'Self' is a perpetually rewritten story
September 3, 2015 9:04 AM Subscribe
Self-narration may be dangerous but it's natural, and the radical alternative of decieving ourselves into thinking we can stop nartative building deprives us of any long-term sense of self or identity, which is even more dangerous.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:32 AM on September 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 9:32 AM on September 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
Memory is a narration.
posted by I-baLL at 9:33 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by I-baLL at 9:33 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
This essay is interesting, but strange. The author offers this definition of the "Narrativist" view:
The idea that different people construct stories about themselves, and order their experiences, in different ways is neither novel nor surprising. A "narrative" is just structuring your experiences and representing yourself in some way. This person presumably does not wander around spouting random information without any sort of personality. They are not just ever-shifting memories and stimuli. There are people like that, but they are severely mentally disabled. Oliver Sacks wrote about some of them, people who lack the ability to form any order or structure in themselves.
The author clearly has some concept of themselves, of their existence in time, and of a progression of that existence, and a "collection of stories", all of which are exactly the elements they list as "Narrativist".
As saulgoodman notes above, such narrative structuring is an inescapable function of the human brain. The idea of "non-narrative" is incoherent.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:34 AM on September 3, 2015 [10 favorites]
naturally disposed to experience or conceive of one’s life, one’s existence in time, oneself, in a narrative way, as having the form of a story, or perhaps a collection of stories, and – in some manner – to live in and through this conception.But not a single point in the essay disputes this. They just point out that there are different ways of constructing that narrative (single unified story vs. multiple competing ones, strong memories ordered in a line vs. shifting memories organized in various ways).
The idea that different people construct stories about themselves, and order their experiences, in different ways is neither novel nor surprising. A "narrative" is just structuring your experiences and representing yourself in some way. This person presumably does not wander around spouting random information without any sort of personality. They are not just ever-shifting memories and stimuli. There are people like that, but they are severely mentally disabled. Oliver Sacks wrote about some of them, people who lack the ability to form any order or structure in themselves.
The author clearly has some concept of themselves, of their existence in time, and of a progression of that existence, and a "collection of stories", all of which are exactly the elements they list as "Narrativist".
As saulgoodman notes above, such narrative structuring is an inescapable function of the human brain. The idea of "non-narrative" is incoherent.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:34 AM on September 3, 2015 [10 favorites]
Narratives ought to stay in fiction where they belong.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:37 AM on September 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:37 AM on September 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
That's never going to change because our brains' wiring makes it so.
Do you have scripture to support this? Google ngramming concepts we take for granted is a good way to see how self-obsession wasn't necessarily a constant in our history.
posted by deathmaven at 9:39 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Do you have scripture to support this? Google ngramming concepts we take for granted is a good way to see how self-obsession wasn't necessarily a constant in our history.
posted by deathmaven at 9:39 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think the author is not arguing that narrativizing one's life is wrong, but that it is not the universal experience that the Narrativists claim it is.
The author is opening a can of worms that I am not sure he wants to confront. He starts with the very real issue that many cognitive scientists and philosophers claim that humans construct personal narratives to define their identity when this is not in fact a universal trait. I suspect that is true, in the same way that most people can construct images in their mind's eye while some cannot and each believes they themselves hold to a universal experience.
But let's take this a little further. Some people claim that the sublime feelings of experiencing visual art are part of the human condition. But probably they are not, and it's likely that visual art has little meaning/appeal for many people. Same with music or poetry of literature or math. And yet we are told that these are universal expressions of the human experience that connect with all but the most boorish and barbaric. But that's not true at all. There may simply be a faction of "aesthetists" who claim to humans are driven to create art because they are, while some are wired to be indifferent.
posted by deanc at 9:40 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
The author is opening a can of worms that I am not sure he wants to confront. He starts with the very real issue that many cognitive scientists and philosophers claim that humans construct personal narratives to define their identity when this is not in fact a universal trait. I suspect that is true, in the same way that most people can construct images in their mind's eye while some cannot and each believes they themselves hold to a universal experience.
But let's take this a little further. Some people claim that the sublime feelings of experiencing visual art are part of the human condition. But probably they are not, and it's likely that visual art has little meaning/appeal for many people. Same with music or poetry of literature or math. And yet we are told that these are universal expressions of the human experience that connect with all but the most boorish and barbaric. But that's not true at all. There may simply be a faction of "aesthetists" who claim to humans are driven to create art because they are, while some are wired to be indifferent.
posted by deanc at 9:40 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
But it is a universal human trait, and they've done nothing to show otherwise. It's not even possible to show otherwise, because to be capable of making arguments you'd have to engage in narratives.
Given the author's own definition quoted above, what would a "non-Narrative" conception even be?
posted by Sangermaine at 9:46 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
Given the author's own definition quoted above, what would a "non-Narrative" conception even be?
posted by Sangermaine at 9:46 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
That type of amnesia where you can't form long term memory. Other than extreme cases like that I can't really think of any other examples.
posted by I-baLL at 9:49 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by I-baLL at 9:49 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Given the author's own definition quoted above, what would a "non-Narrative" conception even be?
Read the article, please. It's literally the next paragraph, and it's only five paragraphs in.
Perhaps. But many of us aren’t Narrative in this sense. We’re naturally – deeply – non-Narrative. We’re anti-Narrative by fundamental constitution. It’s not just that the deliverances of memory are, for us, hopelessly piecemeal and disordered, even when we’re trying to remember a temporally extended sequence of events. The point is more general. It concerns all parts of life, life’s ‘great shambles’, in the American novelist Henry James’s expression. This seems a much better characterisation of the large-scale structure of human existence as we find it. Life simply never assumes a story-like shape for us. And neither, from a moral point of view, should it.
posted by designbot at 9:50 AM on September 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
Read the article, please. It's literally the next paragraph, and it's only five paragraphs in.
Perhaps. But many of us aren’t Narrative in this sense. We’re naturally – deeply – non-Narrative. We’re anti-Narrative by fundamental constitution. It’s not just that the deliverances of memory are, for us, hopelessly piecemeal and disordered, even when we’re trying to remember a temporally extended sequence of events. The point is more general. It concerns all parts of life, life’s ‘great shambles’, in the American novelist Henry James’s expression. This seems a much better characterisation of the large-scale structure of human existence as we find it. Life simply never assumes a story-like shape for us. And neither, from a moral point of view, should it.
posted by designbot at 9:50 AM on September 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
Given the author's own definition quoted above, what would a "non-Narrative" conception even be?
You can retain memories of events you were a part of without casting yourself as a protagonist in the center of a story. I'm not sure how to explain how "things happening" isn't the same thing as a narrative as presented in fiction though.
posted by deathmaven at 9:51 AM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
You can retain memories of events you were a part of without casting yourself as a protagonist in the center of a story. I'm not sure how to explain how "things happening" isn't the same thing as a narrative as presented in fiction though.
posted by deathmaven at 9:51 AM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think it's obvious that the vast majority of people form narratives for themselves, but I think it's important to recognize that a lot of damage can be done by *buying into* the narrative you've made. Just because you think or feel something doesn't mean that it's true- if your narrative is that you're a horrible, useless person who fails at everything they try... well of course that's going to perpetuate itself. But if you understand that narrative-building is as flawed as the rest of our thinking process, you can beat it.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 9:52 AM on September 3, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 9:52 AM on September 3, 2015 [18 favorites]
Oh, well like that. As designbot quoted.
posted by deathmaven at 9:52 AM on September 3, 2015
posted by deathmaven at 9:52 AM on September 3, 2015
Unless you honestly experience life as a completely meaningless series of sensations and impulses that don't relate to each other and that never motivate you to take any actions connecting one event to another, you are at some level constructing personal narratives. Why lie to yourself about it and pretend you're some special snowflake who doesn't do it? That's just a different meta-narrative of its own, and leads to an attitude of not being responsible for the lies you tell yourself.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:53 AM on September 3, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 9:53 AM on September 3, 2015 [12 favorites]
Yeah, any time you're inferring causal links without perfect evidence you're telling a story, your place in the story isn't super important to the fact that it's a story. Holding yourself exempt from that seems ridiculous.
posted by Nomiconic at 9:56 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Nomiconic at 9:56 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
but I think it's important to recognize that a lot of damage can be done by *buying into* the narrative you've made.
Definitely. A sense of irony and detachment can help with that.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:57 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Definitely. A sense of irony and detachment can help with that.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:57 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
The article is specifically about "autobiographical narrative", i.e. "that story is our autobiography. The chief fictional character at the centre of that autobiography is one’s self". It's not about the broadest connections of a cause to an effect.
posted by deathmaven at 10:00 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by deathmaven at 10:00 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
The part of the essay that designbot quoted basically says that memory isn't narrative because it's not recalled in perfect order and not always with all the relevant data? Uh, I guess the movie Memento isn't a narrative.
posted by I-baLL at 10:01 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by I-baLL at 10:01 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Why lie to yourself about it and pretend you're some special snowflake who doesn't do it?
