Instead I think the problem is actually the exact opposite: people don’t embrace stories enough. Modernity is accurately described as a place without any coherent sort of arch-story for society and local-story for individuals and places. To use the concept by Deleuze, everything has been too “deterritorialized.” We’d all probably be happier with a solid narrative underlying our senses of self and society.
Those arch-theories already exist in the theories like Dialectical Materialism, or worse, Fascism, and with terrible consequences once they confronted reality.
The circumstantial perspective of (Liberal Western) Modernism & Postmodernism may have it's flaws, but it has offered more practical results in policymaking than not.
In fact, I think the lack of such an attempt to make a coherent story is what draws people to the over simplified ones in the first place.
Unless your position is a kind of Daoist quietism, I’m not sure what you are suggesting instead.
Maybe there aren’t any such that are risk free. So you have to evaluate both the potential upsides and downsides to see if it’s a net positive and worthwhile risk to take.
If it helps, neither do they. Given that they are already suggesting Postmodernism provides a valuable philosophical and analytic view to understand the world, it's pretty clear that they've given up on any concept of defining a pathway, outcome, or objective.
Isn't this exactly part of Hitler's story though? I think I'm misunderstanding what your concept of "story" means.
But without that it’s hard to see how such proposals have any merit at all, considering the historical track record.
In another comment thread, I wrote that a story is needed which combines accurate scientific information with a human purpose in the world. Those examples quite obviously didn’t have scientific views of the world.
Any extremist political '-ism' has thousands of murders in his belt.
The best goverments are the centered ones, the ones which gave both individual and social rights.
The point isn't to hand-wave anything. Freeing yourself from narratives is a lot of work. The person who probably took this idea most seriously was Stirner, often pointing out that people who leave religious faith just sacralize human nature. ("leaving Man with a capital M intact"), making the oppression even worse.
To be free when rejecting narrative is also to be on the lookout to not chase freedom in a naive way, but it is an achievable process, and it is exactly that. You're obviously never done if you take the idea seriously.
But it is probably the most single liberating thing a human being can do. Personally speaking I come from a blue collar household, I had drilled into me that I must learn a vocation. I didn't, I went to uni and got a CS degree because I loved computers. Some choice as simple as this many people don't make because of how strong the narrative is that their parents tell them about who they are supposed to be. And there's millions of decisions like this. A lot of people think they must buy a house in the suburbs, just because everyone else says so. They actually despair if they don't. The extent to which people imitate desires of others in societies that are supposed to be free is incredible.
Indeed, and I am quite amazed by that seeing that behavior in others. Although maybe/probably I am biased by other narratives in similar ways while not being aware. I feel it would be liberating to understand those narratives and see them for the mere stories they are.
The unique and its property is and will always be my favorite book. There really isn’t any other proper defense of radical individualism philosophically.
Stirners worldview is so unique and fresh. It’s sad to see how little impact it’s had on the world, except within anarchism of all places.
I think stirners thought is 100% compatible with liberalism (I’m liberal because it’s in my interests to be liberal). We still have about zero stirnerist liberal scholars. John Rawls sucked the air out of the room far too early!
Maybe we just need to accept that our narrative is more James Joyce and Marcel Proust than it is Michael Crichton.
The answer that is really needed IMO is a way of squaring contemporary scientific knowledge with a story that still centers humanity in the universe and offers a better worldview than "you're a primate lost in space."
The fact of being a self-aware meta-cognitive primate lost in space isn't enough of a miracle to justify feeling centered in the universe?
I wonder whether it'd be possible to make the story more inspirational by telling it in more accessible ways.
But there also seems to be a real interest in “spiritual” needs, whatever that might mean in particular. And so a purely scientific approach may not be enough in the first place.
Personally I think it may be too much of a past-focused narrative to be very compelling. Most successful religions have a vision of the future, not merely the past.
