The Story

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

ALOberhoulser wrote:rom,
The metaphor of the shoreline is a great one - significantly discussed here for years - it just got me (in that magical sort of way) that it was significant in your story 8)
Thanks AL
yeah ... that a single event a wave shifting sand and plonking me down in the sea might have shaped my life is interesting.

But I think there is an unspoken fallacy in my story ... that it was the single event that did it. This relates to the free will thread, the fallacy that a single entity (a wave in this case) can be responsible.

The wave was just one event that was identifiable in myriad of events forced me to sit down in the sea. :)
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

ALOberhoulser
Associate
Posts: 2952
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Delphi
Contact:

Post by ALOberhoulser »

It's you at the shoreline - not the wave - to which I was referring as (metaphorically) magical :wink:

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

romansh wrote:
nandu wrote: "Each atom is a story."
Nandu.
Interesting. My question to this is who is telling the story? And who is listening?
Interesting question, Rom. How to put the answer... Let's say the details of the story are recorded (experience/memory), then formatted into story form when accessed and considered. At this point, one tells one's self the story. The essence of my idea for this thread is the assumption that we are hardwired to understand everything through narrative.

There is nothing you can say about anything that is devoid of the context in which whatever it may be was encountered or experienced.

When I was at Esalen in '07 for the Mythological Toolbox I met a woman who worked at NASA. Her job was to help scientists put their work into narrative form so that the general public would better understand what they do.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

the fallacy that a single entity (a wave in this case) can be responsible.
Rom, in terms of the story, the wave "being responsible" is a personification and isn't meant to be taken literally. The use of such a device enhances the experience of the story.

"It all began with a wave..."

This is what stuck in your mind, and you tied the event with the succeeding events. That's the point. What event inspired the other family to be at the beach at the same time? Their story starts, not with the wave, but with your cry. Separate stories. Each individual present has, to some degree, a different story.

And Al took the image and turned it into a metaphor! lol!

Why do witnesses of the same event tell different stories?
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

ALOberhoulser wrote:It's you at the shoreline - not the wave - to which I was referring as (metaphorically) magical :wink:
Sorry I missed your point AL. But I think my point still stands. I'm not overly familiar with with the shoreline metaphor, and I am sure it can be magical (in your sense ;))

Clemsy,
Rom, in terms of the story, the wave "being responsible" is a personification and isn't meant to be taken literally. The use of such a device enhances the experience of the story.
I know the wave is sort of a metaphor. But I do think some people do take this sort of thing literally. They focus on one facet of Indra's net and miss out on the universe.
I met a woman who worked at NASA. Her job was to help scientists put their work into narrative form so that the general public would better understand what they do.
Partly joking, perhaps there is woman somewhere who can explain narrative in scientific form so that the general public can better understand.

I take your point regarding context Clemsy. This is why (the cause of) each of us walking our own paths.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

ALOberhoulser
Associate
Posts: 2952
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Delphi
Contact:

Post by ALOberhoulser »

romansh wrote: Sorry I missed your point AL. But I think my point still stands. I'm not overly familiar with with the shoreline metaphor, and I am sure it can be magical (in your sense ;))
I hope Clemsy will chime in here - he started the discussion of , and ran with, that particular metaphor in a long, lost thread - Language and Metaphor (it's now out of order & garbled from a server change).
Metaphor is figurative. By “figurative” I mean it’s not a literal comparison or identification, and as such, it appeals as much to your imagination as to your literal or analytical side. From an analytical standpoint you might think it’s silly to compare Seattle to a swamp, but with a good metaphor your imagination knows what is meant even if your analytical side doesn’t get it.
In part because they are figurative, metaphors are always open to interpretation. Good ones typically suggest multiple meanings, which is one reason writers like them so much. This is one of the chief features that distinguishes literature from other types of writing. Where much writing—for example, legal and technical writing—strives to eliminate all but one possible interpretation to avoid confusion, literature thrives on ambiguity.

This is not to say that it is imprecise. On the contrary, it can be very precise, often by being ambiguous. How? Simply because the things that literature is concerned with—human emotion, the conflicts and stresses we struggle with, the ways we give our lives meaning—are complex and contradictory. In order to describe them accurately it is necessary to convey multiple meanings simultaneously.

