Rambling Philosophical Nonsense about Narratives

Happy June 9th. Ten days ago when I was on the bus going home from work, I had a weird vision/feeling that I'd die for some reason in ten days. I'm sure everyone has these kind of random thoughts/feelings once in a while and I'm not much of a superstitious person, but for some reason I felt the urge to post my personal philosophy/thought system that I've been thinking about off and on since my first year of college. I had no idea if anyone would be vaguely interested in the following rambling nonsense, but just in case I thought I'd get it out there and for some reason the IDM forum that I occasionally posted on seemed the place to do it. I doubt there's a shred of originality to this, and I'm sure I just absorbed it from some article I read in high school or an old episode of Deep Space Nine or something like that. Anyway, if you're miserably bored and read through to the end then I hope that this is at least somewhat interesting and vaguely coherent.

“You” are a human, and a character in three different types of narratives.

1. You are the main character in your own narrative. This is a linear narrative that, as far as we can empirically know, begins the second that you are born and ends the second you die. Everything that you perceive in your life is through the context of this narrative. No matter how hard you try to “place yourself in someone else’s shoes,” you can never truly break free of this context. You are the only one who can truly perceive this narrative, just as every other human is the only one who can perceive their own narrative. Depending on the circumstances of your birth and the extent to which you believe in free will, you have a variable amount of control over who your character is in the context of this narrative.
   
2. You are also a secondary character in other people’s linear narratives. You cannot change this as hard as you try; even if you drop off the grid at age 12 and live a life of solitude in the wilderness, you were still a character of varying importance in other people’s narratives before you did so. In some people’s narratives your character will be of great significance, and in others you will merely be a minor extra passed by on the bus. Compared to who you are in your own narrative, you have far more control over who you are in the narratives of others. While “you” are constant in the context of your own narrative, your character can wildly vary from one person’s narrative to another. Until after his own narrative was over, Jimmy Saville was a kind, pleasant character from the television in millions of people’s narratives, whereas in the narratives of his victims he was a twisted, horrific, life-ruining monster. Many people get caught up by how little control they have over their own narratives and forget how much control they have over who they are in others' narratives. Though the main character of your narrative might have had three failed marriages and consider himself a loser with deep psychological problems, in a low-paid janitor’s narrative he might have been the nice guy who got him a cup of coffee every morning on the way into work and made his day a bit brighter.
   
3. Finally, you are a character in “larger” linear narratives. These can be as global as the story of humanity or as local as the story of your family. For example, in the story of WATMM (which has a beginning in 1999/2002, ongoing middle, and will someday end), I have been an incredibly insignificant character who has sporadically posted mostly unfunny IDM-related attempts at humor and uninteresting opinions about BOC, was absent for major events like crowd-sourcing Caustic Window, and has made no noticeable impact whatsoever on the overall culture or history of the forum. On the other hand, in the narrative of the college radio station that I founded, I was a major driving force behind the culture, ethos, and atmosphere of the community and was heavily responsible for the few successes and many failures throughout the story. These “larger” linear stories can be that of a town, a political party, a nation, an ethnicity, a company, a religious community, the people who lived in an apartment building, ect. “Humanity” or “the story of humanity” can also be seen as the co-linear compilation of all of the various narratives of every human who has ever lived, and the roles and effects that each individual human character had in every other narrative that they were a character in.

In post-humanity/the singularity/transcendence/whatever you want to call it, this division of three different types of narratives will no longer exist. As humanity slowly becomes increasingly connected by the internet and social media, the need for internet and real-life privacy disappears, and artificial technology that will eventually either replace humanity or allow for it to become one continuous consciousness continues to develop, we grow closer to the end of “humanity” as we currently understand it. Humanity is defined by individuals’ coexistence in these many instances of the three types of narratives, and without it the humanity we experience can’t exist at all. Humans are also the only creatures we currently know of that can understand the world in terms of narratives, and it’s completely unknown whether what replaces us will understand the world in terms of these linear narratives or something non-linear, immortal, or completely different in ways that we can’t understand.