One starting point might be what I wrote in a comment here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41358528
So a proposal might be: construct a narrative that defeats these two biases in a convincing way:
But there are two very human biases on display here: the idea that occupying large amounts of physical space is indicative of "importance"; and that things which exist for long durations of time are inherently more valuable. These are human biases and there any many examples in nature of the exact opposite being true.
are they getting in the way of finding a middle ground between being lost in space and being the center of the universe? do we need to find a middle ground?
in my opinion a compelling narrative primarily needs to address the problems humanity is facing today: poverty and wealth, climate change, gender equality, war and conflict, disagreement of religion, racism and prejudice, injustice...
i think to address these, it doesn't matter much whether we are lost in space or the center of the universe
Now, being made by a magic man who will welcome you to his magic wonderful home after this short, nasty, brutish life? There’s a comforting story.
While we might not have free will in an absolute, metaphysical sense, we can self-reflect, practice self-control, shape our environment, and even change our nature. What will we do with this power?
There is no eternal afterlife to go to, but we now understand what actual life is - and it's no longer so nasty and brutish. Perhaps soon it won't be so short either. We are certainly capable of extending it in principle, we just need to get our shit together.
Comforting stories are cozy, but we are growing up. We've become smart enough to cause a whole lot of trouble for ourselves, and are not yet wise enough to fix it. We're confused, can't make sense of things and constantly whine about it. But that's how growth works. Humanity might just be in its awkward emo teenage phase.
i agree. science and religion need to be in harmony and not contradict each other. if there is an apparent contradiction we need to open to the possibility that we are either misinterpreting the religious claim or that the scientific findings need further research or even both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes#Satires
Copernicus and Darwin didn’t change much things on that side.
I wholly disagree with your later point though. Knowing that we are only primate lost in space, that civilizations and even our whole species could totally disappear tomorrow without any deity to help, save, rescue, blame or give congrats is actually a far more appealing scenario in term of being challenged to excel. Compare that with "you are full first class member of that special species that the most perfect imaginable being ever created and whatever you do you’ll be granted salvation and experiment an eternal existence in paradise".
That's really not an accurate description of the role religion has played in human psychology, and is only accurate for a very specific subset of beliefs in a specific time and place.
My argument was more that humans thought of themselves as inhabiting a world designed for them, but then learned that this was (likely) not true, and that for many people this is a pessimistic, nihilistic conclusion.
- I'm talking primarily about the Western world and its legacy of Christianity. The situation is different in India, China, etc.
- Even then, in practice, most successful religions tend to have a human-like personal figure in an important place, even if the religion itself is technically non-personal.
A lot of this has to do with the Enlightenment project and disenchantment so it’s already largely focused on the Western world to begin with. Other places have less a history with this.
that's what i go by. the goal is for each individual and for humanity as a whole to better themselves during their life on earth and how they will experience their eternal existence depends on how well they do on earth. plenty of motivation for me, and better than the idea that after i die there is nothing and therefore what i do in my life doesn't really matter.
That's a narrative from a certain perspective. Let's advocate for different perspectives, like the article does.
I'm perfectly fine with the Darwinistic idea that mankind has evolved from something very primitive rather than created for a purpose.
The declaration of basic human rights is a narrative that humans deem good. But they are still human inventions, no superior creator needs to be involved to have something deemed good for everyone.
We are here, that is a fact. Why or how is a mystery. You can build narratives around that but in fact they are not necessary. I would say, let's just make the best of our existence by trying to not make other beings miserable.
well, that is the question. that narrative may not be necessary for you, but it is for me and for many others.
what do you think will be more successful/sustainable? convincing everyone that we don't need a narrative or adopt a narrative that is beneficial for all?
your idea of making the best of our existence by trying to not make other beings miserable is a good one. and it is compatible with advancing civilization. so why don't we focus on working together to achieve those goals (and other related goals like peace, elimination of poverty, justice, clean environment, etc) instead of arguing whether we need a narrative or not?
Being convinced that we need something is not the same as something being necessary for us. There are all sort of human endeavor out there whose main goal is to convince us we need something, be it some consumer commodity, some skill, or some divinity. Most often than not, people who conduct these propaganda campaigns are themselves convince that it's relevant to do it for some of their aspiration to become a reality, be it something they expose in what they communicate openly or some more or less hidden agenda.
