[HN Gopher] Life is not a story
___________________________________________________________________
Life is not a story
Author : Tomte
Score : 101 points
Date : 2024-10-18 06:56 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (psyche.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (psyche.co)
| keiferski wrote:
| I don't find their argument that you can "reject having a
| narrative" very convincing. Human beings exist embedded in
| society, and to handwave that away in favor of "perspectives"
| just results in you adopting a different narrative, the "I reject
| narratives" one. Which is ultimately why existentialism never
| really went anywhere.
|
| Instead I think the problem is actually the exact opposite:
| people don't embrace stories enough. Modernity is accurately
| described as a place without any coherent sort of arch-story for
| society and local-story for individuals and places. To use the
| concept by Deleuze, everything has been too "deterritorialized."
| We'd all probably be happier with a solid narrative underlying
| our senses of self and society.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| You touch on something interesting there - a lack of a solid,
| consistent narrative, such as the Cold War, leaves a vacuum
| into which incoherent and disparate tales grow, as people seek
| a new bulk narrative to explain their world. Instead of a
| largely coherent narrative across societies, one ends up with
| numerous, usually conflicting, narratives.
|
| Maybe we just need to accept that our narrative is more James
| Joyce and Marcel Proust than it is Michael Crichton.
| keiferski wrote:
| I actually think that it's much deeper of a problem than the
| lack of a geopolitical situation like the Cold War, and
| instead goes all the way back to Copernicus and Darwin. While
| these discoveries (that _humans aren 't the center of the
| universe_ and _weren 't created in a supreme being's image,
| but are evolved from animals_) were good from a scientific
| truth perspective, I think they had a negative malaise effect
| on human psychology - if only because the previous narratives
| were thrown out without a sufficiently meaningful one to
| replace it. And so yeah, you just get a variety of localized,
| incoherent narratives arising in this vacuum of meaning.
|
| The answer that is really needed IMO is a way of squaring
| contemporary scientific knowledge with a story that still
| centers humanity in the universe and offers a better
| worldview than "you're a primate lost in space."
| psychoslave wrote:
| You can find sarcastic discourses about whoever think
| anthropocentric is a sane point of view that go back as far
| as we have any philosophical account. Take Xenophane's
| Satire for example
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes#Satires
|
| Copernicus and Darwin didn't change much things on that
| side.
|
| I wholly disagree with your later point though. Knowing
| that we are only primate lost in space, that civilizations
| and even our whole species could totally disappear tomorrow
| without any deity to help, save, rescue, blame or give
| congrats is actually a far more appealing scenario in term
| of being challenged to excel. Compare that with "you are
| full first class member of that special species that the
| most perfect imaginable being ever created and whatever you
| do you'll be granted salvation and experiment an eternal
| existence in paradise".
| keiferski wrote:
| _" you are full first class member of that special
| species that the most perfect imaginable being ever
| created and whatever you do you'll be granted salvation
| and experiment an eternal existence in paradise"._
|
| That's really not an accurate description of the role
| religion has played in human psychology, and is only
| accurate for a very specific subset of beliefs in a
| specific time and place.
|
| My argument was more that humans thought of themselves as
| inhabiting a world designed for them, but then learned
| that this was (likely) not true, and that for many people
| this is a pessimistic, nihilistic conclusion.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Not all religions/belief systems have/had the world
| (just) designed for humans. People can "cope" with other
| views.
| keiferski wrote:
| Definitely true, but:
|
| - I'm talking primarily about the Western world and its
| legacy of Christianity. The situation is different in
| India, China, etc.
|
| - Even then, in practice, most successful religions tend
| to have a human-like personal figure in an important
| place, even if the religion itself is technically non-
| personal.
| soco wrote:
| If the point is about "humanity" and how the world cannot
| have non-human goals, then rejecting the inconvenient
| religions (oriental, animistic, whatever) is definitely
| not a convincing argument. Those are just as humans, and
| don't explain the world in the convenient western way. So
| yes, we can very well live in a world not designed for
| humans.
| keiferski wrote:
| The point is about Western society and its progression,
| not "humans" in general. So yes, one route may to be
| create a belief system more similar to animist or other
| religions. But that is itself a tall order.
|
| A lot of this has to do with the Enlightenment project
| and disenchantment so it's already largely focused on the
| Western world to begin with. Other places have less a
| history with this.
| em-bee wrote:
| _mankind has been created to carry forward an ever
| advancing civilization_
|
| that's what i go by. the goal is for each individual and
| for humanity as a whole to better themselves during their
| life on earth and how they will experience their eternal
| existence depends on how well they do on earth. plenty of
| motivation for me, and better than the idea that after i
| die there is nothing and therefore what i do in my life
| doesn't really matter.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| > mankind has been created to...
