here is interested, let along Teal.
Hey, Teal, please, wake up. If the only truth is subjective and the objective is just the subjective in disguise, wouldn’t that be an objective truth? That is right, Teal’s objective truth, she would say. But here we would step back again to Teal gross misunderstanding of what exactly objective means.
I shouldn’t forget that Teal idiosyncratic and eclectic style would always license her at any time to pass any word by its opposite to the convenient detriment of one of them, if so she please. Remember, in her world Teal is queen, and her inconsistencies would be freely allowed.
Then, from outside her world I whisper to her: You have serious problems understanding that the objective doesn’t belong to anyone or to anything in particular, but to a cluster of relations and patterns which persist after continuous testing with of without the presence of humans. The objective even exist between things, on their own, disputing each other more or less objectivity in the absence of humans or even of life. But that might be too much to process for Teal merely subjective mind.
To my surprise, right when I thought that Teal was for the subjective and the relative aspects of truth, she is actually ready and have meticulously prepared us to tell us that her Truth is actually Objective and Absolute.
She even coquettishly adds the bonus that it is up to us to see it so, even when she has done great deal of verbal acrobatics to help us see it so through and through.
Teal tells us:
“Anyone who tells you that they know what is right for you more than you know what is right for you. Pardon my French, it is up shit creek without a paddle.”
Really Teal, is that the best you can give us out of your verbal acrobatics? Your very words betray you. You can’t tell us that we can’t be told what is right for us by telling us what is right for us under the guise that we are the best to know that.
If you tell us that, you are telling us what is best for us and betraying your commitment not to be the best to tell us.
You definitely want us to believe that what you say is objective and absolute. In this context, in your context things are objective and absolute, while in other contexts things obviously are subjective and relative.
Is that how you role your game? You want us to accept that things are objective and subjective, relative and absolute, dark and light, selfless and selfish in a dance of opposites in integration, but when things are in your context and under your spotlight you want for us to believe that things are absolute even if you were or better because you are mad and you are a girl who has suffered a lot.
No, I do really appreciate your teachings, but to be authentic to them and to myself I have to show you how much it is cluttered with the same shit you are trying meticulously to scrub off but like tattoos, I don’t see them going away.
Teal philosophy is New Age postmodernism for millennials, but it has arrived at a time in which New Age has stagnated and postmodernism landscape of ideas is made of ruined and abandoned buildings squatted by all sort of identity politics movements.
Teal has capitalised that stagnated vacuum in New Age and created a niche from it in which old postmodern ideas could flourish.