What does this all mean? Probably nothing special. I've usually tried to be more or less conscious of who my character is in the context of others' narratives, although at the end of the day the end result is more or less the same as "treat others the way you'd like to be treated." I'm disastrously cynical and believe that the wide majority of us have little to no ability to shape the "larger" narratives, and many of us who waste our time trying in vain would be far more useful in helping to positively shape the individual narratives of others who we can have a much greater impact on. But I guess that's pretty much no different from:

Oh well. I hope there was at least something interesting in there for someone. Enjoy 9-6

you had me as far as "humanity slowly becomes increasingly connected by the internet and social media"

  On 6/9/2015 at 1:22 AM, Araungzeb said:

 

Many people ... forget how much control they have over who they are in others' narratives.

Really, really good/important point.

Something tangental to your post but also important for purposes of learning of self, is that the strengths and weaknesses we see in others are only the strengths and weaknesses we see in ourselves. If we realize this and become conscious of this during criticism of others, we can rapidly progress in resolving our own issues. For traits/workings that are not a deep part of us-- we cannot perceive these in others; we cannot perceive these at all.

As we can only learn of the self and from the self, "in the end" (the present), the result is akin to merely remembering who we are.

During "life" there is the illusion of "potential", having to do with paths taken, etc., but after "death", the full potential of an individual becomes realized and quantified. It's very easy to think that one who has never played golf can easily play golf- has the "potential to play a game of golf"- but if no golf is played and the person dies, the truth is that such potential never existed. So, seemingly simple actions such as golf are actually 100% impossible for some, in a given perceived timeline. One's life is crafted equally by actions taken and actions not taken; the impossible directs the possible and vice versa. Nothing is just as significant as everything.

  On 6/9/2015 at 1:22 AM, Araungzeb said:

I'm disastrously cynical and believe that the wide majority of us have little to no ability to shape the "larger" narratives, and many of us who waste our time trying in vain would be far more useful in helping to positively shape the individual narratives of others who we can have a much greater impact on.

I don't think working within larger or smaller narratives is mutually exclusive. Matter of fact, a lot of great historical figures started off changing lives from a grassroots level then expanded to form a social impact. Basically my point is, you be an instrument of change on multiple levels, macro and micro, simultaneously

I like the thought of the possible changes in the three narratives you've defined. It's an interesting idea to think about.

Altough I must admit to seeing a different outcome. I can see that the distinction between first person and second person narratives can become vague in a future where individuals become an integral part of some kind of intrapersonal internet. But I don't see that happening for the third narrative, which is in my idea something different from the third person but rather a fourth (!?, not a "we", but a "they").

Also, when the distinction between first and second person becomes vague, all kinds of philosophical shit can happen. What about free will? Personality? Individuality and freedom? Would our current ideas of right and wrong still be the same?

  On 6/9/2015 at 7:15 AM, Danny O Flannagin said:

 

  On 6/9/2015 at 1:22 AM, Araungzeb said:

I'm disastrously cynical and believe that the wide majority of us have little to no ability to shape the "larger" narratives, and many of us who waste our time trying in vain would be far more useful in helping to positively shape the individual narratives of others who we can have a much greater impact on.

I don't think working within larger or smaller narratives is mutually exclusive. Matter of fact, a lot of great historical figures started off changing lives from a grassroots level then expanded to form a social impact. Basically my point is, you be an instrument of change on multiple levels, macro and micro, simultaneously

 

this

It's adorable whenever sheltered white kids try to make sense of the world via their media consumption

Ignore chim. He talks a good game but he's also white.

Why is the word "narrative" so much used these days ? Doesn't "story" work ?

  On 6/9/2015 at 2:54 PM, Perezvon said:

Why is the word "narrative" so much used these days ? Doesn't "story" work ?

I may be and probably am wrong, but "narrative" implies to me an ongoing process while "story" doesn't

  On 6/9/2015 at 5:18 PM, ThatSpanishGuy said:

 

  On 6/9/2015 at 2:54 PM, Perezvon said:

Why is the word "narrative" so much used these days ? Doesn't "story" work ?