|
| That's a narrative from a certain perspective. Let's
| advocate for different perspectives, like the article
| does.
|
| I'm perfectly fine with the Darwinistic idea that mankind
| has evolved from something very primitive rather than
| created for a purpose.
|
| The declaration of basic human rights is a narrative that
| humans deem good. But they are still human inventions, no
| superior creator needs to be involved to have something
| deemed good for everyone.
|
| We are here, that is a fact. Why or how is a mystery. You
| can build narratives around that but in fact they are not
| necessary. I would say, let's just make the best of our
| existence by trying to not make other beings miserable.
| em-bee wrote:
| _You can build narratives around that but in fact they
| are not necessary_
|
| well, that is the question. that narrative may not be
| necessary for you, but it is for me and for many others.
|
| what do you think will be more successful/sustainable?
| convincing everyone that we don't need a narrative or
| adopt a narrative that is beneficial for all?
|
| your idea of _making the best of our existence by trying
| to not make other beings miserable_ is a good one. and it
| is compatible with advancing civilization. so why don 't
| we focus on working together to achieve those goals (and
| other related goals like peace, elimination of poverty,
| justice, clean environment, etc) instead of arguing
| whether we need a narrative or not?
| 1propionyl wrote:
| > a story that still centers humanity in the universe and
| offers a better worldview than "you're a primate lost in
| space."
|
| The fact of being a self-aware meta-cognitive primate lost
| in space isn't enough of a miracle to justify feeling
| centered in the universe?
| keiferski wrote:
| It might be, but I don't think culture at large finds
| this story very inspirational.
| hshshshshsh wrote:
| Culture is the problem. Remove the dead beliefs. Replace
| it with something alive. Live from awareness.
| em-bee wrote:
| _The answer that is really needed IMO is a way of squaring
| contemporary scientific knowledge with a story that still
| centers humanity in the universe_
|
| i agree. science and religion need to be in harmony and not
| contradict each other. if there is an apparent
| contradiction we need to open to the possibility that we
| are either misinterpreting the religious claim or that the
| scientific findings need further research or even both.
| hshshshshsh wrote:
| > We'd all probably be happier with a solid narrative
| underlying our senses of self and society.
|
| Sure. You would also be much happier taking drugs all day.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Indeed, a solid narrative is dangerous. Consider a 'solid'
| narrative that seems fine at first sight: you tell yourself
| constantly that you are happy to just be able to be here, and
| that you are whole with the world. It would somehow feel very
| liberating to you, but at the same time having the danger of
| not trying one's best, of not taking care of self and others.
| Exactly the effect of drugs.
| corimaith wrote:
| Humans desire narratives to understand the world, but the world
| is too complex to be captured into reality.
|
| Those arch-theories already exist in the theories like
| Dialectical Materialism, or worse, Fascism, and with terrible
| consequences once they confronted reality.
|
| The circumstantial perspective of (Liberal Western) Modernism &
| Postmodernism may have it's flaws, but it has offered more
| practical results in policymaking than not.
| keiferski wrote:
| I'd describe those things (along with most traditional
| worldviews) as failed attempts to encapsulate reality into an
| over simplified story. But just because they failed and had
| bad consequences doesn't mean that the attempt itself is
| misguided or impossible. Otherwise, the alternative seems to
| be an endlessly growing malaise, which isn't much of a
| solution either.
|
| In fact, I think the lack of such an attempt to make a
| coherent story is what draws people to the over simplified
| ones in the first place.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| How do you know they weren't 'attempts to make a coherent
| story' that turned destructive?
| keiferski wrote:
| I don't, but what is your alternative suggestion? What
| important things don't also have the potential to end
| badly?
|
| Unless your position is a kind of Daoist quietism, I'm
| not sure what you are suggesting instead.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Why do you believe such alternative suggestions exist?
|
| Maybe there aren't any such that are risk free. So you
| have to evaluate both the potential upsides and downsides
| to see if it's a net positive and worthwhile risk to
| take.
| keiferski wrote:
| Then I'm really not sure what exactly you are arguing for
| or against. The act of making a story that attempts to
| give meaning to human life and society? How would you
| evaluate that for potential upsides and downsides, and
| what are you comparing it against?
| lupire wrote:
| Why is "story", which is known to be an accurate model,
| the preferred model? Why not non-linear dynamical system,
| epigram, clerihew, or haiku?
| keiferski wrote:
| Probably because most of those don't line up with how
| humans experience the world. Storytelling has a long
| history in the human experience, while haiku or epigrams
| aren't really the sort of thing one can "wrap" a life
| around.