An obvious example: some things are both tragic and hilarious simultaneously. A good metaphor can convey this and more in a single image, whereas analytical writing might require whole paragraphs or pages, and still not catch all the subtlety and nuance that the metaphor did.
Metaphors are fun to play with: They appeal to your imagination, they’re open to interpretation, the comparisons can be really outrageous and surprising, and for other reasons. Once you’ve figured out that you can convey very precise but complex and even contradictory feelings and ideas through metaphor, you can start fooling around with them regardless of whether they convey anything true or meaningful about life. Often the pleasure of a piece of literature lies in the author’s inventiveness with metaphor and other games of language, not what it tells us about the real world or our lives. Like a car that’s flashy, or can go faster than you’ll ever need to go, it has an appeal that is distinct from its plain, practical purpose of telling a story or conveying information.
SOURCE
Was it at that shoreline where the ocean of innocence met the sand castles of humble human connections, rom? 8)
Last edited by ALOberhoulser on Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:54 am, edited 4 times in total.
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

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

she walks along the edge of where the ocean meets the land
just like she's walking on a wire in the circus. ~Counting Crows
The shoreline is the balance point between opposites. The ocean is often a metaphor for the unknown, the unconscious. The land, what is familiar.

Rom... the unknown reached out and knocked you down, and nudged your life onto a different path. Often happens.

Hemingway said the fish was just a fish.

He was wrong, cause once other people get their hands on a story, anything can happen. lol!
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Well, romansh, so far have these fine folks spoken for you...?

:)
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Cindy B. wrote:Well, romansh, so far have these fine folks spoken for you...?
:)
:lol: :lol:
I was not expecting anyone to interpret my story.

Have they spoken for me? :lol:
No they have taken my story a let it speak for them. Which is fine.

Cindy
Clemsy said the unknown reached out and knocked you down, and nudged your life onto a different path. Often happens.

This is fine. For me the unknown is the universe. And the different path? How else was the universe going to unfold?

I'm not sure how the metaphor of the shoreline is being used. So I am willing to give it some slack. But whatever it is, I don't see it is a divide between what is and is not.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

ALOberhoulser
Associate
Posts: 2952
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Delphi
Contact:

Post by ALOberhoulser »

I'm not sure how the metaphor of the shoreline is being used. So I am willing to give it some slack. But whatever it is, I don't see it is a divide between what is and is not.
Where the water meets the sand - and both are it :wink:

JamesN.
Associate
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:46 am
Location: Nashville, Tn.

Post by JamesN. »

Rom,

And also here is the clip of Robert Walters that Clemsy mentioned earlier about story and narrative just to add to the discussion. I do not think it will resolve your concern but it might sharpen Clemsy's reference a little.

Steve said:
But whatever it is, I don't see it is a divide between what is and is not.
Robert Walters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ND721qYpz4
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

At work, we engineers create mathematical models to explain and predict the behaviour of natural systems. These models are nothing but stories. Actually, we do not have any idea how "reality" functions. Science is a story created to explain the universe... and it is a story which works most of the time. 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... I can modify it and say, "each one of us has his/her own sacred story."

If one looks at the "Free Will" thread, one can see two mutually incompatible stories (rom's and Steve's) fighting it out with each other. Come to think of it, this is what is happening on the world stage nowadays, albeit on a larger scale and with more fire power and rhetoric... :wink:

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

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.
Nandu, that is precisely what this thread is about.

Whether or not Creationsim is empirically correct, it is a critical assumption to those who cling to it. It is true in their narrative, and when stories conflict, most of the time it is extremely counterproductive to simply say, "You're wrong."

Indeed, in The Art of Discourse thread I said, years ago, that telling someone he or she is wrong is really an act of violence; you're attempting to undermine someone's construct of the world. That construct is a the story.

What makes this discussion so relevant to this site, is that conflict between Creationism and science is a conflict between disparate cosmologies. The Creationist is hanging on tooth and nail to... a story. The, what? Modernist? Is accepting the new story. Again, whether Creationism or evolution is empirically correct or not is beside the point. Anyone remember the BBS series Connections? James Burke, in one episode said, "It didn't matter whether the earth was flat or not. Everyone behaved as if it did."

As Schopenhauer said:
“All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
So, we shouldn't hammer each other with our stories (that's when the moderator steps in lol!). We share them, and every so often we modify our own story based on what we hear from another's.

Sometimes, maybe most of the time, that takes courage.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

James, thanks for that link! I hadn't seen that as it's not in the video! Well worth watching, especially for the anecdote about the zoo. Outstanding.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

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...
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 - :roll:

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.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Locked