I've been plucking articles from the ether for decades.SteveC wrote:wow. how did you pull that out of the ether?JamesN. wrote:This old NYT article may be of interest to some: Personal Myths Bring Cohesion to the Chaos of Each Life
The Story
Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2277
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
- Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
- Contact:
Clemsy wrote:Everyone is a poet... in their dreams.
But not everyone has a poet's heart, at least the way I see it. Rom, that doesn't mean you don't have one. Actually, I suspect you do.
I am what I am; to steal a phrase.
I am comfortable where I am.
Perhaps I should find the the next thing to make me uncomfortable?
I can't help thinking The Story has so many inflexions.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
-
- Associate
- Posts: 3395
- Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
- Location: Kerala, the green country
- Contact:
Rom, I am a person who thinks Creationism is utter nonsense scientifically; and if my son's school tries to teach him that, I'll yell bloody murder! However, I appreciate the fact that the Creationist feels the same, and for him, his story is the only 100% valid one. For me, it is not a question of consensus, rather of tolerance in allowing another to hold a different idea (or story, in the context of this thread).romansh wrote:This one I find tricky. Is it OK to believe the creationist narrative? I suppose so. Those that do have no choice but to do so But when it comes to teaching their children that creationism is the one true narrative, then I am a little apprehensive about this. Now me being apprehensive is my problem. So I can sit back and watch the universe unfold or get stuck in and disabuse people of this creationist nonsense. (Two birds ). Or possibly try and do both - the middle way -nandu wrote: However, it does not mean that some other story (for example, Creationism vs. Evolution) is not equally valid for a person whose personal narrative is more in sync with it. This is why I always make the statement (which angers Neo so!) that our beliefs are only valid to ourselves...
If we contrast this with scientific narrative for evolution. Evolution is a theory, yes. Does it explain eveything, no. The narrative will change as new evidence comes in. In the meantime we will use the evolution narrative as it is coherent with radiodating, geology, the fossil record, biochemistry, genetics. Now I suppose we can find fault with each of the individual bits of narrative.
I have gone on for long enough.
Each society accepts as "official" the story of the majority. At one point of time, it was the religious story. Currently, it is the scientific story.
Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu
According to the hegel dialectic, two ideas merge.nandu wrote:
Each society accepts as "official" the story of the majority. At one point of time, it was the religious story. Currently, it is the scientific story.
Nandu.
If you look at the history of science, and the history of religion, they are not that different. Both have been improved and refined over the years, and both have periods of dramatic misdirection and error. The same could be said of political history.
What becomes extreme in one age was the commonsense in another.
I have no doubt that democracy will come to be viewed as a colossal waste and failure, because of its failure to bring peace and prosperity to all. The specialization of a meritocracy argues fundamentally against it. Similarly, a 'create your own ethics' which is characteristic of capitalism, will eventually expire. Ayn Rand is a hero today to some, but her response was to the excess of communism, not to the excesses of democracy. Objectivism is as anachronistic as the catholic church being said in Latin (which some people want to return to).
The way I see it, all the ideas are battling with one another, and error gets rejected incrementally. This is why I see history as linear, and not cyclical. The story of WWII, for example, was based on a dialectic, combining the blood purity of monarchy with democracy, thereby making all aryan blood superior, rather than just the royal line.
If you study the ideas of a story, of what makes one a victim or a hero, there is a lot to be discovered, Future generations are indoctrinated into both, and thus a fairy tale is part of everyone's story, because it is never something that we have directly experienced, but we carry it as a connection to our ancestors as if we did experience it.
There are three stories. A personal one of direct experiences, and two public or cultural ones that serve as a baseline. One of the past and one of the present, that determines how we interpret our personal story.
You can only see the height of a mountain from its valley.
The radical myth towards which the helix aspires is beyond the desire for money or power, yet which has greater returns than all the power and money in the world could not achieve.
The radical myth towards which the helix aspires is beyond the desire for money or power, yet which has greater returns than all the power and money in the world could not achieve.