| nvegater wrote:
| Humans experience the world as a story, but that is not
| necessarily the most human way to wrap a life around as
| you are implying. In some cases there are more powerful
| frameworks. For example Hitler is wrapped (by most of the
| world at least) around the damage and pain he caused not
| around his story. Stories are mostly fine, but thinking
| that we should strive for that to being the main
| perspective is limiting.
| piva00 wrote:
| > For example Hitler is wrapped (by most of the world at
| least) around the damage and pain he caused not around
| his story.
|
| Isn't this exactly part of Hitler's story though? I think
| I'm misunderstanding what your concept of "story" means.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| I never said anyone had good prospects to complete such
| an evaluation in a single lifetime... in fact it's very
| unlikely to happen.
|
| But without that it's hard to see how such proposals have
| any merit at all, considering the historical track
| record.
| tristor wrote:
| > Then I'm really not sure what exactly you are arguing
| for or against.
|
| If it helps, neither do they. Given that they are already
| suggesting Postmodernism provides a valuable
| philosophical and analytic view to understand the world,
| it's pretty clear that they've given up on any concept of
| defining a pathway, outcome, or objective.
| watwut wrote:
| Both communism and nazism provided simplified narrative
| stories.
| keiferski wrote:
| Yes, that's why I called them "failed attempts to
| encapsulate reality into an over simplified story."
| professor_x wrote:
| This sounds like a non true scotsman. If large societies
| buying into a story doesn't qualify it as a success, what
| does? M
| keiferski wrote:
| Why would that be the qualification for success? I didn't
| write that "everyone believing it" was the marker of
| success, so I don't know why that would be relevant.
|
| In another comment thread, I wrote that a story is needed
| which combines accurate scientific information with a
| human purpose in the world. Those examples quite
| obviously didn't have scientific views of the world.
| goatlover wrote:
| Those societies not being failures as a result. They both
| fail to properly understand politics and economics. Also
| sociology.
| watwut wrote:
| This is how autocracies are appealing, initially. You replace
| reality by one narrative and it all feels good, at least if you
| are among those favored by the choose narrative.
| vlz wrote:
| The author answers the inability to escape all narratives with
| the ability to constantly change perspectives. From the
| article:
|
| > We might never fully escape the narratives that surround us,
| but we can learn to change the perspectives behind them. And
| so, we are never bound by stories, only by our ability to
| understand how our beliefs and values shape the way we perceive
| and engage with the world. We don't need better narratives; we
| need to expand and refine our perspectives.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >We'd all probably be happier with a solid narrative underlying
| our senses of self and society.
|
| Religion, at its most fundamental core, is about providing a
| set of guidelines and contexts with which to make sense of life
| and the world around us so we can spend less time bickering and
| worrying about things that we ultimately can't do anything
| about.
|
| I feel the mad rush to reject and remove religion from society
| in the 20th century onwards has caused significant damage that
| we should address. It's not like religion is gone either, we've
| simply found impromptu replacements that are inferior and
| repeat a lot of problems religion dealt with already (eg:
| politics, "science", fanboyism, etc.).
| em-bee wrote:
| religion needs to evolve and grow with the development of
| humanity. the currently dominating religions are no longer
| capable of addressing all the needs of our global society,
| which is why they are losing ground. but instead of finding a
| viable alternative we get distracted, as you say, by inferior
| replacements.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >and to handwave that away in favor of "perspectives" just
| results in you adopting a different narrative
|
| The point isn't to hand-wave anything. Freeing yourself from
| narratives is a lot of work. The person who probably took this
| idea most seriously was Stirner, often pointing out that people
| who leave religious faith just sacralize human nature.
| ("leaving Man with a capital M intact"), making the oppression
| even worse.
|
| To be free when rejecting narrative is also to be on the
| lookout to not chase freedom in a naive way, but it is an
| achievable process, and it is exactly that. You're obviously
| never done if you take the idea seriously.
|
| But it is probably the most single liberating thing a human
| being can do. Personally speaking I come from a blue collar
| household, I had drilled into me that I must learn a vocation.
| I didn't, I went to uni and got a CS degree because I loved
| computers. Some choice as simple as this many people don't make
| because of how strong the narrative is that their parents tell
| them about who they are supposed to be. And there's millions of
| decisions like this. A lot of people think they must buy a
| house in the suburbs, just because everyone else says so. They
| actually despair if they don't. The extent to which people
| imitate desires of others in societies that are supposed to be
| free is incredible.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| > A lot of people think they must buy a house in the suburbs,
| just because everyone else says so. They actually despair if
| they don't. The extent to which people imitate desires of
| others in societies that are supposed to be free is
| incredible.
|
| Indeed, and I am quite amazed by that seeing that behavior in
| others. Although maybe/probably I am biased by other
| narratives in similar ways while not being aware. I feel it
| would be liberating to understand those narratives and see
| them for the mere stories they are.