You might be taking for granted your own social circle. Self-narration goes in hand with self-branding, and is especially important for employment in high-status positions. "Future leaders" brought up to think they're "special snowflakes" are accustomed to building their stories as they go along, but their are swathes of people who would face a question like "what's your story" with a blank stare, completely unaware that they were ever supposed to have one.
posted by deathmaven at 10:12 AM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
You might be taking for granted your own social circle. Self-narration goes in hand with self-branding, and is especially important for employment in high-status positions. "Future leaders" brought up to think they're "special snowflakes" are accustomed to building their stories as they go along, but their are swathes of people who would face a question like "what's your story" with a blank stare, completely unaware that they were ever supposed to have one.
posted by deathmaven at 10:12 AM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
Mod note: A couple comments deleted. Go ahead and just make your comment without the "this is a fight" stuff.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:15 AM on September 3, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:15 AM on September 3, 2015
I like how the findings of people who actually research this issue (autobiographical memory) are summarily dismissed and even the definitions they use to describe "narrative" in that research is tossed aside in place of the one the author pulls out of his rectal cavity.
I mean, I could write an article redefining the word "skin" and argue that, per my definition, I don't have any.
posted by Halo in reverse at 10:15 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I mean, I could write an article redefining the word "skin" and argue that, per my definition, I don't have any.
posted by Halo in reverse at 10:15 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Read the article, please. It's literally the next paragraph, and it's only five paragraphs in.
I read that, I just don't think it does what the author claims. It offers a different narrative structure, which is still a narrative. It doesn't offer a vision of what a truly narrative-less conception of self would be.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:15 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
I read that, I just don't think it does what the author claims. It offers a different narrative structure, which is still a narrative. It doesn't offer a vision of what a truly narrative-less conception of self would be.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:15 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
And who is this "I" of which he repeatedly speaks anyway?
posted by Halo in reverse at 10:18 AM on September 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Halo in reverse at 10:18 AM on September 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
It's not about the broadest connections of a cause to an effect.
There are a lot of different narrative forms, including many that are very open ended. Being about the connections between cause and effect is basically what unites them all, along with the idea of beginning and endings. So I'd argue it really is. If you tell yourself things about connections of cause to effect and the role you and various other actors play in those connections, you are participating in self-narrative building. Then the question becomes whether you are connecting the narratives you tell yourself from moment to moment to larger personal narratives, or just picking up and abandoning arbitrary, momentary narratives at random. If you don't connect the momentary narratives to each other at all, your life is probably a pretty dismal, chaotic affair. But chances are most of us who are relatively functional do connect them up to varying degrees, subject to future revision, whether we admit it to ourselves or not.
You might be taking for granted your own social circle.
Not at all. You have some story you tell yourself, and if you were really pressed to, you'd be able to tell some version of it, even if it was just "I was born, some stuff happened to me, and I guess I'll die one day." There's some implicit story you tell yourself about who you are that informs what you do and how you see yourself. I'm guessing seeing yourself as someone with no patience for bull-shit is part of yours. Whatever the case, though, talking, writing, and thinking about your life story in various ways doesn't create your personal narrative, it's just a way of consciously and critically engaging with it instead of leaving it as a set of half-conscious, poorly understood assumptions and motivations. That's why therapy is so often focused on digging up and critically engaging with people's implicit narratives.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:20 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
There are a lot of different narrative forms, including many that are very open ended. Being about the connections between cause and effect is basically what unites them all, along with the idea of beginning and endings. So I'd argue it really is. If you tell yourself things about connections of cause to effect and the role you and various other actors play in those connections, you are participating in self-narrative building. Then the question becomes whether you are connecting the narratives you tell yourself from moment to moment to larger personal narratives, or just picking up and abandoning arbitrary, momentary narratives at random. If you don't connect the momentary narratives to each other at all, your life is probably a pretty dismal, chaotic affair. But chances are most of us who are relatively functional do connect them up to varying degrees, subject to future revision, whether we admit it to ourselves or not.
You might be taking for granted your own social circle.
Not at all. You have some story you tell yourself, and if you were really pressed to, you'd be able to tell some version of it, even if it was just "I was born, some stuff happened to me, and I guess I'll die one day." There's some implicit story you tell yourself about who you are that informs what you do and how you see yourself. I'm guessing seeing yourself as someone with no patience for bull-shit is part of yours. Whatever the case, though, talking, writing, and thinking about your life story in various ways doesn't create your personal narrative, it's just a way of consciously and critically engaging with it instead of leaving it as a set of half-conscious, poorly understood assumptions and motivations. That's why therapy is so often focused on digging up and critically engaging with people's implicit narratives.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:20 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
One data point in favor of deanc, deathmaven, and others arguing that personal narratives are not necessarily a cross-cultural universal: in a well-known article from 1989 Glenn Most argued that among the ancient Greeks first-person narratives are very rare:
"Scholars have frequently pointed out that one of the few literary genres the Greeks seem to have left comparatively undeveloped was that of autobiography-even the word 'autobiography,' though ancient in appearance, is not attested in any language before the end of the Eighteenth Century. Thus Georg Misch who, although he devoted a series of eight weighty tomes to the history of the genre, was not able to fill more than half of a comparatively slender first volume with examples from Archaic and Classical Greece-was firmly convinced of the anthropological universality of the autobiographical impulse; yet he succeeded in detecting traces of only a handful of Greek autobiographies before the age of Augustus, and was compelled to admit that 'in dieser griechischen Kultur, die den Menschen entdeckt und befreit hat und so viele Formen, ihn darzustellen, fand, hat die Autobiographie nur einen beschrankten Raum, sie erscheint als eine literarische Spezialitat von sekundarer Art .... Daß hier eine Schranke des riechischen Geistes vorliegt, muß anerkannt werden'. ... For some reason, which is not immediately apparent, a constraint seems to have tended to limit the production of autobiographical discourses in Classical Greece and to confine them to laments about misfortune or self-defences under attack."
The ancient Greeks appear to have created first-person narratives only for pragmatic purposes, i.e. to create pity in the addressee or to convince an addressee of the rightness of their position. Certainly for some humans autobiography is one way of creating meaning in their lives but I see no reason to believe it is a hardwired human universal.
posted by dd42 at 10:22 AM on September 3, 2015 [13 favorites]
"Scholars have frequently pointed out that one of the few literary genres the Greeks seem to have left comparatively undeveloped was that of autobiography-even the word 'autobiography,' though ancient in appearance, is not attested in any language before the end of the Eighteenth Century. Thus Georg Misch who, although he devoted a series of eight weighty tomes to the history of the genre, was not able to fill more than half of a comparatively slender first volume with examples from Archaic and Classical Greece-was firmly convinced of the anthropological universality of the autobiographical impulse; yet he succeeded in detecting traces of only a handful of Greek autobiographies before the age of Augustus, and was compelled to admit that 'in dieser griechischen Kultur, die den Menschen entdeckt und befreit hat und so viele Formen, ihn darzustellen, fand, hat die Autobiographie nur einen beschrankten Raum, sie erscheint als eine literarische Spezialitat von sekundarer Art .... Daß hier eine Schranke des riechischen Geistes vorliegt, muß anerkannt werden'. ... For some reason, which is not immediately apparent, a constraint seems to have tended to limit the production of autobiographical discourses in Classical Greece and to confine them to laments about misfortune or self-defences under attack."
The ancient Greeks appear to have created first-person narratives only for pragmatic purposes, i.e. to create pity in the addressee or to convince an addressee of the rightness of their position. Certainly for some humans autobiography is one way of creating meaning in their lives but I see no reason to believe it is a hardwired human universal.
posted by dd42 at 10:22 AM on September 3, 2015 [13 favorites]
Ok, I'm annoyed that this guy refers to philsophy and the musings of various poets and writers -- not to mention his own introspection of his self -- to address this subject when there have been thousands of scientific papers addressing the issue of "the self", what it means, individual differences therein, etc.
Psychoglogical research has taken a hit in the press over the last few years (and not without good reason), but when people act as if their own individual experience trumps ALL of the research that exists...well...they are essentially climate-change deniers.
posted by Halo in reverse at 10:23 AM on September 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
Psychoglogical research has taken a hit in the press over the last few years (and not without good reason), but when people act as if their own individual experience trumps ALL of the research that exists...well...they are essentially climate-change deniers.
posted by Halo in reverse at 10:23 AM on September 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
"Psychoglogical research has taken a hit in the press over the last few years (and not without good reason), but when people act as if their own individual experience trumps ALL of the research that exists...well...they are essentially climate deniers."
Sounds like they put too much faith into their own narratives.
posted by I-baLL at 10:25 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Sounds like they put too much faith into their own narratives.
posted by I-baLL at 10:25 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Read the article, please.
The article is a bunch of disjointed snippets from largely unrelated long-dead philosophers and authors. What I didn't see was psychology, psychiatry, or neuroscience, except in the negative. But, let us turn to the definition you quoted.
We’re naturally – deeply – non-Narrative. We’re anti-Narrative by fundamental constitution.
This is not a definition, just a claim that being non-Narrative, whatever that means, is a big deal for non-Narrative people. Okay.
It’s not just that the deliverances of memory are, for us, hopelessly piecemeal and disordered, even when we’re trying to remember a temporally extended sequence of events.
Here we have something approaching a definition: non-Narratives have significant difficulty placing memories in temporal order and that many of their memories are fragmentary. But we also have a claim that being non-Narrative is more than that. So let's read on.
The point is more general. It concerns all parts of life, life’s ‘great shambles’, in the American novelist Henry James’s expression.
This just another claim that it's a far-reaching issue, buttressed by a two word quotation from a guy who
This seems a much better characterisation of the large-scale structure of human existence as we find it.
I assume "this" means "a great shambles." So piecing it all together (since the author couldn't be bothered): non-Narratives find all parts of their lives to be a shambling mess of fragmentary memories with little or no temporal relationship to one another. Much like the article, I think.