The topic is not that much about are narratives a necessity, but what they lead to. If they lead to people wanting to give only love and respect to other as much as for themselves, that sounds great, and who would complain, really? If they lead to "we the camp of the good vs the heretics evil others that must be destroyed whatever the means", that's an entirely different concern.
When we think "advancing civilization", we are actually stashing the real issue that is that there is not "a single narrative about a single civilization".
It makes as much sense to ask whether we need narratives as to ask whether we need tools. Stories can glorify the gun holder or the people who learnt how and when to use first aid kits.
of course it isn't. all i am saying is that arguing about that difference is not helpful.
whose main goal is to convince us we need something
which is no different than trying to convince us that we don't need a narrative.
this is the problem i have with dominant religions today. to much focus on the narrative itself. not enough focus on using the narrative to solve actual problems. narratives are being treated as if they are the solutions in themselves, as if only believing the narrative will solve our problems automatically.
instead of pushing a narrative, what we really need is to adress the problems humanity is facing today. i'll use a narrative for those that need it, if it helps them to understand why certain problems need to be solved, but for those that don't need a narrative to do that, i won't. i don't care about people believing the narrative, i care about them solving problems.
The topic is not that much about are narratives a necessity, but what they lead to
true. the actual narrative needs to be carefully chosen. not all narratives are good, and bad narratives do need to be replaced. but again, it is easier to come up with a better narrative than to convince someone that the narrative is not needed.
> We might never fully escape the narratives that surround us, but we can learn to change the perspectives behind them. And so, we are never bound by stories, only by our ability to understand how our beliefs and values shape the way we perceive and engage with the world. We don’t need better narratives; we need to expand and refine our perspectives.
Religion, at its most fundamental core, is about providing a set of guidelines and contexts with which to make sense of life and the world around us so we can spend less time bickering and worrying about things that we ultimately can't do anything about.
I feel the mad rush to reject and remove religion from society in the 20th century onwards has caused significant damage that we should address. It's not like religion is gone either, we've simply found impromptu replacements that are inferior and repeat a lot of problems religion dealt with already (eg: politics, "science", fanboyism, etc.).
a modern religion must be inclusive to all others, not just the abrahamic religions. at least all those who expect a return of their prophet which is the case not only for all abrahamic religions but at least also for buddhism, hinduism, zoroastrianism, and even native american religions. (there may be others, but i am not familiar with those)
Sure. You would also be much happier taking drugs all day.
But I think the example is bad. If you actually experientially know you are whole with the world, I think it would push your limits and take care of others even better.
People don't tend to take care of others because of the idea of separation between you and me. It's the cause of all wars. People tend to do things good for themselves or who look like themselves.
I was more thinking about an exaggerated example, people who simply convince themselfs that they are happy (LSD-like happy), it will not advance others and also not themselves in the long run.
That’s a narrative in and of itself. The Opium of the masses.
And judging by the length of the comment thread, it’s really difficult to change someone’s mind once they have settled on a narrative, like trying to kick a habit.
Deleuze and Guattari, Jacques Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Freud, Jung, and most of their disciples are at best fashionable nonsense, always charlatans, and there’s even evidence that some of the success of post-structuralism was a psyop from your local spymasters to keep Ivy League intellectuals from doing subversive shit in the USA like May of 68/situationalist internationale.
For all the problems that existentialism, Sartre, Camus, De Bouiver, and the other existentialists had, they tended to write (more) coherently and they descend (slightly less) into the pit of academic wankery.
Seriously, Deleuze and Guattari destroyed continental philosophy. Anti-oedipus is full of shit. Freud is full of shit. The oedipus and Electra complex and mirror stage and object petit an are all psudo science. Reject their work in every instance or continue the further debasement of academic philosophy.
I disagree. Religion has fulfilled that role for millennia and all it gets you is people being abused. Fascism has also fulfilled that role with the same results. Look at communism in Cuba, China and the Soviet Union. Everyone blindly sharing the same narrative is dangerous
This is like saying that atheism is just another religion because it's the belief in nothing. In a a hairsplitting way it may arguably be true but atheism does not provide a consistent(-ish) narrative about the world like religions do and therefore is fundamentally different.
