Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[zabu of nΩd]

Gravity > Interstellar. Interstellar tried to be an epic film but had too many shortcomings to justify its size/scope.

 

[Einherjar86]

I realize that statement was kind of ambiguous. As I lean towards a Kantian understanding of noumena/phenomena, speaking of things which would be noumenal quickly grows tedious and pointless imo. Narrative theory is even more tedious and uninteresting to me for the most part.

How does narrative theory have anything to do with the "noumenal"?

 

[Dak]

I was talking about metaphysics. Narrative theory isn't similar to metaphysics but is no more interesting.The only sort of "narrative theory" I find interesting is when it relates to personal narratives - especially the further they depart from reality.Those divergences can cause serious mental harm if not corrected early.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ah, I see now.

But all personal narratives are contrived and constructed. There is no "reality" narrative, and there is no "correction" - only augmentation.

 

[Dak]

Ah, I see now.

But all personal narratives are contrived and constructed. There is no "reality" narrative, and there is no "correction" - only augmentation.

Seems like a pretty baseless assertion. If by reality you mean objective then I could agree, in the sense that nothing human occurs without humans, so this would seem to enter the Kantian intersubjective.

If tomorrow I start to claim I am St Augustine reborn (sort of an extreme example), this doesn't line up with anything else. The longer I continue to make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence, the more problems will arise, and I may eventually have a breakdown that extends to physical debilitation. This can happen even with the more common and subtle narratives people construct, mostly regarding "destinies" or certain capabilities people believe they have. Eventually the dissonance overwhelms.

Was reading xkcd today and came across this

 

[Einherjar86]

Seems like a pretty baseless assertion. If by reality you mean objective then I could agree, in the sense that nothing human occurs without humans, so this would seem to enter the Kantian intersubjective.

If tomorrow I start to claim I am St Augustine reborn (sort of an extreme example), this doesn't line up with anything else. The longer I continue to make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence, the more problems will arise, and I may eventually have a breakdown that extends to physical debilitation. This can happen even with the more common and subtle narratives people construct, mostly regarding "destinies" or certain capabilities people believe they have. Eventually the dissonance overwhelms.

True; but that isn't because the St. Augustine narrative is less "true" or "real." It's because the St. Augustine narrative doesn't correspond, or complement, a set of given conditions of possibility within a specific cultural context. There was a time when it made sense, or was acceptable, to claim that a young man from Nazareth was the son of God; even if such a claim was contested, it wasn't because the implications were impossible, but because Jesus of Nazareth was simply the wrong choice. The possibility of the Messiah was still very "real" (and for some it still is).

Our lives, as we understand them linearly and conceptually, are predominantly narratives. Certain ones work better in a given society. This isn't to say reality isn't out there; but it is to say that as soon as we locate ourselves within it we narrativize our existence.

Was reading xkcd today and came across this

This is pretty funny.

Although I'll say that we're well aware people don't "get it." The problem is that a) it hasn't been properly explained to a general audience, and b) people are also generally averse to the kinds of theory present in literary studies.

In fact, the creation of narrative is culturally and psychically conditioned: going back to Ian Watt, the novel presents us with a narrative coherence of formal realism that reflects how human minds comprehend the world. When we discuss the construction of narrative in a textual sense we cannot separate it entirely from narrative in a cognitive sense. They're interconnected.

 

[Dak]

One thing about the personal narrative that is interesting is the one that is not easily falsifiable and also provides impetus for the individual. Something like the destiny forms of personal narratives, on occasion they provide a level of determination and single minded direction that allows the individual to realize them to some degree. Patton is the example I have in mind.

I don't like the son of god analogy though because of a couple of issues. If we take the entire thing as true history, the guy was the son of god. In terms of evidence, doing miracles and what not. On the other hand, if we assume that the miracle portion is fabricated, but there was some guy making these claims who was eventually crucified, this would be an example of how personally damaging beliefs such as this could be.

Written works can provide a vision of how the author either comprehends the world, or wishes it to be, or is afraid it is, etc. (or all of those things together) I just don't see it going really any further than that. The generalization problem is one that psychology is really having to come to grips with.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't like the son of god analogy though because of a couple of issues. If we take the entire thing as true history, the guy was the son of god. In terms of evidence, doing miracles and what not. On the other hand, if we assume that the miracle portion is fabricated, but there was some guy making these claims who was eventually crucified, this would be an example of how personally damaging beliefs such as this could be.