Life simply never assumes a story-like shape for us. And neither, from a moral point of view, should it.
Morally? No. I won't judge non-Narratives as moral failures. But it seems like a terrible way to live, if it leads to writing like that, even (or perhaps especially) from "a consultant editor at The Times Literary Supplement, and a professor in philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin."
posted by jedicus at 10:26 AM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
The article is a bunch of disjointed snippets from largely unrelated long-dead philosophers and authors. What I didn't see was psychology, psychiatry, or neuroscience, except in the negative. But, let us turn to the definition you quoted.
We’re naturally – deeply – non-Narrative. We’re anti-Narrative by fundamental constitution.
This is not a definition, just a claim that being non-Narrative, whatever that means, is a big deal for non-Narrative people. Okay.
It’s not just that the deliverances of memory are, for us, hopelessly piecemeal and disordered, even when we’re trying to remember a temporally extended sequence of events.
Here we have something approaching a definition: non-Narratives have significant difficulty placing memories in temporal order and that many of their memories are fragmentary. But we also have a claim that being non-Narrative is more than that. So let's read on.
The point is more general. It concerns all parts of life, life’s ‘great shambles’, in the American novelist Henry James’s expression.
This just another claim that it's a far-reaching issue, buttressed by a two word quotation from a guy who
created what he called a 'central consciousness' or a governing intelligence, a character that he would stay with throughout a story or novel and whose mind we would thus be limited to in our perception of the action of the novel." The subject of these novels often was precisely the inner thoughts and emotions of the character rather than any external events. Long passages would be devoted to the rendition of these inner states of mind, such as in the famous fireside scene in James's Portrait of A Lady wherein Isabel must consider her choices. The term "stream of consciousness" was first used by William James, Henry's brother, the founder of pragmatism. He did not use it to describe novels but the workings of the mind.Maybe not the best guy to quote from, then.
This seems a much better characterisation of the large-scale structure of human existence as we find it.
I assume "this" means "a great shambles." So piecing it all together (since the author couldn't be bothered): non-Narratives find all parts of their lives to be a shambling mess of fragmentary memories with little or no temporal relationship to one another. Much like the article, I think.
Life simply never assumes a story-like shape for us. And neither, from a moral point of view, should it.
Morally? No. I won't judge non-Narratives as moral failures. But it seems like a terrible way to live, if it leads to writing like that, even (or perhaps especially) from "a consultant editor at The Times Literary Supplement, and a professor in philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin."
posted by jedicus at 10:26 AM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
Big dfference between publicly performing your narratives and building them, dd42.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:28 AM on September 3, 2015
posted by saulgoodman at 10:28 AM on September 3, 2015
Scholars have frequently pointed out that one of the few literary genres the Greeks seem to have left comparatively undeveloped was that of autobiography-even the word 'autobiography,' though ancient in appearance, is not attested in any language before the end of the Eighteenth Century. Thus Georg Misch who, although he devoted a series of eight weighty tomes to the history of the genre, was not able to fill more than half of a comparatively slender first volume with examples from Archaic and Classical Greece
Wow, selection bias much? Given the expense of writing and copying, the much lower literacy rate, and the ravages of time we would expect there to be far fewer Greek autobiographies than modern ones. I find this argument meaningless unless it is carefully supported by some sense of the relative proportion of literary output made up by autobiographies.
Further, the argument only extends to autobiography as a genre. It says nothing about how people view their lives internally or subconsciously construct the self.
posted by jedicus at 10:30 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Wow, selection bias much? Given the expense of writing and copying, the much lower literacy rate, and the ravages of time we would expect there to be far fewer Greek autobiographies than modern ones. I find this argument meaningless unless it is carefully supported by some sense of the relative proportion of literary output made up by autobiographies.
Further, the argument only extends to autobiography as a genre. It says nothing about how people view their lives internally or subconsciously construct the self.
posted by jedicus at 10:30 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
It says nothing about how people view their lives internally or subconsciously construct the self.
Keeping with the theme, then, what evidence is there that ancient people viewed their lives narratively?
posted by rhizome at 10:35 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Keeping with the theme, then, what evidence is there that ancient people viewed their lives narratively?
posted by rhizome at 10:35 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
MetaFilter: a completely meaningless series of sensations and impulses that don't relate to each other and that never motivate you to take any actions connecting one event to another
posted by webmutant at 10:40 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by webmutant at 10:40 AM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Silly people, everyone knows that life is a highway that we drive all night long, cf. Coverdale and Aldridge.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:40 AM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 10:40 AM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
There is a great deal of research showing that people generally view the world and its inhabitants in "story form". Applying that form to the self is merely one application of this tendency.
posted by Halo in reverse at 10:42 AM on September 3, 2015
posted by Halo in reverse at 10:42 AM on September 3, 2015
Memory and cognition may be largely dependent on our ability to "narrate" in some sense, but that does not mean it is a good idea to approach one's life as if it were a story where one is the protagonist. From my reading, I always took that to be one of Vonnegut's points in, e.g., "Mother Night" and "Slaughter-house Five". If nothing else, the problem of taking that approach is that it is heavily colored by what (little) people read, or by all the junk that they watch.
posted by TheyCallItPeace at 10:46 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by TheyCallItPeace at 10:46 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
The essay is thought-provoking, but I can't help but see it as an instance of someone technically defining a word in a narrow way (without acknowledging it!), and then using it to say that this word does not describe reality. The author's conclusions might follow from their definition of narrative (though I can't be sure, because they don't make clear what that definition is), but there are many other, more supple ways in which we can think of narrative (as pointed out by others above).
For me, there is a jumble of multi-perspectival narratives. But each part of the jumble is a narrative, nevertheless. A narrative is just a sort of model, and is an essential component of how we communicate. It is literally impossible to discuss the temporal unfolding of events without one. One might imagine some sort of dry listing of "facts" or "events", a la Borges, but I would argue that even such a list is impossible without a narrative, for how do you define "events" or "facts", and which do you include, which do you leave out? Furthermore, the fact that any narrative crumbles under close examination does not mean that it does not have explanatory power at some level of experience for some subject.
My idea of narrative must be more contingent and "multifractal" than the authors. But isn't that more in keeping with the explorations of experimental writers from at least the 20th century on?
posted by mondo dentro at 10:47 AM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
For me, there is a jumble of multi-perspectival narratives. But each part of the jumble is a narrative, nevertheless. A narrative is just a sort of model, and is an essential component of how we communicate. It is literally impossible to discuss the temporal unfolding of events without one. One might imagine some sort of dry listing of "facts" or "events", a la Borges, but I would argue that even such a list is impossible without a narrative, for how do you define "events" or "facts", and which do you include, which do you leave out? Furthermore, the fact that any narrative crumbles under close examination does not mean that it does not have explanatory power at some level of experience for some subject.
My idea of narrative must be more contingent and "multifractal" than the authors. But isn't that more in keeping with the explorations of experimental writers from at least the 20th century on?
posted by mondo dentro at 10:47 AM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
Tangentially, I was watching a youtube video earlier today about narrative structure, which made the point that interesting narrative consists of "but" and "therefore" linkage between events, instead of "and then".
It also seems valid to say that narrative needn't be explicitly, consciously experienced by an audience for it to be both present and influential in storytelling.
I wonder if this isn't more about the quality of narrative being experienced than it's existence at all.
posted by walrus at 10:49 AM on September 3, 2015
It also seems valid to say that narrative needn't be explicitly, consciously experienced by an audience for it to be both present and influential in storytelling.
I wonder if this isn't more about the quality of narrative being experienced than it's existence at all.
posted by walrus at 10:49 AM on September 3, 2015
tl;dr: It's a narrative by this guy trying to understand himself as someone who understands himself without a narrative.
Wait...
posted by nzero at 10:51 AM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
Wait...
posted by nzero at 10:51 AM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's an interesting thought experiment, trying to imagine consciousness without narrative, and I suppose one can see this in the behaviour of intelligent animals - although even here there is expectation and behavioural synthesis based on past experience, which is kinda hard to explain if there isn't some narrative structure in use.
I've come to see consciousness as being deeply involved in building and inhabiting maps in space and time, of ordering analogies based on perceptions and events, and if there's a difference between narrative and an internal description of connected events I don't really know what it is. Is he implying that a cohesive narrative must be built on implied causation to count? Because I'm just as at home with weaving happenstance and more-or-less bounded probabilities into narrative.
It's also hard to explain why people - and I assume he, even as a self-proclaimed Non-Narrative, would include himself in this set - like stories and drama, if there's no empathy between a character and themselves. Can one enjoy the narratives of others if there's no answering recognition in oneself and one's own perception of the flow of experience?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding him. It is quite difficult, but pleasurably ironic, to try and comprehend what he's trying to say.
(A friend of mine says she disbelieve entirely in narrative. As she's a news editor, I think that irony may be the primary mode of this class of claim.)
posted by Devonian at 11:16 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
I've come to see consciousness as being deeply involved in building and inhabiting maps in space and time, of ordering analogies based on perceptions and events, and if there's a difference between narrative and an internal description of connected events I don't really know what it is. Is he implying that a cohesive narrative must be built on implied causation to count? Because I'm just as at home with weaving happenstance and more-or-less bounded probabilities into narrative.
It's also hard to explain why people - and I assume he, even as a self-proclaimed Non-Narrative, would include himself in this set - like stories and drama, if there's no empathy between a character and themselves. Can one enjoy the narratives of others if there's no answering recognition in oneself and one's own perception of the flow of experience?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding him. It is quite difficult, but pleasurably ironic, to try and comprehend what he's trying to say.