-
- Working Associate
- Posts: 10645
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
- Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
- Contact:
This is quite correct. And by buying in to her response to communism, which is an over-compensation driven by the impact of the Communist Revolution on her family, the modern day Randians are allowing her story to, and its psychological implications, to dominate theirs.Ayn Rand is a hero today to some, but her response was to the excess of communism, not to the excesses of democracy.
Hwere I will differ with you Steve. I don't think Objectivism was at any point any more than a justification of a neurotic over-compensation. It was never valid to begin with. As for the mass being said in Latin, I agree with Campbell on this point. Vatican II was an attempt by the church to update its story, and it didddled with all the wrong parts. It minimized the mythic mystery, and maintained what had become pathetically obsolete. It should have kept Latin and kept the altar faced to the sacristy. But it should have allowed women into the priesthood and lightened up on human sexuality.Objectivism is as anachronistic as the catholic church being said in Latin (which some people want to return to).
As far as I'm concerned, it made the story dull. I might go to mass once in a while if it was still in Latin. I recall mass as a child quite fondly.
My early Catholocism is a critical part of my story. Quite.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
The more adventurously heroic among us might say go for it.romansh wrote:I am comfortable where I am.
Perhaps I should find the the next thing to make me uncomfortable?
At the same time, and as someone who spends a good deal of time in the swash , I have little doubt that eventually it will find you, so for now why rock the boat if all's going well? Our periods of balance and peace are typically hard won, so enjoy them, I say, while they last. The next call will come, be sure of it.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung
Hey everyone.
I've been wandering around this morning tracking down something about what Rom said that I think has to do with not only how we frame the concept of " Story "; but also how this understanding has a tendancy to mutate in it's many manifestations:
Rom said:
Truely the concept of " Story " is ( myriad ) in possibility; but the term " inflection "; ( interchangable with inflexions If I am understanding the context correctly here ); also suggests infinite interpretation I think:
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/Glossary ... ection.htm
My point here is that as both Clemsy and Cindy have mentioned we have a tendency to view or interprete ( " Story " in a more narrow confine of construct or framework ). And when the " archetype " stimulates it; we view in the relationship to our idea of a personal myth; ( singular ); when indeed in reality it may actually be an assembly of various themes; " Janus-faced " in assimilation. ( If I'm saying this correctly. Just saying what has already been stated in a different way. )
So as Rom has observed this " myriad " nature of the term may have something to do with how we interprete it's nebulous quality. But it is ( how ) we " connect the dots " that has everything to do with it's relevance ( to us ); and then to it's larger implications and context.
Nothing really new here I don't think; just my own observations.
I've been wandering around this morning tracking down something about what Rom said that I think has to do with not only how we frame the concept of " Story "; but also how this understanding has a tendancy to mutate in it's many manifestations:
Rom said:
I can't help thinking The Story has so many inflexions.
Truely the concept of " Story " is ( myriad ) in possibility; but the term " inflection "; ( interchangable with inflexions If I am understanding the context correctly here ); also suggests infinite interpretation I think:
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/Glossary ... ection.htm
My point here is that as both Clemsy and Cindy have mentioned we have a tendency to view or interprete ( " Story " in a more narrow confine of construct or framework ). And when the " archetype " stimulates it; we view in the relationship to our idea of a personal myth; ( singular ); when indeed in reality it may actually be an assembly of various themes; " Janus-faced " in assimilation. ( If I'm saying this correctly. Just saying what has already been stated in a different way. )
So as Rom has observed this " myriad " nature of the term may have something to do with how we interprete it's nebulous quality. But it is ( how ) we " connect the dots " that has everything to do with it's relevance ( to us ); and then to it's larger implications and context.
Nothing really new here I don't think; just my own observations.
Last edited by JamesN. on Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2277
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
- Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
- Contact:
Switching metaphors slightly, there are a myriad threads shaping my life's tapestry. In my story, I just traced one thread back fifty odd years, I could have gone back further.JamesN. wrote: So as Rom has observed this " myriad " nature of the term may have something to do with how we interprete it's nebulous quality. But it is how we " connect the dots " that has everything to do with it's relevance ( to us ); and then to it's larger implications and context.