| aaplok wrote:
| > just results in you adopting a different narrative, the "I
| reject narratives" one.
|
| This is like saying that atheism is just another religion
| because it's the belief in nothing. In a a hairsplitting way it
| may arguably be true but atheism does not provide a
| consistent(-ish) narrative about the world like religions do
| and therefore is fundamentally different.
| keiferski wrote:
| In the typical Western sense of the word Atheism (that is,
| not just as a label defining the lack of belief, but the
| specific instance of ideas/people) is not another "religion,"
| but it's absolutely another "belief system" that often comes
| with the same set of beliefs about various things.
|
| It's largely an intellectual distinction, because in practice
| everyone still acts and exists in the world. Identity itself
| is probably impossible without having _some_ sort of story
| about who you are.
| orwin wrote:
| To be clear, Atheists have different belief systems. They
| all have in common that they believe in one less god than
| monotheists, and a handfull less gods than polytheists
| (that, they share with monotheists), but overall you can
| have different belief systems that do not involve the
| existence of one (or multiple) god(s).
|
| I know someone who does not believe in gods because he
| think aliens are playing with us (fake flags etc. Basically
| the Stargate mythos, except he never saw the show). Less
| anecdotal, Chalmers is definitely Atheist, but i sure don't
| have his belief system, and i'm sure no functionalist does.
|
| Also, in general, philosophy of mind is imho the best way
| to test you belief systems. Or maybe it's the philosophy
| field i'm the most comfortable in and thus the one where i
| pushed my beliefs the furthest :/
| keiferski wrote:
| I don't really want to repeat what I already wrote, but
| just to sum this up again: yes, the mere label of atheist
| doesn't imply a specific belief system. But in actual
| practice, in the real world and not merely in
| definitions, it tends to indicate certain groupings of
| beliefs.
|
| In other words, the definitional concept of atheist
| doesn't imply a specific belief set (except in the choice
| of using such a word to define oneself), but the
| sociological definition definitely does. If we looked at
| various communities calling themselves atheists, they
| certainly have beliefs in common.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > the sociological definition definitely does.
|
| It definitely does not.
|
| > If we looked at various communities calling themselves
| atheists, they certainly have beliefs in common.
|
| The lack of belief in gods. There are types of Hinduism
| that have always been atheistic.
|
| Believing in god is like having blue eyes. There's
| nothing necessarily shared amongst people who don't have
| blue eyes other than a lack of blue eyes.
| mr_toad wrote:
| > To use the concept by Deleuze, everything has been too
| "deterritorialized." We'd all probably be happier with a solid
| narrative underlying our senses of self and society.
|
| That's a narrative in and of itself. The Opium of the masses.
|
| And judging by the length of the comment thread, it's really
| difficult to change someone's mind once they have settled on a
| narrative, like trying to kick a habit.
| ItCouldBeWorse wrote:
| There are problematic narratives though. The robin hood one,
| were you are always the underdog against a evil universe out to
| get you. The everything is people and societal norms narrative,
| that completely blends out the physical universe as a sort of
| "defeated" final boss and thus is blind for dangers like global
| warming. Many more come to mind.
| justanotherjoe wrote:
| I find Robin Hanson's interpretation resonates more (on lex
| podcast). According to him, the executive brain (which is a huge
| chunk of consciousness) acts more like a press secretary than a
| dictator. It creates a narrative to justify our actions to
| others. So making a narrative is THE JOB of the consciousness.
|
| Think of life as one long trial. The narrative you weave is not
| for your benefit, really. It's for the Tribe: the judges and the
| jurys. So trying to weave an esoteric or arcane narrative won't
| work, and you know it wont, if you know others won't buy it or
| understand it. You need a narrative that others, or at least a
| subset of others that represents authority, would be able to buy.
| You don't really have a choice in it. It's just how we are built.
| And why would you want to go against it really.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| "This is the reason we can tell the business world." ( says one
| fictional CEO ) The real reason may be something else
| altogether, but people will accept this rationale based on that
| if provided. I don't think you are wrong.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| Pareto is well known for his 80-20 split; he's less well
| known for dividing bases for action into _residues_
| (sentimental bases, differing largely by whether one is
| conservative or progressive by inclination) and _derivations_
| (the logical rationales one gives for proposed or taken
| actions).
|
| Homo sapiens or Homo praetexendo?
| mieses wrote:
| if it's not for my benefit then why would he conclude that it
| must be for the tribe? are there no other options?