(A friend of mine says she disbelieve entirely in narrative. As she's a news editor, I think that irony may be the primary mode of this class of claim.)
posted by Devonian at 11:16 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
If nothing else, the problem of taking that approach is that it is heavily colored by what (little) people read, or by all the junk that they watch.
I keep imagining myself as a meth-dealing chemistry teacher travelling the globe to rediscover love and laughter.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:16 AM on September 3, 2015
I keep imagining myself as a meth-dealing chemistry teacher travelling the globe to rediscover love and laughter.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:16 AM on September 3, 2015
Begin, as in a story, with the beginning, move to the middle, and then to the end...or change the order.
1.STORY: a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse, or instruct the hearer or reader; tale. a fictitious tale, shorter and less elaborate than a novel. such narratives or tales as a branch of literature: song and story.
2. A NARRATIVE or story is any report of connected events, actual or imaginary, presented in a sequence of written or spoken words, or still or moving images.
posted by Postroad at 11:33 AM on September 3, 2015
1.STORY: a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse, or instruct the hearer or reader; tale. a fictitious tale, shorter and less elaborate than a novel. such narratives or tales as a branch of literature: song and story.
2. A NARRATIVE or story is any report of connected events, actual or imaginary, presented in a sequence of written or spoken words, or still or moving images.
posted by Postroad at 11:33 AM on September 3, 2015
It's hard for me to understand how a mind could not be predisposed towards narrative (always, and, by the way, in constructing one's idea of one's self, the self you "present" in "everyday life," as sociologist Ervin Goffman put it).
But I, too, find this narrative very unhelpful. Comments above indicate I'm not the only one who finds this narrative sometimes counterproductive. A sense of irony helps, as mentioned above. Also, as BuddhaInABucket must know, Buddhism's purpose is--in part--to undermine the discursive inner monologue that tells the story that we think is self.
posted by kozad at 11:56 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
But I, too, find this narrative very unhelpful. Comments above indicate I'm not the only one who finds this narrative sometimes counterproductive. A sense of irony helps, as mentioned above. Also, as BuddhaInABucket must know, Buddhism's purpose is--in part--to undermine the discursive inner monologue that tells the story that we think is self.
posted by kozad at 11:56 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
· If you find it comforting to think of life as a story, turn to page 2.
· If you think that all the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players, turn to page 5.
· If you think that life is a highway and you want to ride it all night long, turn to page 9.
· If you think that the world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page, turn to page 24.
· If you prefer a non-narrative view of the world, please turn to page 1 of the nearest phone book, and continue your journey there.
posted by oulipian at 11:59 AM on September 3, 2015 [22 favorites]
· If you think that all the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players, turn to page 5.
· If you think that life is a highway and you want to ride it all night long, turn to page 9.
· If you think that the world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page, turn to page 24.
· If you prefer a non-narrative view of the world, please turn to page 1 of the nearest phone book, and continue your journey there.
posted by oulipian at 11:59 AM on September 3, 2015 [22 favorites]
If narrative is just the linkage of events by cause and effect, computers construct narratives all the time. Hey, packets sent to this block from that one seem real slow...maybe I should send this one over there instead.
I saw a diagram on the right of the article that suggested stories need exposition, rising action, climax, and denouement. I find it pretty easy to imagine life without any of those.
posted by LogicalDash at 12:04 PM on September 3, 2015
I saw a diagram on the right of the article that suggested stories need exposition, rising action, climax, and denouement. I find it pretty easy to imagine life without any of those.
posted by LogicalDash at 12:04 PM on September 3, 2015
It seems there are not a lot of meditators on this thread (?). Meditation offers the ability to confirm in one's own experience that the self is, in fact, illusory, constructed, provisional, contingent, devoid of any inherent existence as a discrete entity.
Obviously, for practical purposes, there is the self. But if you want to know what it is objectively, you would have to define it in some way. And whatever definition you settle on -- assuming it is an objective definition and not something like "a persistent feeling that I am a self" -- that is what you will not find in your own personal lived experience.
The only reason I bring this up is that when you see clearly that the self is constructed and ultimately not real, life becomes a lot easier and more enjoyable. Everything just falls more lightly. So developing this understanding is really practical, whereas obstinately shlepping a self around like a sack on your shoulder (containing a gnome who constantly harangues you with a stream of yammering thoughts that you take for your own) is seen and understood to be a pretty inconvenient way of living.
posted by haricotvert at 12:07 PM on September 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
Obviously, for practical purposes, there is the self. But if you want to know what it is objectively, you would have to define it in some way. And whatever definition you settle on -- assuming it is an objective definition and not something like "a persistent feeling that I am a self" -- that is what you will not find in your own personal lived experience.
The only reason I bring this up is that when you see clearly that the self is constructed and ultimately not real, life becomes a lot easier and more enjoyable. Everything just falls more lightly. So developing this understanding is really practical, whereas obstinately shlepping a self around like a sack on your shoulder (containing a gnome who constantly harangues you with a stream of yammering thoughts that you take for your own) is seen and understood to be a pretty inconvenient way of living.
posted by haricotvert at 12:07 PM on September 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
Meditation offers the ability to confirm in one's own experience that the self is, in fact, illusory, constructed, provisional, contingent, devoid of any inherent existence as a discrete entity.
I've recently been troubled by the idea that this is like concluding that driving is an illusion because you have learned how the parts of your car engine work.
posted by thelonius at 12:14 PM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
I've recently been troubled by the idea that this is like concluding that driving is an illusion because you have learned how the parts of your car engine work.
posted by thelonius at 12:14 PM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
Everything I've read suggests we do have self-narratives, constructed through memory; affirmed through conversations with others; informed by roles assigned or taken, and cultural scripts; reinforced or discarded depending on opportunity and stickiness; driven by our basic inclination to assign causality to happenings, and intentionality to actors - to think in terms of event, which is story, when it comes down to it. I think we also flit in and out of reflection, letting our varied selves sort of rest upon background story schemas, sometimes forgetting them when we are more focused on the actions that feed back into them.
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:19 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:19 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've recently been troubled by the idea that this is like concluding that driving is an illusion because you have learned how the parts of your car engine work.
There actually is an exercise in the Buddhist tradition where you would take the car (or in the old days, a cart) and see that "car" is not a discretely-existing entity. On the one hand, it is made of all its parts, and is only what it is contingent upon the specific arrangement of those parts. On the other hand, its existence depends entirely on its environment -- a space in which it can exist, peole to build and drive it, the absence of another car plowing into it and and smashing it to smithereens. So yes -- the self is like that in some way. It has contingent existence, but not inherent existence. It arises, it passes, it changes constantly. And seeing its true nature makes you a more effective "self," just as knowing how your car works would probably make you a better driver!
posted by haricotvert at 12:22 PM on September 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
(What are the dangers of narrative, according to the author? One worry seems to be about failing some kind of truth standard - he seems to want us to adhere to realism.
But when the English dramatist Sir Henry Taylor observed in 1836 that ‘an imaginative man is apt to see, in his life, the story of his life; and is thereby led to conduct himself in such a manner as to make a good story of it rather than a good life’, he’s identifying a fault, a moral danger. This is a recipe for inauthenticity.
I think that concern has more merit, especially when the stories our culture or situation make available to us are overly limiting, e.g. when women feel compelled to live in ways that only affirm given roles.)
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:32 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
But when the English dramatist Sir Henry Taylor observed in 1836 that ‘an imaginative man is apt to see, in his life, the story of his life; and is thereby led to conduct himself in such a manner as to make a good story of it rather than a good life’, he’s identifying a fault, a moral danger. This is a recipe for inauthenticity.
I think that concern has more merit, especially when the stories our culture or situation make available to us are overly limiting, e.g. when women feel compelled to live in ways that only affirm given roles.)
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:32 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
The article's gobbledygook, but there's a nugget of a good idea there. At the risk of self-link:
One of the more liberating things I've realized in life is that there is no inherent story.
Life's not a movie or a book. You can't anticipate winners or losers, failures or successes, by guessing the plot. Humanity's incredible ease with stories means that we project them onto the world like crazy, whether or not they fit. And if reality doesn't fit our story, it's our perception of reality that we change, not the story. You see it in politics, you see it in sports, you see it in business, you see it in journalism.
There is no inherent plot to your life or to this world, but you're going to ascribe one to it regardless. So pick one that helps you, one that makes you better. Pick a story that creates you into a stronger, more loving and generous person.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:33 PM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
One of the more liberating things I've realized in life is that there is no inherent story.
Life's not a movie or a book. You can't anticipate winners or losers, failures or successes, by guessing the plot. Humanity's incredible ease with stories means that we project them onto the world like crazy, whether or not they fit. And if reality doesn't fit our story, it's our perception of reality that we change, not the story. You see it in politics, you see it in sports, you see it in business, you see it in journalism.