It's largely an intellectual distinction, because in practice everyone still acts and exists in the world. Identity itself is probably impossible without having some sort of story about who you are.
I know someone who does not believe in gods because he think aliens are playing with us (fake flags etc. Basically the Stargate mythos, except he never saw the show). Less anecdotal, Chalmers is definitely Atheist, but i sure don't have his belief system, and i'm sure no functionalist does.
Also, in general, philosophy of mind is imho the best way to test you belief systems. Or maybe it's the philosophy field i'm the most comfortable in and thus the one where i pushed my beliefs the furthest :/
In other words, the definitional concept of atheist doesn’t imply a specific belief set (except in the choice of using such a word to define oneself), but the sociological definition definitely does. If we looked at various communities calling themselves atheists, they certainly have beliefs in common.
It definitely does not.
> If we looked at various communities calling themselves atheists, they certainly have beliefs in common.
The lack of belief in gods. There are types of Hinduism that have always been atheistic.
Believing in god is like having blue eyes. There's nothing necessarily shared amongst people who don't have blue eyes other than a lack of blue eyes.
It’s always confusing to read an article where the way your mind works is seen as an error. It must work somehow. You cannot operate without simple algorithms or more complex “narratives”.
If you ever moved you know the feeling of a new apartment when you have no automatic habits yet. You have to decide everything - how to hold your keys, where is a light switch, which side is too sunny and requires blinds, does elevator work or is it just slow. But then you adapt cause your mind automates the hell out of it. Left hand, further on the right, the one with the table, it’s not that slow (it is).
If you ever learned something new, you know the feeling and you know how much you want an overview before digging deep. To make sense of it, to structure it anyhow, just that much. Otherwise it stays untackable and overwhelming.
A waiter in the article is a template/overview that you start with. It’s only a problem if you’re “a little autistic” and stick to it despite receiving negative feedback. But then narratives aren’t your primary problem.
If your every thought and action started afresh, you’d be incapable. Otoh detecting that an algorithm is messing with your life is a useful skill. I think that the article could drop the (probably click/read-bait) idea of “narrative bad” and instead simply point out that this phenomenon exists and can be analyzed for overuse.
Not as an error, but as something that can trap you in certain behaviours.
This is something you can find in other places. I've read that in education books where they advise you to get kids to see themselves as nice and competent, in order for them to internalizing this is who they are (and conversely, not to tell them they're idiots, they're not nice or stuff like that). It's also in that "win friends and influence people" book, "give people a reputation to live by". And more simply, "fake it till you make it".
Now when it comes to getting rid of narratives, I'm not sure what it really means. The whole thing around replacing with perspectives, which is pretty much switching from prose to poetry, I didn't get. Maybe I'm not smart enough, or maybe it's something that correspondance to different characters.
Think of life as one long trial. The narrative you weave is not for your benefit, really. It's for the Tribe: the judges and the jurys. So trying to weave an esoteric or arcane narrative won't work, and you know it wont, if you know others won't buy it or understand it. You need a narrative that others, or at least a subset of others that represents authority, would be able to buy. You don't really have a choice in it. It's just how we are built. And why would you want to go against it really.
The article is talking about the narratives we construct of the external world.
The two may not be entirely unrelated; our facility for constructing an narrative of the external world might have led to us constructing a narrative of our internal world.
I would disagree on that point.
I believe that you create that narrative for yourself, to create an illusion of consciousness. More than that, an illusion of consciousness through time. That's why memories are so easily modified/created by outsiders. That how placebo/nocebo effect works. That's why you create fake memories from a photography, or why you sometimes tries to justify reactions post hoc.
This is also just a theory (inspired by Keith Frankish).
I like the trial metaphor, but disagree about who it is for. It has to be for yourself. How you explain life, your actions, etc is only for you - it is an end in itself - and you have to be happy about it.
Alternatively, you can consider the idea that once you die, you then become the judge at your trial. How do you find yourself - guilty or innocent?
