I am hoping someone can help me find what is wrong and/or right with the idea of "meta-truth". I am also curious as to what can be problematic. ..I don't think "meta-truth" is defined officially.
Jordan Peterson has many online lectures where he takes a popular stories and explains why we find them to be captivating and applicable to real life scenarios.
One of his claims, that stories contain a "meta-truth" has captivated me. I believe that this would be analogous to Socrates idea of "essence" but applied to stories and what we can learn/utilize from stories.
As an example, in "The Boy that Cries Wolf", we are left with the "meta-truth," that is something along the lines of: "if we lie often, we will not be taken seriously when needed." ...I notice their are infinite variations of the the boy that cries wolf, as well as infinite interpretations, (which leads us to accepting interpretations,the fallacy argumentum ad populum or fallacy of popular wisdom), but if we are to use the boy that cries wolf as a a story/tool we can utilize in real life, don't we need to accept that we must behave as if it has a truth? at some point we need to either accept that story as a some-what true example (meta-truth) or as not applicable.
..This all being said, I could see how accepting stories and meta-truth could be problematic as in cases of religious texts like the bible as true. I don't condone of things like slavery in the bible as something we should re-interpret. I am in favor of cherry picking only the best parts of stories in order to learn. I want to keep an open perspective to a wider interpretation of stories, but stay skeptical.
..Just to reiterate my question: Do you think their is a "meta-truth"? Do you think "meta-truth" is good or problematic? Where can I learn more about "Meta-truth?"