All week long in my drafting, I've been trying to come up with the right adjective to describe the difference between my pre-through-the-door worldview and the shift that happened very early in my work with Jerry. In my zero drafts, I kept coming back to the word truncated, which isn't terrible, in that it articulates a lack, but isn't very good either, in that it's not the right metaphor at all, truncate being an active verb denoting shortening by cutting off, which implies an awareness of that which is cut off, which awareness is the core inaccuracy. Meaning there's no awareness. You can't see what's actually there, in large part because you don't believe in the thing that's there to be seen. If there's a word for inability to see what's there because of a lack of belief in the thing to be seen, I haven't figured it out. Anyway, regarding the descriptive difference in worldviews, yesterday I got to stinginess, which is better, but today I found my way to impoverished, and that has a proper denotation: lacking to the point of poverty.
What I also like about it is that it's not an exaggeration: the difference between the through-the-door worldview and the mainstream, there-is-no-door-what-are-you-even-talking-about worldview is not the difference between having and not-having, it is the difference between abundance and utter penury. The difference is literally that dramatic. Go through the door and you'll see.
But make sure you follow what I'm saying to its full implication. The there-is-no-door worldview is, by a vast, vast margin, the dominant worldview operating in the world today. How much do you think the suffering that surrounds us all the time has to do with that worldview?
(Hint: Pretty much all of it.)