 

I may be and probably am wrong, but "narrative" implies to me an ongoing process while "story" doesn't

 

Right, I guess it works here then. But wow at all the goofy uses of this word I see in articles these days. I know I'm not a native english speaker but it sounds so broken to me.

  On 6/9/2015 at 2:54 PM, Perezvon said:

Why is the word "narrative" so much used these days ? Doesn't "story" work ?

It sounds smarter. Story sounds more basic, like theres no children's narratives but there are children's stories

I've noticed that people subtly change over time their own backstory to suit their current perception of themselves at the moment. Not maybe the actual facts but the interpretation and emphasis of different events in their lives. So each person's own whole life narrative is going through evolution over time.

People also tend to see logical narrative connections between events that have been mostly purely random. Every moment there's a chance that my life will turn upside down by some random event that is impossible to see coming but will make sense when I weave it to my own backstory later.

IDK, I was thinking about a lot of this couple of months ago. Kind of trying to figure out my meta-identity or some shit.

I'm still alive, I guess I only half-regret posting the OP.

  On 6/9/2015 at 1:42 AM, cwmbrancity said:

you had me as far as "humanity slowly becomes increasingly connected by the internet and social media"

I don't mean this in an idealistic "social media is bringing us all together" bs way, I'm just commenting on the fact that cultural and social sea changes are coinciding with the rise and increasing ubiquity of internet (specifically social media) in all aspects of life. The ability to remember specific dates of historical events is far less important now as anyone anywhere with an internet connection has virtually equal access to what can pretty much be understood as the collective knowledge of humanity. I understand that "Increasingly connected" was not a particularly accurate or elegant way of expressing this phenomenon, especially in the same sentence as "social media."

  On 6/9/2015 at 7:15 AM, Danny O Flannagin said:

 

  On 6/9/2015 at 1:22 AM, Araungzeb said:

I'm disastrously cynical and believe that the wide majority of us have little to no ability to shape the "larger" narratives, and many of us who waste our time trying in vain would be far more useful in helping to positively shape the individual narratives of others who we can have a much greater impact on.

I don't think working within larger or smaller narratives is mutually exclusive. Matter of fact, a lot of great historical figures started off changing lives from a grassroots level then expanded to form a social impact. Basically my point is, you be an instrument of change on multiple levels, macro and micro, simultaneously

 

I know that this is how I should think and this is exactly how I encourage my high school students to see the world, I've just known a lot of people who devote every inch of themselves to absurd causes like "occupy" or trying to ban abortion while completely ignoring the people around them. Of course its possible to effect change on both levels, I guess a less cripplingly cynical line of thinking would be "don't forget about the massive impact you can make on the micro while doing what you can on the macro."

  On 6/9/2015 at 12:36 PM, chim said:

It's adorable whenever sheltered white kids try to make sense of the world via their media consumption

I'm certainly white and I'll take the "adorable" part . But I'd hardly consider myself "sheltered" in any sense of the word, and I'm curious to how you see me trying to define anything through media consumption. If your understanding of the term "narrative" is so inextricably linked to "media" (whatever you mean by that, I'm assuming mass media), then maybe you're the one who needs to switch off the TV.

  On 6/9/2015 at 10:22 PM, mokz said:

I've noticed that people subtly change over time their own backstory to suit their current perception of themselves at the moment. Not maybe the actual facts but the interpretation and emphasis of different events in their lives. So each person's own whole life narrative is going through evolution over time.

 

People also tend to see logical narrative connections between events that have been mostly purely random. Every moment there's a chance that my life will turn upside down by some random event that is impossible to see coming but will make sense when I weave it to my own backstory later.

 

IDK, I was thinking about a lot of this couple of months ago. Kind of trying to figure out my meta-identity or some shit.

Exactly, we can't help but frame everything that happens throughout our existence as part of this narrative. I wish I'd paid far more attention in the few sociology courses I took a long time ago, I would be curious to know if these perceptions are as widespread in cultures with a less linear conception of time...