I don't understand. Why would we take it as "true"? It isn't true, and yet people believed it; this ultimately worked out very much in their favor, as the West is concerned.

And if we decide to distill this down to the figure of Christ himself, then it stands to reason that crucifixion may have been his deepest desire all along. You assume a kind of universally normative track for what beliefs should be. There's no reason for these to be homogeneous across various cultures or time periods.

Written works can provide a vision of how the author either comprehends the world, or wishes it to be, or is afraid it is, etc. (or all of those things together) I just don't see it going really any further than that. The generalization problem is one that psychology is really having to come to grips with.

It never is just how one author comprehends the world though. Even amid various forms of narrative experimentation, one type of narrative construction reigns supreme: the formal realist narrative. We see this in early novels such as Robinson Crusoe or Pamela, but also in 19th-century narratives like The American or Daniel Deronda, or even 20th-century narratives like Native Son, or The Great Gatsby.

The functionality and effectiveness of these narratives exceeds any individual author's view of the world. It reflects something simultaneously broader (history, culture) and narrower (consciousness itself). You can't reduce a novel to an author's perspective on the world.

 

[Dak]

And if we decide to distill this down to the figure of Christ himself, then it stands to reason that crucifixion may have been his deepest desire all along. You assume a kind of universally normative track for what beliefs should be. There's no reason for these to be homogeneous across various cultures or time periods.

Could have been, but there's nothing overtly in the narrative to back this up. "If it be thy will, take this cup from me" and all that.

It never is just how one author comprehends the world though. Even amid various forms of narrative experimentation, one type of narrative construction reigns supreme: the formal realist narrative. We see this in early novels such as Robinson Crusoe or Pamela, but also in 19th-century narratives like The American or Daniel Deronda, or even 20th-century narratives like Native Son, or The Great Gatsby.

The functionality and effectiveness of these narratives exceeds any individual author's view of the world. It reflects something simultaneously broader (history, culture) and narrower (consciousness itself). You can't reduce a novel to an author's perspective on the world.

Of course the author will be influenced by others in the shaping of his or her view, but if you take out the author's perspective, you have no book. This is where the reductionism comes in.

On a separate note, I can't remember if it was somewhere in GMDS or if on facebook, but I remember having a tin hat ascribed for my take on oil moves. As usual, I am vindicated, just quicker than normal:

NYT:Saudi Oil Is Seen as Lever to Pry Russian Support From Syria’s Assad

WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia has been trying to pressure President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to abandon his support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, using its dominance of the global oil markets at a time when the Russian government is reeling from the effects of plummeting oil prices.

Saudi Arabia and Russia have had numerous discussions over the past several months that have yet to produce a significant breakthrough, according to American and Saudi officials. It is unclear how explicitly Saudi officials have linked oil to the issue of Syria during the talks, but Saudi officials say — and they have told the United States — that they think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability to reduce the supply of oil and possibly drive up prices.

“If oil can serve to bring peace in Syria, I don’t see how Saudi Arabia would back away from trying to reach a deal,” a Saudi diplomat said. An array of diplomatic, intelligence and political officials from the United States and the Middle East spoke on the condition of anonymity to adhere to protocols of diplomacy.

Edit: Speaking of other conspiracies (and Saudi Arabia):

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN0L81T020150204?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Reuters: September 11 conspirator Moussaoui says Saudi royals backed al Qaeda

 

[Einherjar86]

Could have been, but there's nothing overtly in the narrative to back this up. "If it be thy will, take this cup from me" and all that.

Other than self-sacrifice being a central drive in Christian theology.

Of course the author will be influenced by others in the shaping of his or her view, but if you take out the author's perspective, you have no book. This is where the reductionism comes in.

This is like saying without human consciousness there is no body.

The author is not the sole producer of the text, and things work their way into books that authors are not aware of. It is absurd to think that an author somehow possesses complete control over what a book contains, and this isn't even referring to editorial staff or misprints. There are effects and valences of the words and sentences we write that exceed textuality. You cannot draw a straight line from text to author.