|
| all very confusing
| justanotherjoe wrote:
| that part is my own words. His was only the first paragraph
| of my comment. I tend to make things more complicated than it
| needs to be, maybe.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| Consider Dolphus Raymond in _To Kill a Mockingbird_. He weaves
| one narrative for his birth Tribe, but when Scout looks on the
| other side of the fabric, there 's a plot twist for himself and
| his adopted Tribe.
|
| _INCONCINNVM SED LIBERVM_
| verisimi wrote:
| > Think of life as one long trial. The narrative you weave is
| not for your benefit, really.
|
| I like the trial metaphor, but disagree about who it is for. It
| has to be for yourself. How you explain life, your actions, etc
| is only for you - it is an end in itself - and you have to be
| happy about it.
|
| Alternatively, you can consider the idea that once you die, you
| then become the judge at your trial. How do you find yourself -
| guilty or innocent?
| orwin wrote:
| > It creates a narrative to justify our actions to others
|
| I would disagree on that point.
|
| I believe that you create that narrative for yourself, to
| create an illusion of consciousness. More than that, an
| illusion of consciousness through time. That's why memories are
| so easily modified/created by outsiders. That how
| placebo/nocebo effect works. That's why you create fake
| memories from a photography, or why you sometimes tries to
| justify reactions post hoc.
|
| This is also just a theory (inspired by Keith Frankish).
| mr_toad wrote:
| Yes, but that' a narrative of our internal mind.
|
| The article is talking about the narratives we construct of the
| external world.
|
| The two may not be entirely unrelated; our facility for
| constructing an narrative of the external world might have led
| to us constructing a narrative of our internal world.
| jumping_frog wrote:
| You might like these two ideas of Daniel Dennett, multiple
| drafts model and fame in the brain.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_drafts_model
|
| https://kenyonreview.org/2008/04/fame-in-the-brain/
| rovingEngine wrote:
| I've found rejecting the tendency to reduce people to narratives
| so incredibly important with our children.
|
| Whether their latest choice has been probably good or probably
| bad, keeping those choices as something they did rather than
| something they are keeps the future open for them.
| nntwozz wrote:
| This reminds me of a Chinese farmer story:
|
| "The whole process of nature is an integrated process of
| immense complexity, and it's really impossible to tell whether
| anything that happens in it is good or bad - because you never
| know what will be the consequence of the misfortune; or, you
| never know what will be the consequences of good fortune." ~
| Alan Watts
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWd6fNVZ20o
| magicalhippo wrote:
| People are also multifaceted.
|
| My dad was a pretty great dad, but when he split with my mom he
| did some pretty dick moves.
|
| I have no trouble to simultaneously hold those two facets in my
| mind when my mom rants about him.
| hshshshshsh wrote:
| Oh yeah. I had a shift one day when the "I" realised the
| narrative it has been living on was a bunch of cherry picked crap
| of emotions and memories.
|
| Till then I used to do things that fit the narrative. A voice in
| head that criticises when it deviates.
|
| Now I am free to do more things that don't fit the narrative.
|
| It's brings much more freedom. But with narrative going away you
| also need to find a good replacement for the existential
| questions which will soon starts knocking down the door.
| wruza wrote:
| It may not hold you back that much.
|
| It's always confusing to read an article where the way your mind
| works is seen as an error. It must work _somehow_. You cannot
| operate without simple algorithms or more complex "narratives".
|
| If you ever moved you know the feeling of a new apartment when
| you have no automatic habits yet. You have to decide everything -
| how to hold your keys, where is a light switch, which side is too
| sunny and requires blinds, does elevator work or is it just slow.
| But then you adapt cause your mind automates the hell out of it.
| Left hand, further on the right, the one with the table, it's not
| that slow (it is).
|
| If you ever learned something new, you know the feeling and you
| know how much you want an overview before digging deep. To make
| sense of it, to structure it anyhow, just that much. Otherwise it
| stays untackable and overwhelming.
|
| A waiter in the article is a template/overview that you start
| with. It's only a problem if you're "a little autistic" and stick
| to it despite receiving negative feedback. But then narratives
| aren't your primary problem.
|
| If your every thought and action started afresh, you'd be
| incapable. Otoh detecting that an algorithm is messing with your
| life is a useful skill. I think that the article could drop the
| (probably click/read-bait) idea of "narrative bad" and instead
| simply point out that this phenomenon exists and can be analyzed
| for overuse.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| This is the tale of how I learned to overcome the narrative
| fallacy.
| lupire wrote:
| Crazy Ex-Girlfriend did it
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rtvwu75K3I
|
| The End of the Movie Starring Josh Groban Featuring rachel bloom
|
| So this is the end of the movie Whoa whoa whoa But real life
| isn't a movie No no no.
|
| You want things to be wrapped up neatly The way that stories do.
|
| You're looking for answers But answers aren't looking for you.
