In this thesis, I develop a method that will help you, understand, and solve deep disagreements. In forming my method I draw on Zen Buddhist philosophy. In chapter one my understanding of deep disagreement is presented. Deep disagreements is seen as being caused by underlying metaphysical fundamental beliefs and/or worldviews. My method hinges on three concepts, interconnected, conventional centric, and ultimate reality. In the process of explaining these concepts important Zen Buddhist ideas are explored. By exploring which of these three categories a view or argument engages with you will be able to avoid deep disagreements because the types of beliefs that cause deep disagreements are made transparent. In the second chapter, I first analyze an argument against theism and for naturalism and show that there is a deep disagreement at play in that argument. In using my method you can see that the conflict is not a conflict. I then analyze animism and show that animism does not need to be in opposition to naturalism and that both can coexist. In the third chapter, a meta-analysis is made. The main advantage of my method is that it tries to understand and place all types of views into a bigger picture. This makes my method unifying. I also show that there is a wide range of areas in which this method could be used. It could be used in many situation of disagreement.

<p dir="ltr">This dissertation explores questions of personal change and the power of narrative with respect to both an individual and to the wider social environment. In chapter one, I explore the connections between the various facets of liminality and agency, with a focus on how it is that people can consciously craft specific ways of being an agent. In chapter two, I explore the nature of disagreements that involve our most fundamental commitments from within the context of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s posthumous <i>On Certainty</i>. Wittgenstein was pessimistic that argumentation could help in such cases, yet left it an open question as to whether they could be otherwise resolved. Here, I suggest the practice of storytelling as one strategy to resolve these disagreements. Finally, in chapter 3, I examine recent takes on conspiracy theories that include evaluating conspiracy theories as contrarian claims to secret knowledge as well as highlighting the political function that many conspiracy theories can play. Here, I will develop a claim that is common to both camps: conspiracy theories tell stories. By analyzing the characters and narrative structures at play in conspiracy theories, we can gain a deeper understanding of why conspiracy theorists think they know what they know, why particular conspiracy theories reference certain groups or agents rather than others, and why some tropes appear and reappear in conspiracy theories.</p>