Just because an author perhaps provides the impetus for a book to be published does not mean that there is nothing contained therein beyond that author's perspective on the world.

 

[Dak]

Other than self-sacrifice being a central drive in Christian theology.

Only if warranted for the cause. IE if required to spread the gospel. Otherwise Jesus wouldn't have commanded his disciples at one point to be armed on their travels. Getting waylayed by bandits would be self sacrificing but not for the mission. Same thing for simple suicide.

This is like saying without human consciousness there is no body.

I was thinking more along the lines of without breath there is no life, although it takes more than that for life.

 

[Einherjar86]

Only if warranted for the cause. IE if required to spread the gospel. Otherwise Jesus wouldn't have commanded his disciples at one point to be armed on their travels. Getting waylayed by bandits would be self sacrificing but not for the mission. Same thing for simple suicide.

You're missing the point. The Christian belief system is already a narrative, even to those who believe it literally; it is divine message made flesh. For Christ, there is no option other than self-sacrifice, and his drive is to alleviate the sins of others through death.

To be honest, I am less interested in Christ himself and more interested in the propensity for widespread belief that a Messiah has returned. There was a time when that narrative appeared to correspond with some profound reality. Many would say it still does, but many more people (than, say, 1000 years ago) would say it does not.

I was thinking more along the lines of without breath there is no life, although it takes more than that for life.

Well, there you go.

 

[Einherjar86]

Little bit of justification for the literary-minded:

Philosophy doesn't begin with people falling into ditches and looking at the stars. The pre-Socratics are interesting; but philosophy really begins in drama - it's a competitor discourse to tragedy. Which is why Plato's Republic excludes the poets: they're the competition - gotta get rid of them.

 

[Zephyrus]

The very first Presocratics had a deep feeling for the tragic, viz. Anaximander and his notion of cosmic justice and retribution, or Empedocles' polarity of love and strife. Heraclitus, too.

 

[Einherjar86]

I have a soft spot for Parmenides and Zeno (of Elea), although the Parmenidean streak is mostly due to the obscurantism of whatever the hell he's writing. Have you studied Parmenides at all, or do you know of anyone who's attempted a serious analysis of his body of work (which is very small, I know)?

Aristotle is of course huge for literary studies and aesthetics; but his contribution has been mainly a major source of influence on the realist tradition (in all its mutations, I would tentatively claim), which I'm more interested in challenging than perpetuating.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think I've said it before, but I pretty rarely (read: less than annually) get anything more than a sniffle, and I credit it in part to sucking it up and beating the rare sickness I do get without pharmacological aids.

This isn't a totally fair assessment for others though, nor is it particularly the best way to fight illness. Some people may be able to successfully fend off a sickness without any medicine just by resting and ingesting the proper nutrients, or increasing their intake of certain nutrients.

But for some people, the best way to develop their immune system to fight off the antibodies is to assist it a bit. Combining a certain prescription with healthy habits - getting plenty of rest, increasing nutrients and decreasing unhealthy foods, etc. - can, in some cases, make the immune system stronger than simply letting it fight the disease on its own.

The belief that letting the immune system tackle everything on its own is better in the long run derives from a kind of folk wisdom that au naturale is best, and that the human species lived for thousands of years without the help of medicine. Of course, this isn't true - humanity has used medicinal supplements for ages, but our definitions of "artificial" and "natural" have shifted. The evidence on letting the immune system fight off diseases on its own is inconclusive, and most of it is anecdotal. There are also cases in which medicine is not just necessary, but in which it can actually help the immune system develop over time.

 

[Zephyrus]

You were sounding like Sanjay Gupta for a while there but thankfully you turned into good old Patrick at the end.

 

[Einherjar86]

The distinction between natural and artificial is itself an artificial distinction.

 

[Zephyrus]

To quote Addo of Nex, "appealing to nature is the crudest form of mythologizing."

http://thedrunkardmuse.blogspot.com/2014/04/appealing-to-nature-crudest-form-of.html

 

[Dak]

You were sounding like Sanjay Gupta for a while there but thankfully you turned into good old Patrick at the end.

I did say pharmacological help, not "artificial". Regardless, I'll take a little temporary pain for long term gain.