|
| Because life is a gradual series of revelations That occur over a
| period of time It's not some carefully crafted story It's a mess
| and we're all gonna die.
|
| If you saw a movie that was like real life You'd be like "what
| the hell was that movie about?" It was really all over the place
| Life doesn't make narrative sense.
|
| Nuhuh
|
| We tell ourselves that we're in a movie. Whoa whoa whoa Each one
| of us thinks we got the starring role. Role role role.
|
| But the truth is sometimes you're the lead And sometimes you're
| an extra Just walking by in the background Like me, Josh Groban!
|
| Because life is a gradual series of revelations That occur over a
| period of time Some things might happen that seem connected But
| there's not always a reason or rhyme
|
| People aren't characters They're complicated And their choices
| don't always make sense
| fedeb95 wrote:
| reminds me of the famous zen tale, as I recall it:
|
| A western professor once went to a zen master in order to study
| zen. The master welcomed him, and offered him a cup of tea. When
| tea was ready, he began to pour the liquid into the professor's
| cup. When the liquid reached the top of the cup, the master
| continued filling it, making the tea go all over the floor. The
| professor asked what he was doing, and the master answered: "This
| cup couldn't hold more tea because it was already full. If you
| don't first empty your mind from your prejudices, how can I teach
| you anything?"
| usrnm wrote:
| That actually says more about the prejudices of the zen master,
| than the professor
| lupire wrote:
| It's an educational metaphorical demonstration, not a
| prejudice.
| hshshshshsh wrote:
| It doesn't really do anything. Adds one more crap belief to
| the list of all other crap beliefs one already have.
| hshshshshsh wrote:
| That's true. If you don't have prejudice you cannot talk
| about it since you don't know it.
| mr_toad wrote:
| If I knew what I was doing I'd never learn anything.
| est wrote:
| Why am I having AI vibes after reading the article? A narrative
| (prompt) sparkled this whole "lets think step by step" thing.
| justinlloyd wrote:
| Same here. It's just wishy-washy uncommitted phrasing
| indicative of "don't make a strong opinion that is polarizing"
| that is so characteristic of AI generated text. I used to use
| an online writing service for content many years ago and one of
| the hallmarks of "I'm doing this for a little extra money" and
| "I'm a pro writer between gigs" was the "in conclusion" and
| "therefore" and the three part school essay structure. It
| screamed bad writing, and I am seeing the same kind of flags in
| AI generated text too.
| jeezfrk wrote:
| Nihilism solves so much nothing.
|
| A million more layers of "freeing" yourself and you are back to
| where you started every time.
|
| An ape granting all impulsive choices the ability to undo
| anything long-term at all.
|
| Futility is a real thing for some dreamers to accept... but plan-
| less-ness is not freedom.
|
| It is bondage to short-sighted repeated failure.
| RiverCrochet wrote:
| Some people see an abyss or total blankness, and panic, because
| they don't know what to do with it and need to be given a
| purpose. Others see the same and rejoice, because it is the
| ultimate canvas on which a creative can make things.
| Gabriel54 wrote:
| > As Sartre warned, everything changes when you tell a story.
| Narratives limit our potential. Though we are complex beings,
| living in a chaotic universe, our stories create the illusion
| that our lives are ordered, logical and complete.
|
| Of course life is full of endless potential, but people and in
| general society could not function without some kind of shared
| narrative. In the case of society the narrative is culture. It
| both limits us and nurtures our potential to move beyond it.
| There is a duality.
| justinlloyd wrote:
| Am I supposed to take this article seriously?
|
| I see the author is perhaps ironically rejecting a narrative by
| using another narrative to advocate for their position.
|
| The author is sort of implying that there's harm to society and
| the individual by engaging in these narrative arcs without any
| actual evidence to support their position. Merely a "I feel" and
| "might" and "could even become dangerous."
|
| Way too many wishy-washy phrases attempting to soften their
| opinion, but then goes on to present a false dichotomy of
| absolutes vis-a-vis: You either embrace the narrative structure
| and have it destroy you, or you reject the narrative structure
| and live a care free life.
|
| And because of the uncommitted weasel phrases this entire article
| has the hallmarks of AI generated slop that someone had to rush
| through for publication because they procrastinated. I'm flagging
| this one as "yawn."
| RiverCrochet wrote:
| Oh boy, my crazy niece had some weird stuff to say about this.
| Here goes:
|
| "Narratives are anthropomorphization of time.
| Anthropomorphization of non-human concepts is taking something
| that is beyond human and turning it into a human-based idol,
| distorting it in the process. Like other idols, it can be used to
| manipulate and deceive. Therefore all narratives are
| manipulations and deceptions, sometimes done for self-comfort,
| other times done to manage a populace."