There is no inherent plot to your life or to this world, but you're going to ascribe one to it regardless. So pick one that helps you, one that makes you better. Pick a story that creates you into a stronger, more loving and generous person.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:33 PM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
There is no narrative, things simply happen randomly, without cause or consequences. Especially when I'm driving. Right now people are honking at me for some reason.
posted by happyroach at 12:42 PM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by happyroach at 12:42 PM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
...maybe put the laptop down?
posted by leotrotsky at 12:55 PM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by leotrotsky at 12:55 PM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
You can't trust the promises of someone who doesn't see their present as the continuation of a story that began in their past.
posted by straight at 1:04 PM on September 3, 2015
posted by straight at 1:04 PM on September 3, 2015
It's not a journey, either.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:06 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Thorzdad at 1:06 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
This has always concerned me in regards to " born agains'" personal testimonies or alcoholic's anonymous (maybe they are one in the same)....this idea that there is self empowerment in formulating a narrative of your history or herstory. To me it felt like the only thing that exercise facilitates is the digging of a very deep rut. Maybe that interpretation includes the performance soliloquy aspect.
posted by Emor at 1:09 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Emor at 1:09 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
That's never going to change because our brains' wiring makes it so.
Do you have scripture to support this? Google ngramming concepts we take for granted is a good way to see how self-obsession wasn't necessarily a constant in our history.
Children seek stories. We dream in stories. Neanderthals told stories on cave walls.
We are a mosaic of stories. We are living scripture and living adlibtures. I write a lot about this and there is a difference between storytelling and narratives, but to think that we aren't stories ignores our every grain of existence. Stories are currencies. We connect to the past, present, and future with them. We tell stories as journalists, novelists, and as the life of the party at soirees. It is the glue that keeps us together as nations, families, and keeps individuals whole.
I am certain when science catches up to the rest of reality, we can have a whack of studies stating the obvious...
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 2:05 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Do you have scripture to support this? Google ngramming concepts we take for granted is a good way to see how self-obsession wasn't necessarily a constant in our history.
Children seek stories. We dream in stories. Neanderthals told stories on cave walls.
We are a mosaic of stories. We are living scripture and living adlibtures. I write a lot about this and there is a difference between storytelling and narratives, but to think that we aren't stories ignores our every grain of existence. Stories are currencies. We connect to the past, present, and future with them. We tell stories as journalists, novelists, and as the life of the party at soirees. It is the glue that keeps us together as nations, families, and keeps individuals whole.
I am certain when science catches up to the rest of reality, we can have a whack of studies stating the obvious...
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 2:05 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm surprised to see so many people railing against the idea that your life should resist simple narrative throughlines. I think excessive narrativization of everything (complete with conflict and resolution arcs) is a particularly Western habit, and I don't believe it's universal at all. The recent FPP with an interview of Ian McKaye touched upon this subject a bit.
When I mentioned this issue was about survival, you said that wasn’t something you could relate to.
It’s the word survival – the idea you would ‘survive’ something. I understand that people, melodramatically, may consider life something one has to survive. But you’re alive, that’s what life is, you are surviving. It plays into this idea that people’s lives are narratives – that it’s a film or book and you have to survive all this craziness. I think it’s a disservice, ultimately, because it makes others feel like their lives aren’t crazy enough. In my mind, life is not a war – although human beings create conditions that make it feel that way – and I think that navigation is a fairer term. I see life essentially as an empty field. The construct of that empty space has to do with society, but it also has to do with us. The only real question is how are we going to navigate that space, from beginning to end. If people thought of themselves as navigators, maybe they would have more purchase. Navigation is about having a say in the matter, whereas surviving is about dealing with things being thrown at you. With navigation you get to decide whether you want to be in that situation in the first place.
Why are people obsessed with beginnings and endings. I feel like people would expect me to ask you about the ‘heyday of punk rock’, as if it was a defined period that just ended. Why do we compartmentalise things that way?
I guess, because it’s easier to write about. The reason we like endings is that they’re manageable. Think about the effect of the electronic medium on the way we think. Radio, television, movies, computers. At some point things became serialised as stories. But when you live in a society where you’re constantly being shown stories, our brains become reformatted to create narratives in our own lives. It’s misleading because life does not have a narrative arc. The world does not have a narrative arc. Or if it does, it’s bigger than anything we could ever fucking write about. I remember being in bands where someone would say, ‘Well, that’s the biggest thing I’ll ever do.’ Who thinks like that?! I don’t think of life as phases. I think of life as life.
posted by naju at 2:14 PM on September 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
When I mentioned this issue was about survival, you said that wasn’t something you could relate to.
It’s the word survival – the idea you would ‘survive’ something. I understand that people, melodramatically, may consider life something one has to survive. But you’re alive, that’s what life is, you are surviving. It plays into this idea that people’s lives are narratives – that it’s a film or book and you have to survive all this craziness. I think it’s a disservice, ultimately, because it makes others feel like their lives aren’t crazy enough. In my mind, life is not a war – although human beings create conditions that make it feel that way – and I think that navigation is a fairer term. I see life essentially as an empty field. The construct of that empty space has to do with society, but it also has to do with us. The only real question is how are we going to navigate that space, from beginning to end. If people thought of themselves as navigators, maybe they would have more purchase. Navigation is about having a say in the matter, whereas surviving is about dealing with things being thrown at you. With navigation you get to decide whether you want to be in that situation in the first place.
Why are people obsessed with beginnings and endings. I feel like people would expect me to ask you about the ‘heyday of punk rock’, as if it was a defined period that just ended. Why do we compartmentalise things that way?
I guess, because it’s easier to write about. The reason we like endings is that they’re manageable. Think about the effect of the electronic medium on the way we think. Radio, television, movies, computers. At some point things became serialised as stories. But when you live in a society where you’re constantly being shown stories, our brains become reformatted to create narratives in our own lives. It’s misleading because life does not have a narrative arc. The world does not have a narrative arc. Or if it does, it’s bigger than anything we could ever fucking write about. I remember being in bands where someone would say, ‘Well, that’s the biggest thing I’ll ever do.’ Who thinks like that?! I don’t think of life as phases. I think of life as life.
posted by naju at 2:14 PM on September 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
Also related, I think, because the idea of conflict and resolution w/r/t our life narratives is an important element of this - The significance of plot without conflict.
In the West, plot is commonly thought to revolve around conflict: a confrontation between two or more elements, in which one ultimately dominates the other. The standard three- and five-act plot structures–which permeate Western media–have conflict written into their very foundations. A “problem” appears near the end of the first act; and, in the second act, the conflict generated by this problem takes center stage. Conflict is used to create reader involvement even by many post-modern writers, whose work otherwise defies traditional structure.
The necessity of conflict is preached as a kind of dogma by contemporary writers’ workshops and Internet “guides” to writing. A plot without conflict is considered dull; some even go so far as to call it impossible. This has influenced not only fiction, but writing in general–arguably even philosophy. Yet, is there any truth to this belief? Does plot necessarily hinge on conflict? No. Such claims are a product of the West’s insularity. For countless centuries, Chinese and Japanese writers have used a plot structure that does not have conflict “built in”, so to speak. Rather, it relies on exposition and contrast to generate interest. This structure is known as kishōtenketsu.
posted by naju at 2:18 PM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
In the West, plot is commonly thought to revolve around conflict: a confrontation between two or more elements, in which one ultimately dominates the other. The standard three- and five-act plot structures–which permeate Western media–have conflict written into their very foundations. A “problem” appears near the end of the first act; and, in the second act, the conflict generated by this problem takes center stage. Conflict is used to create reader involvement even by many post-modern writers, whose work otherwise defies traditional structure.
The necessity of conflict is preached as a kind of dogma by contemporary writers’ workshops and Internet “guides” to writing. A plot without conflict is considered dull; some even go so far as to call it impossible. This has influenced not only fiction, but writing in general–arguably even philosophy. Yet, is there any truth to this belief? Does plot necessarily hinge on conflict? No. Such claims are a product of the West’s insularity. For countless centuries, Chinese and Japanese writers have used a plot structure that does not have conflict “built in”, so to speak. Rather, it relies on exposition and contrast to generate interest. This structure is known as kishōtenketsu.
posted by naju at 2:18 PM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
A few people have mentioned the absence of psychological answers to the question of the "self".
What is the psychological concept of the self? How is it researched?
This bibliography might help actually.
posted by mary8nne at 2:31 PM on September 3, 2015
What is the psychological concept of the self? How is it researched?
This bibliography might help actually.
posted by mary8nne at 2:31 PM on September 3, 2015
That's a point, naju - I've read that people not from individualistic cultures may be less prone to the fundamental attribution error than studies with only Western participants would suggest. That kind of difference might lend itself to a different view of agency and intentionality (and maybe actors/protagonists/heroes).
posted by cotton dress sock at 2:58 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by cotton dress sock at 2:58 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
The term narrative as it applies to the conception of self is getting bandied about in this thread with many disparate meanings, from simple narrative throughlines to a reflection or recomposition of what people read, or ... the junk that they watch. These are oversimplifications of what appears to be a fundamental human process.
The narrative self is not a character in a fantasy novel, subject to a three-act structure or at the whim of trends in popular entertainment. The narrative self is the construction of our memories coupled with our limited idea of what the future might bring. At its simplest it is making sense of time and experience and using that to inform actions as they relate to future goals. I mean, how do we learn?
1. We do something.
2. It has an outcome we did not expect.
3. We adjust our behavior to facilitate or prevent that outcome in the future.
And guess what? That is a narrative. In Peter Brooks' The Empty Space he talks about the fundamental aspect of theatre, which consists of people observing action. A janitor walking across a stage while someone is in the audience is theatre, he posits, and I agree. So it is with the narrative self - a sequence of events occurs, we remember them, a narrative is formed.
The misunderstanding occurs when one conflates the idea of a narrative self with narratives in popular culture. No, your life is not a book* or a movie with a clean arc. It is, however, a series of events that can be related, accurately, as a narrative.