Homo sapiens or Homo praetexendo?
INCONCINNVM SED LIBERVM
all very confusing
A million more layers of "freeing" yourself and you are back to where you started every time.
An ape granting all impulsive choices the ability to undo anything long-term at all.
Futility is a real thing for some dreamers to accept... but plan-less-ness is not freedom.
It is bondage to short-sighted repeated failure.
Of course life is full of endless potential, but people and in general society could not function without some kind of shared narrative. In the case of society the narrative is culture. It both limits us and nurtures our potential to move beyond it. There is a duality.
Whether their latest choice has been probably good or probably bad, keeping those choices as something they did rather than something they are keeps the future open for them.
"The whole process of nature is an integrated process of immense complexity, and it’s really impossible to tell whether anything that happens in it is good or bad - because you never know what will be the consequence of the misfortune; or, you never know what will be the consequences of good fortune." ~ Alan Watts
My dad was a pretty great dad, but when he split with my mom he did some pretty dick moves.
I have no trouble to simultaneously hold those two facets in my mind when my mom rants about him.
A better article would have the title:
Life is Not A Story, Life is Many Stories.
I have but one meager, measly, impoverished point of view, but I can tell multiple stories from my one point of view, because I can imagine the point of view of other people.
What is dangerous is being trapped inside a single story, which can be related to trauma in some cases. (Search something like trauma story loop)
When you are trapped inside a single story, you can have strong feelings that you MUST respond in certain ways to certain stimuli, as there is no other story that could be true. When you can tell a different story, you can make progress.
---
Edit: the author's reference to 'perspective taking' is very much like what I am saying. It's still a silly article.
> "Think of the ways that perspectives organise experiences differently. By ‘perspective’ I mean something more complex than ‘point of view’. I’m referring to the way we engage with the world from a particular position or orientation that draws our attention to aspects of experience, like how our visual ‘perspective’ allows bright colours to show up more easily than dull ones. Perspectives are shaped by our place in the world, our beliefs, values and what we think matters. As the philosopher Elisabeth Camp explains, a perspective ‘helps us to do things with the thoughts we have: to make quick judgments based on what’s most important, to grasp intuitive connections, and to respond emotionally, among other things.’ Through perspective some features of our experiences ‘stick out in our minds while others fade into the background.’
Perspectives, then, determine the narratives we adopt. In other words, our core beliefs and values shape the way we see things and what we take to be important in our experiences. It is our perspectives that generate our narratives. Perspective also explains why our narratives can differ so radically from those of other people, even when we experience the same events. But once we understand these perspectives, we can see how flexible our narratives can truly become. Perspectives, it turns out, don’t have a linear, ordered structure. We can’t think of them in terms of sequences of events, like stories. In some ways, perspectives are better represented by the non-linearity of poetry."
Title is bad no matter what.
Edit:
Here's another Narrative:
The author is a university professor and most often writes for students.
As such, they expect the reader to fully and completely read the whole selection, as they will be tested on it.
I, however am not a student, and so the first thing I do is evaluate whether an article is worth my time. I do this by reading 3 or so paragraphs, skim for keywords, and the last paragraph. This is so common there must be a name for it [0] that I don't know because I am also not a media studies graduate.
As this is so common, it must be written for; the author is expected to introduce any keywords in the first 3 or last paragraph. If they do not, the editor should return it.
The title is generally not written by the author, but may be selected from a list that are provided by an editor. The author should update their writing so that the title makes sense in context.
---
0. grug brain media literacy?
---
Edit 2: I have no idea if the narrative above is true
It’s absolutely in line with critical theorist nonsense to just critique it without reading it! Very rhizomatic thinking! No biopolitical thinking here at all!
Criticizing the article without reading it is misleading and a waste of time. I think we ... agree on that? Not 100% sure.
So that particular example was not convincing. That "actor doing a script" angle is true but the idea that you can drop it at any time is sadly not; many people have hard expectations of you depending on which role you are filling in their life at the moment. If you "break character" they'll reject you.