|
| I thought about this, and thought the perspective interesting.
| However I think it is stretching the concept too far so I don't
| buy it - you can't simply call everything you don't like
| idolatry. I also thought it got uncomfortably close to
| conspiracy-theory style thinking so I told her to just shut up.
| wormlord wrote:
| Your niece sounds cool.
| carapace wrote:
| Thoughts _are_ idols (except for math, those thoughts are
| themselves.)
| akomtu wrote:
| Narratives in the world of ideas play the same role as
| governments play here: they create order to prevent us from
| sliding into anarchy. And just like governments often create too
| much order, which is tyranny, narratives also tend to crystallize
| over time and become dogmas. Until we haven't evolved beyond our
| selfish nature, governments and narratives will remain necessary.
| brink wrote:
| What an awful article; full of a-priori conclusions that lead
| down that blissful road to despair and nihilism. The world needs
| less of this form of superficial thought. The article claims that
| narratives can give more meaning, as if meaning can come from
| anywhere else. The story is THE meaning - it's consciousness that
| gives narrative and consequentially meaning to everything. Be
| careful of what you "liberate". Your mind can be open enough to
| the point that your brain falls out, you know.
|
| That said, I don't disagree with everything the author had to
| say. I agree with the point about the danger of making yourself
| the main character.
| ryandv wrote:
| One of the six characteristics of consciousness as formulated by
| Julian Jaynes in his work _The Origin of Consciousness in the
| Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_ is that of narratization: a
| story that we tell ourselves of how we got here, where we are
| going, and why towards that end. In addition, his notion of
| consciousness is that it is essentially lexical, linguistic, and
| metaphorical in character; our self-concept, our ideas of who we
| are, are in fact linguistic models we use to analogize the body
| physical into a mental metaphor, and it is language that
| facilitates this process through its ability to represent
| physical concretions with mental, symbolic abstractions.
|
| Identity then is a narrative subroutine written in natural
| language, and in this way it becomes possible to speak forth
| identity and program a persona out of whole cloth through the
| force of the Word alone; this is the sense of the Logos and the
| famous declaration, "In the beginning was the Word," where all of
| reality was spoken forth through the utterance of language. This
| is the Western, Greek, and Abrahamic view of the primacy of
| language and of symbolic realism.
|
| > As a result of embodying the waiter-narrative, he lives
| inauthentically because he can only act in a way that fits with
| the role. The narrative he follows gives him a limited
| understanding of himself [...]
|
| This is why it is of paramount importance that one minds the
| language and narratives they use to describe one's self, for
| every utterance ascribed to one's persona circumscribes and
| limits it, setting it off on a fixed trajectory instead of
| maximizing optionality (see also pg's _Keep Your Identity Small_
| : "the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as
| possible" [0]). You are neither a waiter, nor a parent, a child,
| an athlete nor a hobbyist [1]: The principal
| disadvantage of symbols is that we confuse them with
| reality, just as we confuse money with actual wealth, and our
| names about ourselves, our ideas of ourselves, with
| ourselves.
|
| ... and this Eastern non-identification with symbolic content is
| the rejection of narrative identity espoused by TFA.
|
| The advent of postmodern social media has given rise to a new
| form of "hyperreal identity" now, where it becomes possible to
| publish language that literally creates personas and identities
| with no basis in physical reality. Confusing symbols of self with
| the actual self is not only easier than ever, it is the default
| mode of existence in the digital era, and one's avatar or social
| media profile takes precedence over the person themselves - a
| "simulacrum of the fourth order." One must be careful of the
| media they use to carry the language and narrative of their
| identity, because all messages are constrained by the medium they
| inhabit, and if the language of one's narrative is constrained,
| so too is their self-concept and their identity; we have
| progresses from "the medium is the message" to "the medium is
| your identity."
|
| [0] https://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJYp-mWqB1w
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I'm not especially thrilled by the article. I won't really go
| into why.
|
| However, one thing that I'll say, is that stories; especially the
| stories of _other people_ (i.e. "not me"), make my life much
| more interesting.
| carapace wrote:
| A narrative about the inadequacy of narratives. _Choice!_
| calmbonsai wrote:
| "Um yeeeah (Office Space), Peter if you could, like, just
| casually, reject one of the hard-wired evolutionary learning
| processes of your biology that would be great."
|
| What a load of crap.
| csours wrote:
| This is a VERY silly article.
|
| A better article would have the title:
|
| Life is Not A Story, Life is Many Stories.
|
| I have but one meager, measly, impoverished point of view, but I
| can tell multiple stories from my one point of view, because I
| can imagine the point of view of other people.