* unless you are Karl Ove Knausgård
posted by grumpybear69 at 3:05 PM on September 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
The narrative self is not a character in a fantasy novel, subject to a three-act structure or at the whim of trends in popular entertainment. The narrative self is the construction of our memories coupled with our limited idea of what the future might bring. At its simplest it is making sense of time and experience and using that to inform actions as they relate to future goals. I mean, how do we learn?
1. We do something.
2. It has an outcome we did not expect.
3. We adjust our behavior to facilitate or prevent that outcome in the future.
And guess what? That is a narrative. In Peter Brooks' The Empty Space he talks about the fundamental aspect of theatre, which consists of people observing action. A janitor walking across a stage while someone is in the audience is theatre, he posits, and I agree. So it is with the narrative self - a sequence of events occurs, we remember them, a narrative is formed.
The misunderstanding occurs when one conflates the idea of a narrative self with narratives in popular culture. No, your life is not a book* or a movie with a clean arc. It is, however, a series of events that can be related, accurately, as a narrative.
* unless you are Karl Ove Knausgård
posted by grumpybear69 at 3:05 PM on September 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
That's what "narrative" means to you. Like "self", it's an incredibly slippery word and concept. People disagree. To me, "narrativizing one's life" doesn't mean simply that events occur, thousands of them present themselves in a given day and we merely note them (mostly unconsciously) without further thought or assignment. Rather, I believe it means that there's some conscious ordering on a larger scale. Some have the need to make sense of the trajectory of their lives in such a way. I don't believe it's a universal aspect of humanity.
posted by naju at 3:15 PM on September 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by naju at 3:15 PM on September 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
And who is this "I" of which he repeatedly speaks anyway?
there's a great bit in Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus Papers (a collection of various, stories, essays etc) where a short essay is credited to a guy named Bob Smith (or whoever, I've forgotten the actual name). Then, in the interests of editorial clarification, Bob Smith is revealed to be not a real person at all but a fictional character created by Robert Anton Wilson for various narrative (and related) purposes. Except Robert Anton Wilson has began to wonder about this as this Bob Smith character seems to believe he's actually real and keeps wanting to do things like think and act for himself.
Later, in the book, the same trick gets pulled, except this time the credited writer is Robert Anton Wilson and the explanatory editorial note refers to him as a fictional character created by God for various narrative (and other) purposes. Except God has began to wonder about this as this Robert Anton Wilson character seems to believe he's actually real and keeps wanting to do things like think and act for himself.
If life is indeed a narrative, I'm pretty sure it's working multiple levels of meta.
posted by philip-random at 3:18 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
there's a great bit in Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus Papers (a collection of various, stories, essays etc) where a short essay is credited to a guy named Bob Smith (or whoever, I've forgotten the actual name). Then, in the interests of editorial clarification, Bob Smith is revealed to be not a real person at all but a fictional character created by Robert Anton Wilson for various narrative (and related) purposes. Except Robert Anton Wilson has began to wonder about this as this Bob Smith character seems to believe he's actually real and keeps wanting to do things like think and act for himself.
Later, in the book, the same trick gets pulled, except this time the credited writer is Robert Anton Wilson and the explanatory editorial note refers to him as a fictional character created by God for various narrative (and other) purposes. Except God has began to wonder about this as this Robert Anton Wilson character seems to believe he's actually real and keeps wanting to do things like think and act for himself.
If life is indeed a narrative, I'm pretty sure it's working multiple levels of meta.
posted by philip-random at 3:18 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
This entire thread seems somewhat missing without the famous predecessor article Against Narrativity (PDF) by the same author.
The linked article provides some phrases/concepts which seem more amenable to grappling with/interacting with. Specifically, it breaks the concept of Narrativity into the psychological Narrativity thesis (That it is human nature to experience their lives as a story or collection of stories, with narrative arcs and plot points as we're used to describing in fiction),
and the ethical Narrativity thesis (That the act of experiencing/conceiving of one's life as a narrative is a capital-g Good Thing, and that narrativity is essential to full personhood).
From there, it splits outlooks based on truth values. One could think that humans are innately narrative-driven in their thoughts and that this is good (many people here). Alternately, one could think that people are narrative-driven and this isn't good (This also shows up in the article). Contrarily, one could think that people aren't innately narrative (but that it's good to aspire to), or lastly that narrativism isn't innate, and that it isn't good to assume that this is the case.
I find the last one compelling, myself. Many people do continually tell themselves the story of themselves, but this isn't innate/required. One can have a series of events, see the causality, and have plans for the future without a Narrative. Believing in the Narrative would suggest things like believing that your life is part of the Campbellian Hero's Journey. Or, like we're seeing in the Kim Davis thread, a narrative of persecution leading to redemption.
This is sometimes helpful, as it can suggest to people that they can hold on for things to get better, but it's also where we get things like the decried Nice Guy behavior where men expect that inputting kindness coins leads to the sex payoff, because those are the stories they're immersed in and the ones they believe in. Or alternately, see all the Gamergaters talking about their struggle in terms of boss battles and grand conspiracies. I've seen schizophrenics describe their mental models as taking this pattern-matching wiring in humans and having it turned up to eleven. Seeing data points and watching connections form to where there's a Grand Narrative connecting things. (Not a point against them, though to me at least it does point towards narrative pattern-matching as something people can vary more and less in feeling tendencies towards.)
As for myself, I sometimes tell narrative tales of myself, but it feels like a deliberate thing. I can describe my past in narrative arcs (and it's a really good point made above that there's many incentives to do so in the workplace), but it's not something I feel is actually the case or needs to be the case. "Plucky young farmboy gets into computers, is drawn to the Big City by Megacorp, has a fall-from-grace there". Where does the story go from here? Under a Narrativist mindset, there's some predictive capacity here. Fall-from-grace leads to soul-searching and redemption? If we could use narratives to predict the future, that would definitely point towards Narrative as a driving force. On the other hand, being able to say "No, my story doesn't have to go like this, I don't have to have a story leading me in this direction" is powerful. By throwing off those chains of narrativity, it allows some measure of greater control.
So yes, I think people are drawn towards personal narratives. They're compelling. We're surrounded by stories all the time. There's incentives to talk about one's past in that way. But they can be confining, and they can lead to harmful behavior as people are immersed in stories suggesting specific arcs.
posted by CrystalDave at 3:33 PM on September 3, 2015 [10 favorites]
The linked article provides some phrases/concepts which seem more amenable to grappling with/interacting with. Specifically, it breaks the concept of Narrativity into the psychological Narrativity thesis (That it is human nature to experience their lives as a story or collection of stories, with narrative arcs and plot points as we're used to describing in fiction),
and the ethical Narrativity thesis (That the act of experiencing/conceiving of one's life as a narrative is a capital-g Good Thing, and that narrativity is essential to full personhood).
From there, it splits outlooks based on truth values. One could think that humans are innately narrative-driven in their thoughts and that this is good (many people here). Alternately, one could think that people are narrative-driven and this isn't good (This also shows up in the article). Contrarily, one could think that people aren't innately narrative (but that it's good to aspire to), or lastly that narrativism isn't innate, and that it isn't good to assume that this is the case.
I find the last one compelling, myself. Many people do continually tell themselves the story of themselves, but this isn't innate/required. One can have a series of events, see the causality, and have plans for the future without a Narrative. Believing in the Narrative would suggest things like believing that your life is part of the Campbellian Hero's Journey. Or, like we're seeing in the Kim Davis thread, a narrative of persecution leading to redemption.
This is sometimes helpful, as it can suggest to people that they can hold on for things to get better, but it's also where we get things like the decried Nice Guy behavior where men expect that inputting kindness coins leads to the sex payoff, because those are the stories they're immersed in and the ones they believe in. Or alternately, see all the Gamergaters talking about their struggle in terms of boss battles and grand conspiracies. I've seen schizophrenics describe their mental models as taking this pattern-matching wiring in humans and having it turned up to eleven. Seeing data points and watching connections form to where there's a Grand Narrative connecting things. (Not a point against them, though to me at least it does point towards narrative pattern-matching as something people can vary more and less in feeling tendencies towards.)
As for myself, I sometimes tell narrative tales of myself, but it feels like a deliberate thing. I can describe my past in narrative arcs (and it's a really good point made above that there's many incentives to do so in the workplace), but it's not something I feel is actually the case or needs to be the case. "Plucky young farmboy gets into computers, is drawn to the Big City by Megacorp, has a fall-from-grace there". Where does the story go from here? Under a Narrativist mindset, there's some predictive capacity here. Fall-from-grace leads to soul-searching and redemption? If we could use narratives to predict the future, that would definitely point towards Narrative as a driving force. On the other hand, being able to say "No, my story doesn't have to go like this, I don't have to have a story leading me in this direction" is powerful. By throwing off those chains of narrativity, it allows some measure of greater control.
So yes, I think people are drawn towards personal narratives. They're compelling. We're surrounded by stories all the time. There's incentives to talk about one's past in that way. But they can be confining, and they can lead to harmful behavior as people are immersed in stories suggesting specific arcs.
posted by CrystalDave at 3:33 PM on September 3, 2015 [10 favorites]
I'm having trouble grasping how someone can hold themselves accountable for their past actions without some kind of narrative. In what sense can I feel any obligation to keep the promises some kid with my name made to my wife 25 years ago, if not narratively?
posted by straight at 4:22 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by straight at 4:22 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
In what sense is the United States responsible for the consequences of slavery, if not narratively?
posted by straight at 4:23 PM on September 3, 2015
posted by straight at 4:23 PM on September 3, 2015
I'm having trouble grasping how someone can hold themselves accountable for their past actions without some kind of narrative. In what sense can I feel any obligation to keep the promises some kid with my name made to my wife 25 years ago, if not narratively?