  On 6/9/2015 at 5:18 PM, ThatSpanishGuy said:

 

  On 6/9/2015 at 2:54 PM, Perezvon said:

Why is the word "narrative" so much used these days ? Doesn't "story" work ?

 

I may be and probably am wrong, but "narrative" implies to me an ongoing process while "story" doesn't

 

This. I don't know, I've always associated the term "story" with a more polished, finished product for telling/showing in some way, whereas "narrative" for me is more abstract and can apply more universally. I have no idea if these definitions are grounded in any sort of actual reality, also I'm sorry if the word "narrative" has been overused but I really haven't read anything with this term/concept being used recently.

  On 6/9/2015 at 1:22 AM, Araungzeb said:

the story of WATMM (which has a beginning in 1999/2002, ongoing middle, and will someday end)

'no'

Nice post, I agree with the 3 narratives.

Regarding this:

  On 6/9/2015 at 1:22 AM, Araungzeb said:

 

 

In post-humanity/the singularity/transcendence/whatever you want to call it, this division of three different types of narratives will no longer exist. As humanity slowly becomes increasingly connected by the internet and social media, the need for internet and real-life privacy disappears, and artificial technology that will eventually either replace humanity or allow for it to become one continuous consciousness continues to develop, we grow closer to the end of “humanity” as we currently understand it.

 

User caze on this forum posted something like this in a thread which it reminds me of http://forum.watmm.com/topic/87632-technology-the-future-and-abuse/?p=2325445

I think there's 2 types of collapse regarding the 3. Basically the first one is what we have been doing for decades where through globalization every individual brain is exposed to the world and science and all of this and thus becomes expanded, and this leads to every individual brain taking into account way more symbols when making decisions and analyzing their models of the world. The world melts with the brain, but the brain stays the same just expanded environment. The second one is more what caze talks about, where we are not individual brains, but rather "ideas" of brains, networks of meaning connected in all kinds of ways, unbound by the limitations of the body and brain, and as simple or as complex as we want it to. As far as we know, that's all the brain is, a set of neurons connected in a symbolic network, but of course, animals have different networks and you can in theory add as many more symbols as you want physically.

The only problem is that our human emotions are sort of the grounding and the incentives that enable us to care about things and prioritize what we want. They enable a point of view, good and bad, and so forth. I think for the first type of collapse of narratives, there will always be a definite self, and that survival and personal emotions will always be priority. We may be able to escape the ego completely, but the weird thing is, our egos and personal feelings are parts of the physical brain, they are emotions, so some nodes in the 'metaconsciousness' will feel those, while others will not feel them? It's kind of odd. But in any case, don't want to stray too off topic depending on what you're thinking of. I really like how the world has basically flooded into our individual lives. It changes us and the world in profound ways

  On 6/10/2015 at 7:02 PM, Araungzeb said:

 

 

  On 6/9/2015 at 7:15 AM, Danny O Flannagin said:

 

  On 6/9/2015 at 1:22 AM, Araungzeb said:

I'm disastrously cynical and believe that the wide majority of us have little to no ability to shape the "larger" narratives, and many of us who waste our time trying in vain would be far more useful in helping to positively shape the individual narratives of others who we can have a much greater impact on.

I don't think working within larger or smaller narratives is mutually exclusive. Matter of fact, a lot of great historical figures started off changing lives from a grassroots level then expanded to form a social impact. Basically my point is, you be an instrument of change on multiple levels, macro and micro, simultaneously

 

I know that this is how I should think and this is exactly how I encourage my high school students to see the world, I've just known a lot of people who devote every inch of themselves to absurd causes like "occupy" or trying to ban abortion while completely ignoring the people around them. Of course its possible to effect change on both levels, I guess a less cripplingly cynical line of thinking would be "don't forget about the massive impact you can make on the micro while doing what you can on the macro."

 

Well Occupy is a whole other story, lol. Occupy isn't even in the same league as a standard functioning non-profit. Occupy is just a directionless pipe-dream