|
| What is dangerous is being trapped inside a single story, which
| can be related to trauma in some cases. (Search something like
| trauma story loop)
|
| When you are trapped inside a single story, you can have strong
| feelings that you MUST respond in certain ways to certain
| stimuli, as there is no other story that could be true. When you
| can tell a different story, you can make progress.
|
| ---
|
| Edit: the author's reference to 'perspective taking' is very much
| like what I am saying. It's still a silly article.
|
| > "Think of the ways that perspectives organise experiences
| differently. By 'perspective' I mean something more complex than
| 'point of view'. I'm referring to the way we engage with the
| world from a particular position or orientation that draws our
| attention to aspects of experience, like how our visual
| 'perspective' allows bright colours to show up more easily than
| dull ones. Perspectives are shaped by our place in the world, our
| beliefs, values and what we think matters. As the philosopher
| Elisabeth Camp explains, a perspective 'helps us to do things
| with the thoughts we have: to make quick judgments based on
| what's most important, to grasp intuitive connections, and to
| respond emotionally, among other things.' Through perspective
| some features of our experiences 'stick out in our minds while
| others fade into the background.'
|
| Perspectives, then, determine the narratives we adopt. In other
| words, our core beliefs and values shape the way we see things
| and what we take to be important in our experiences. It is our
| perspectives that generate our narratives. Perspective also
| explains why our narratives can differ so radically from those of
| other people, even when we experience the same events. But once
| we understand these perspectives, we can see how flexible our
| narratives can truly become. Perspectives, it turns out, don't
| have a linear, ordered structure. We can't think of them in terms
| of sequences of events, like stories. In some ways, perspectives
| are better represented by the non-linearity of poetry."
| nyeah wrote:
| Folks. Please. I have a request. Read the article first.
| Someone took the time to write it. Don't dash off a quick gut
| reaction to the title and then go back and read the text later.
| csours wrote:
| I read the first 3 paragraphs, skimmed, and the last
| paragraph, and did a keyword search (I should have search for
| perspective, but that wasn't on my mind).
|
| Title is bad no matter what.
|
| Edit:
|
| Here's another Narrative:
|
| The author is a university professor and most often writes
| for students.
|
| As such, they expect the reader to fully and completely read
| the whole selection, as they will be tested on it.
|
| I, however am not a student, and so the first thing I do is
| evaluate whether an article is worth my time. I do this by
| reading 3 or so paragraphs, skim for keywords, and the last
| paragraph. This is so common there must be a name for it [0]
| that I don't know because I am also not a media studies
| graduate.
|
| As this is so common, it must be written for; the author is
| expected to introduce any keywords in the first 3 or last
| paragraph. If they do not, the editor should return it.
|
| The title is generally not written by the author, but may be
| selected from a list that are provided by an editor. The
| author should update their writing so that the title makes
| sense in context.
|
| ---
|
| 0. grug brain media literacy?
|
| ---
|
| Edit 2: I have no idea if the narrative above is true
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Or just don't treat life like a story because you'd compare it
| with other stories. The only reason someone goes "This is the
| story of my life" is likely to brag or get sympathy or something
| Facebook-esq
| Mathnerd314 wrote:
| > Living in a non-narrative way means rejecting a particular
| identity, and instead seeing life and meaning as a set of open
| choices.
|
| I choose to fly up through the sky into outer space, away from
| this place. ;-) Oh wait, I don't have wings, and there's no way
| to fly into outer space besides maybe begging for a ticket on
| Virgin Galactic.
|
| It's true that choices are important, but it's also true that you
| have less control over your choices than you might think (see
| e.g. The Power of Habit). In particular some choices that you
| would like to decide one way are simply impossible to actually
| do.
|
| In practice I've found the best way to modify choices is to build
| tools. In particular my smartphone - at this point essentially
| all of my life is directed by apps. There are some cases where
| this backfires, e.g. recently I found myself driving to an event
| location and halfway there I realized the event had been
| cancelled and I had forgotten to remove it from my calendar, but
| it's the best I've got.
| ksymph wrote:
| This is an interesting concept, but it doesn't seem like the
| article does it justice. Does anyone have suggestions for further
| reading on the topic? Either rejecting narrative thinking or
| crafting helpful ones.
| simonsmine wrote:
| I find this a facinating topic, especially as someone who
| studied film and storytelling. This paper, while I dont fully
| agree with all of it, is wonderfully provocative and goes much
| deeper than this article in exploring this topic
| https://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/against_narrativity.pdf
| enos_feedler wrote:
| Can't help but think half of hacker news lives through the story
| of founder. Might be why "founder mode" cut so deep.
| loriverkutya wrote:
| The author of the article seems to be not aware of the
| Transactional Analysis model of the lifescript.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-18 23:01 UTC)