I'm not sure how narrative is required in this at all. (Unless there's a disconnect where "personal narrative" might be seen as identical to "continuity of identity") I made a promise in the past, I am now someone who has made that promise in the past, but I don't need to tell myself a story about my promise-making and promise-keeping in order to honor it. The American legacy of slavery doesn't require a Climax, a Denouement, a third-act twist in order to recognize causality.
posted by CrystalDave at 4:32 PM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm not sure how narrative is required in this at all. (Unless there's a disconnect where "personal narrative" might be seen as identical to "continuity of identity") I made a promise in the past, I am now someone who has made that promise in the past, but I don't need to tell myself a story about my promise-making and promise-keeping in order to honor it. The American legacy of slavery doesn't require a Climax, a Denouement, a third-act twist in order to recognize causality.
posted by CrystalDave at 4:32 PM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
Say what you want about the tenets of self-narration, dude, at least it's an ethos.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 4:33 PM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 4:33 PM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
"I married Helen, now I have to keep the lifelong vows that I made to her" is one example of a marriage narrative. There are many others, some healthy and some toxic. Marriage is a landmark event in our lives and the temptation is great to have it fit into a sensical trajectory. "My life didn't really start until I married Helen and we had kids" prioritizes certain aspects and parts of your life over others, necessarily. "I trust Helen will perform XYZ labor because she always has, and that's just what our marriage is like" is an example of a potentially toxic narrative that someone can have about their marriage.
Another way of looking at something like marriage is something like: "Oh, there's Helen. I love her; we're married; I care about her and don't want to hurt her," etc. etc. We do this unconsciously or consciously when we think about or interact with the people in our lives. Rather than narrative-creating with arcs, mythologies, journeys, it's about present relationships and identities. Those relationships are forged through the weight of past events, because causality and past events are things we care about. But this way of looking at things is less about how your actions fit into the Great Life Story you're constructing in your head - which life/nature/god/cosmos delights in turning upside down as often as possible, as crazily as possible, I think - and more about living and feeling in the moment, building up from first principles what is important to you and what actions to take because of it.
(I'm not married so I don't know what it's like. This is just an example that can apply to many relationships and life positions)
posted by naju at 4:52 PM on September 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Another way of looking at something like marriage is something like: "Oh, there's Helen. I love her; we're married; I care about her and don't want to hurt her," etc. etc. We do this unconsciously or consciously when we think about or interact with the people in our lives. Rather than narrative-creating with arcs, mythologies, journeys, it's about present relationships and identities. Those relationships are forged through the weight of past events, because causality and past events are things we care about. But this way of looking at things is less about how your actions fit into the Great Life Story you're constructing in your head - which life/nature/god/cosmos delights in turning upside down as often as possible, as crazily as possible, I think - and more about living and feeling in the moment, building up from first principles what is important to you and what actions to take because of it.
(I'm not married so I don't know what it's like. This is just an example that can apply to many relationships and life positions)
posted by naju at 4:52 PM on September 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
> Do you have scripture to support this?
Questions We Never Thought We Would See On Metafilter.
posted by jfuller at 4:53 PM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
Questions We Never Thought We Would See On Metafilter.
posted by jfuller at 4:53 PM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
I made a promise in the past, I am now someone who has made that promise in the past,
This is a narrative.
posted by bracems at 4:54 PM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
This is a narrative.
posted by bracems at 4:54 PM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
Not the narrative we're talking about.
posted by deathmaven at 7:30 PM on September 3, 2015
posted by deathmaven at 7:30 PM on September 3, 2015
The piece is very unclear about what kind of narrative we're meant to be talking about.
posted by cotton dress sock at 7:33 PM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by cotton dress sock at 7:33 PM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
“Life resembles a novel more often than novels resemble life.”
-GEORGE SAND
posted by Ian A.T. at 7:44 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
-GEORGE SAND
posted by Ian A.T. at 7:44 PM on September 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I think if the author is talking about whether we create a single, unified, classically novellistic, chronologically organized, rigid self-narrative that is identical with our moment-to-moment consciousness (is that what he's saying, or am I getting that wrong?), I think a lot of research suggests that is mostly out. (I'm not even sure who would say we do that, seems like a straw man.)
My understanding, from what I've read of some relevant psych stuff, is that the emerging picture is that we seem to we have schematized, context-dependent selves, which we actively, continually, and at least partly unconciously create through memory - sometimes using time as an organizing principle, sometimes theme - and, through "story-telling" (talking, living) with other people, who remind us of particular selves, with all of us drawing from larger cultural schemas, in reaction to each other, motivated by contemporary concerns. And that because we tend to select new environments and roles based on past ones, and because getting by means choosing a limited number of roles ("parent", "marketing manager"), it all tends to gel together into something more or less coherent.
I have a mostly terrible memory. I've also lived in a few places, different enough from each other, with no one but myself pulling it all together into sense. I'm finding I need sense! I'm working on asserting a story of myself (through writing), because I find all that disjuncture somewhat disturbing. (There's other research that suggests that people who have coherent self-narratives are better off in terms of emotional well-being. We like predictability and pattern in general; in relation to ourselves, I think most of us probably need a basis for sure-footed action.)
I know what it feels like to be relieved from role expectations, to test yourself against new norms in novel situations, to be anonymous in a place where no one's holding you to claims - that can be freeing in lots of exciting ways, but also flimsy, if you don't make some kind of commitment to a project that's not just the project of your changing experience, or to people who might be invested in or affected by your actions. Because as straight pointed out, without a sense of personal continuity, of a self embedded in human relationships, there's no real consequence or meaning to your actions other than the ones you give them, it's solipsism. I also know what it's like to have a couple of reliable selves in the pocket (anyone who's bi- or tri-cultural or who's done extended travel knows what that's like), there's research on that, too.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:37 PM on September 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
My understanding, from what I've read of some relevant psych stuff, is that the emerging picture is that we seem to we have schematized, context-dependent selves, which we actively, continually, and at least partly unconciously create through memory - sometimes using time as an organizing principle, sometimes theme - and, through "story-telling" (talking, living) with other people, who remind us of particular selves, with all of us drawing from larger cultural schemas, in reaction to each other, motivated by contemporary concerns. And that because we tend to select new environments and roles based on past ones, and because getting by means choosing a limited number of roles ("parent", "marketing manager"), it all tends to gel together into something more or less coherent.
I have a mostly terrible memory. I've also lived in a few places, different enough from each other, with no one but myself pulling it all together into sense. I'm finding I need sense! I'm working on asserting a story of myself (through writing), because I find all that disjuncture somewhat disturbing. (There's other research that suggests that people who have coherent self-narratives are better off in terms of emotional well-being. We like predictability and pattern in general; in relation to ourselves, I think most of us probably need a basis for sure-footed action.)
I know what it feels like to be relieved from role expectations, to test yourself against new norms in novel situations, to be anonymous in a place where no one's holding you to claims - that can be freeing in lots of exciting ways, but also flimsy, if you don't make some kind of commitment to a project that's not just the project of your changing experience, or to people who might be invested in or affected by your actions. Because as straight pointed out, without a sense of personal continuity, of a self embedded in human relationships, there's no real consequence or meaning to your actions other than the ones you give them, it's solipsism. I also know what it's like to have a couple of reliable selves in the pocket (anyone who's bi- or tri-cultural or who's done extended travel knows what that's like), there's research on that, too.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:37 PM on September 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Although I also found throughout article disjointed, I really identify with being a "non-narrative" type - or at least less prone to seeing some kind of story arc for my life. Moreover, doing so feels wrong to me, enough that trying to read many types of writing that center around good storytelling about everyday life can be really difficult, unless the author is pretty questioning of their own thinking and generally self aware. I think narrative tendencies are dangerous in a way I can't clearly articulate, so I appreciate this article even though I don't think it makes a very good or clear argument about the same.
posted by deludingmyself at 8:54 PM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by deludingmyself at 8:54 PM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
In some narratives there is no narrative.
posted by fartknocker at 9:46 PM on September 3, 2015
posted by fartknocker at 9:46 PM on September 3, 2015
METAFILTER: is very unclear about what kind of narrative we're meant to be talking about.
posted by philip-random at 10:02 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by philip-random at 10:02 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's all narrative. All these words. Every thought you've ever had. It's narratives all the way down. You want to transcend your narratives? (A worthy goal.) You could devote your life to prayer and fasting, or suffer a stroke that wipes out the left side of your brain like Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor did: http://loveandradio.org/2008/10/split-brain/, or acid. Acid might do it.
posted by fartknocker at 10:26 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by fartknocker at 10:26 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I am certain when science catches up to the rest of reality, we can have a whack of studies stating the obvious... (Alexandra Kitty)
But this is exactly what some of us are saying: there IS since on this and related issues, and the writer (among others) is pointedly ignoring it.
posted by Halo in reverse at 11:25 PM on September 3, 2015
But this is exactly what some of us are saying: there IS since on this and related issues, and the writer (among others) is pointedly ignoring it.
posted by Halo in reverse at 11:25 PM on September 3, 2015
You all know that there is such a thing as people who study and write philosophy, right? The guy isn't a psychology researcher and he doesn't proceed by saying, let's see what psychology says, they say they are a science so they must be the first and last word on this.
posted by thelonius at 11:42 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by thelonius at 11:42 PM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think one of the reasons why Psychology is not considered by the author is that its just not seen as very scientific at all. And that the research in psychology is all guided by paradigmatic theorisations that are often based on the ideas of philosophy and literature anyway.