The thing to remember, I think, that my life's tapestry is a lie in the artist's sense of the word. If we look carefully we see it is one big tapestry and we see little bits of the weave and say that's mine.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Rom said:
And Clemsy said:
Nicely put.
Indeed Rom.The thing to remember, I think, that my life's tapestry is a lie in the artist's sense of the word. If we look carefully we see it is one big tapestry and we see little bits of the weave and say that's mine.
And Clemsy said:
I think this is a conundrum for us all. I like the metaphor of " Tapestry ". Perhaps in it's weave is our common humanity in it's DNA.We don't appreciate the power of story. Story, after all, is how humans make sense of the world at every level: from the personal story inside your head (and don't we like to make up stories in there! lol!) to the story of your home, family and circle of friends, to the story of your politics, to your story about the nature of existence.
Nicely put.
Last edited by JamesN. on Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2277
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
- Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
- Contact:
In "my" tapestry, DNA is tiny part of the of the weft and warpJamesN. wrote:Rom said:Indeed Rom; I think this is a conundrum for us all. I like the metaphor of " Tapestry ". Perhaps in it's weave is our common humanity in it's DNA.The thing to remember, I think, that my life's tapestry is a lie in the artist's sense of the word. If we look carefully we see it is one big tapestry and we see little bits of the weave and say that's mine.
Nicely put.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2277
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
- Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
- Contact:
While in the great scheme of thing none of this matters. But when a neighbour takes his lovely kids out of school to teach them a literalist's interpretion of the Bible, my heart aches.nandu wrote: For me, it is not a question of consensus, rather of tolerance in allowing another to hold a different idea (or story, in the context of this thread) .
I can let it pass and tolerate the situation. Pragmatically this is what I have done.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Sorry about the last minute add on of Clemsy's post. It was meant as a compliment to your thought.
Rom said:
Rom said:
As to your reference here I think that this aspect is what makes us all unique. Joseph Campbell said something to the effect that it is these human quirks and frailties that make us special and endearing. ( And we all have plenty of them; no? I know I sure do.)In "my" tapestry, DNA is tiny part of the of the weft and warp
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2952
- Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:00 am
- Location: Delphi
- Contact:
This thread sounds like what I imagine Beach Blanket Babylon was in it's story-board stages
pun intended
CLIP
I just wonder where the metaphors & archetypes collide in one's personal story. The collective, scientific paradigm seems to want to put a pricetag on everything - from Cindy's link:
pun intended
CLIP
I just wonder where the metaphors & archetypes collide in one's personal story. The collective, scientific paradigm seems to want to put a pricetag on everything - from Cindy's link:
What's a 2 hour psych session run these days - $300In Dr. McAdams's research, people are asked to tell their life stories in a two-hour session, focusing on what they see as the main chapters, key episodes and significant characters. Dr. McAdams and his associates then analyze the stories to find their underlying themes and mythic characters. The role these characters play in a life story is subtle; the person who tells the story is almost never aware of their role in shaping his tale.
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
~Max Planck
~Max Planck
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2277
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
- Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
- Contact:
Unique? Perhaps.JamesN. wrote:]
As to your reference here I think that this aspect is what makes us all unique. Joseph Campbell said something to the effect that it is these human quirks and frailties that make us special and endearing. ( And we all have plenty of them; no? I know I sure do.)
Take look at the carbon atoms in your body. Ostensibly identical, but each one has a unique story of how it got to where it is.
I have no problem anthropomorphizing my bag of sloshy proteins and carbs. I can even give it qualities like special, endearing, intelligent and good looking.
I need to ponder this further.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
-
- Associate
- Posts: 2952
- Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:00 am
- Location: Delphi
- Contact:
Well, that's full circle for me - I thought it was the T cells, B cells & other lymphatic system organisms that might be worth of anthropomorphism ... my hero(s)I have no problem anthropomorphizing my bag of sloshy proteins and carbs. I can even give it qualities like special, endearing, intelligent and good looking.
I need to ponder this further.
~rom