How do you prove scientifically that there "is" a self, rather than there is a "belief" that there is a self?
posted by mary8nne at 1:56 AM on September 4, 2015
How do you prove scientifically that there "is" a self, rather than there is a "belief" that there is a self?
posted by mary8nne at 1:56 AM on September 4, 2015
Yeah I definitely didn't feel so certain about what kind of narrative the piece was addressing. I don't feel like my life has one cohesive narrative arc, but if I'm trying to understand something or explain something I'm necessarily going to construct a narrative of some kind out of the facts I have. And those narratives that concern me and the people who are close to me make up my identity, to the extent that my identity is a cohesive thing that can be neatly defined. I don't really understand how someone can use narrative any less than that and still maintain relationships and have some kind of consistent personality and identity.
posted by bracems at 4:11 AM on September 4, 2015
posted by bracems at 4:11 AM on September 4, 2015
The piece is very unclear about what kind of narrative we're meant to be talking about.
It is not. The idea that everyone is the protagonist of their own story is a staple in our culture. I has even come up here. That is what this article states it's addressing in the opening paragraph, especially the final sentence. What's unclear is the point of pointing out different definitions of "narrative" that don't necessarily match up with what he's talking about.
posted by deathmaven at 6:07 AM on September 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
It is not. The idea that everyone is the protagonist of their own story is a staple in our culture. I has even come up here. That is what this article states it's addressing in the opening paragraph, especially the final sentence. What's unclear is the point of pointing out different definitions of "narrative" that don't necessarily match up with what he's talking about.
posted by deathmaven at 6:07 AM on September 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
without a sense of personal continuity, of a self embedded in human relationships, there's no real consequence or meaning to your actions other than the ones you give them, it's solipsism.
This is, in fact, how it happens to be -- except it's not solipsism. Solipsism is when there's only self. In fact, there is neither self nor not-self. There is the view of self, which is the conventional view. But there is also the view that sees the insubstantiality of self, the arbitrariness of its preferences and aversions, the fictive character of its commitments and relationships, the provisional and relative nature of its beliefs. The view that sees clearly that the self is "like writing on water."
Self and no-self are two views that both offer insight into the way it is, but many people exist entirely in the former and have terror of the latter, imagining that it would lead to a meaningless, chaotic world, decadence, nihilism, or maybe just sitting there like a vegetable until you die of starvation. This is not the reality. In fact, having access to this second view liberates in a positive way that opens up freedom to act in any situation, as well as compassion for others. The essentially miraculous nature of life shines through, and action taken from that foundation tends to be appropriate to the circumstances, not reactive or rule-bound, not "grasping" for something that comes out of the self-story. Again, it's just an easier way of living -- more generous, less needy, more free -- and my experience has been that the more I've developed this second view, the more beneficial it has been to me in my self-bound, narrative-conditioned "ordinary life."
posted by haricotvert at 7:08 AM on September 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
This is, in fact, how it happens to be -- except it's not solipsism. Solipsism is when there's only self. In fact, there is neither self nor not-self. There is the view of self, which is the conventional view. But there is also the view that sees the insubstantiality of self, the arbitrariness of its preferences and aversions, the fictive character of its commitments and relationships, the provisional and relative nature of its beliefs. The view that sees clearly that the self is "like writing on water."
Self and no-self are two views that both offer insight into the way it is, but many people exist entirely in the former and have terror of the latter, imagining that it would lead to a meaningless, chaotic world, decadence, nihilism, or maybe just sitting there like a vegetable until you die of starvation. This is not the reality. In fact, having access to this second view liberates in a positive way that opens up freedom to act in any situation, as well as compassion for others. The essentially miraculous nature of life shines through, and action taken from that foundation tends to be appropriate to the circumstances, not reactive or rule-bound, not "grasping" for something that comes out of the self-story. Again, it's just an easier way of living -- more generous, less needy, more free -- and my experience has been that the more I've developed this second view, the more beneficial it has been to me in my self-bound, narrative-conditioned "ordinary life."
posted by haricotvert at 7:08 AM on September 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
deathmaven - "everyone is a protagonist of their own story" ("protagonist" means exactly what? Why not unreflecting actor, or witness), is a different question than "do people universally generate a narrative autobiography" or "if so, when do they do that, and why" (when they reflect upon themselves? when they have an audience?) or how (consciously or not? Using what tools?). And those and "what is the best way to acquire self-knowledge" or "is an autobiography a truthful account of a person" or "what ethical implications does autobiographical memory carry" are all just really huge questions it makes me unsettled to see strung together like that.
posted by cotton dress sock at 9:25 AM on September 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by cotton dress sock at 9:25 AM on September 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Self and no-self are two views that both offer insight into the way it is, but many people exist entirely in the former and have terror of the latter,
This is a very basic and dangerous misunderstanding of the Buddhist concept of no-self. No-self is not some special mode of being you enter through meditation, it's an insight into the way things are and always have worked. Grasping the truth only changes how you react or don't react in the moment when your mind's up to its usual tricks; unless you've achieved full enlightenment and ceased to even have a physical form, in the classical Buddhist idea, you can achieve a true, visceral, inuitive understanding of the truth of no-self through meditative practice, but you don't enter into some new state of mind without the tendency toward self-delusion. No-self is not a goal of meditative practice, it's a term for the underlying reality of the self that's been the case all along, which the mind can keep us from apprehending without the disciplining and conditioning effects of meditative practice. So this comment doesn't even parse for me. Even the Buddha never argued a living, flesh and blood human being could escape the mind's tendency to create self deceiving narratives, only that with the right mental training, you could learn to see these processes for what they are and work with them to achieve more humane habits and relieve your own and others' suffering more effectively. The idea as formulated above comes really close to certain mistaken ideas that Buddhist communities have long considered to be potentially dangerous and harmful misinterpretations of the dharma.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:28 AM on September 5, 2015
This is a very basic and dangerous misunderstanding of the Buddhist concept of no-self. No-self is not some special mode of being you enter through meditation, it's an insight into the way things are and always have worked. Grasping the truth only changes how you react or don't react in the moment when your mind's up to its usual tricks; unless you've achieved full enlightenment and ceased to even have a physical form, in the classical Buddhist idea, you can achieve a true, visceral, inuitive understanding of the truth of no-self through meditative practice, but you don't enter into some new state of mind without the tendency toward self-delusion. No-self is not a goal of meditative practice, it's a term for the underlying reality of the self that's been the case all along, which the mind can keep us from apprehending without the disciplining and conditioning effects of meditative practice. So this comment doesn't even parse for me. Even the Buddha never argued a living, flesh and blood human being could escape the mind's tendency to create self deceiving narratives, only that with the right mental training, you could learn to see these processes for what they are and work with them to achieve more humane habits and relieve your own and others' suffering more effectively. The idea as formulated above comes really close to certain mistaken ideas that Buddhist communities have long considered to be potentially dangerous and harmful misinterpretations of the dharma.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:28 AM on September 5, 2015
Appreciate your concern for the integrity of the Dharma, Saul, but I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing. In any case, I completely agree with everything you're saying. Not sure where you feel my comment veered from your own understanding, but I can assure you it's not "dangerous," and I really don't think it's a misunderstanding, basic or otherwise, of the Buddha's message. Do you feel my use of the word "exist" implies that a person -- in the phenomenal sense -- really "is" a self or a no-self? That was not my intention, and I think in the context of the comment that's pretty clear. But you are correct, of course. There is no escape from self, nor is that a goal of meditation. Strictly speaking, there is no goal of meditation. Certainly not the artificial creation of a "state" of no-self. However, through meditative practice, there often develops a recognition of and insight into the empty nature of the self-concept. And again, the reason to develop this recognition is that it's easier and more pleasant and joyful to live in accordance with the way things are than to continue to act (react) out of ignorance. At least, that's been my experience.
posted by haricotvert at 6:25 PM on September 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by haricotvert at 6:25 PM on September 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
By the way, for the record, you don't have to be Buddhist or study Buddhism to gain the insight into no-self that comes through meditation. It's just that the Buddhists have a really well-developed set of practices and philosophical underpinnings and community of practitioners for doing so. It's "skillful means," as they say. But the insight is not the property of Buddhism. It's available through other meditative traditions, or even through no tradition, although perhaps not as reliably. It's really not even right to call it an insight -- implying a special knowledge. It's actually just the end of being mistaken/confused/deluded. The important thing is to practice -- to really look into the matter of the self -- and to find out for oneself. And the nice thing is that the benefits start to accrue almost immediately, or at least they did for me and for many others I know who have taken up meditation as a daily practice. I couldn't recommend it more highly.
posted by haricotvert at 7:13 PM on September 5, 2015
posted by haricotvert at 7:13 PM on September 5, 2015
I may have misread you, haricotvert. I took your meaning to be that "no-self" was a special perspective, a state of mind that one could aspire to achieve through meditative practice. You seem to understand that it's not, so my criticism is withdrawn.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:30 PM on September 7, 2015
posted by saulgoodman at 9:30 PM on September 7, 2015
« Older You literally cannot pay me to speak without a... | “We are thrilled when fragments of reality become... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by saulgoodman at 9:29 AM on September 3, 2015 [23 favorites]