Which is by no means a bad thing per se -- but it's also something a lot of people avoid, so the disclaimer of "break character and people will leave" is necessary.
It goes both ways though, I've had work handed to me for generous sums just because I did not hide my actual persona and was not only acting as a programmer.
As with everything: "it depends".
I find myself in agreement with the premise of the article in general which can IMO be paraphrased as "do not do one-dimensional analysis of your life; treat it like thousands of smaller things happening at the same time and often intersecting". True enough, though our feeble human brains prefer just 2-3 narratives at a time and to shape our self and idea of a life story around them. So I agree that it's useful to try and actively sabotage with this way of internalizing life. We should not ignore complexity, for as much as our brain capacity allows it.
You just switched the professional programmer role for a professional technical business problem solver unless you go around solving problems for businesses for free
That said, I don't disagree with everything the author had to say. I agree with the point about the danger of making yourself the main character.
However, one thing that I'll say, is that stories; especially the stories of other people (i.e. "not me"), make my life much more interesting.
A western professor once went to a zen master in order to study zen. The master welcomed him, and offered him a cup of tea. When tea was ready, he began to pour the liquid into the professor's cup. When the liquid reached the top of the cup, the master continued filling it, making the tea go all over the floor. The professor asked what he was doing, and the master answered: "This cup couldn't hold more tea because it was already full. If you don't first empty your mind from your prejudices, how can I teach you anything?"
Till then I used to do things that fit the narrative. A voice in head that criticises when it deviates.
Now I am free to do more things that don't fit the narrative.
It's brings much more freedom. But with narrative going away you also need to find a good replacement for the existential questions which will soon starts knocking down the door.
"Narratives are anthropomorphization of time. Anthropomorphization of non-human concepts is taking something that is beyond human and turning it into a human-based idol, distorting it in the process. Like other idols, it can be used to manipulate and deceive. Therefore all narratives are manipulations and deceptions, sometimes done for self-comfort, other times done to manage a populace."
I thought about this, and thought the perspective interesting. However I think it is stretching the concept too far so I don't buy it - you can't simply call everything you don't like idolatry. I also thought it got uncomfortably close to conspiracy-theory style thinking so I told her to just shut up.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rtvwu75K3I
The End of the Movie Starring Josh Groban Featuring rachel bloom
So this is the end of the movie Whoa whoa whoa But real life isn’t a movie No no no.
You want things to be wrapped up neatly The way that stories do.
You’re looking for answers But answers aren’t looking for you.
Because life is a gradual series of revelations That occur over a period of time It’s not some carefully crafted story It’s a mess and we’re all gonna die.
If you saw a movie that was like real life You’d be like “what the hell was that movie about?” It was really all over the place Life doesn’t make narrative sense.
Nuhuh
We tell ourselves that we’re in a movie. Whoa whoa whoa Each one of us thinks we got the starring role. Role role role.
But the truth is sometimes you’re the lead And sometimes you’re an extra Just walking by in the background Like me, Josh Groban!
Because life is a gradual series of revelations That occur over a period of time Some things might happen that seem connected But there’s not always a reason or rhyme
People aren’t characters They’re complicated And their choices don’t always make sense
I see the author is perhaps ironically rejecting a narrative by using another narrative to advocate for their position.
The author is sort of implying that there's harm to society and the individual by engaging in these narrative arcs without any actual evidence to support their position. Merely a "I feel" and "might" and "could even become dangerous."
Way too many wishy-washy phrases attempting to soften their opinion, but then goes on to present a false dichotomy of absolutes vis-a-vis: You either embrace the narrative structure and have it destroy you, or you reject the narrative structure and live a care free life.
And because of the uncommitted weasel phrases this entire article has the hallmarks of AI generated slop that someone had to rush through for publication because they procrastinated. I'm flagging this one as "yawn."
I choose to fly up through the sky into outer space, away from this place. ;-) Oh wait, I don't have wings, and there's no way to fly into outer space besides maybe begging for a ticket on Virgin Galactic.
It's true that choices are important, but it's also true that you have less control over your choices than you might think (see e.g. The Power of Habit). In particular some choices that you would like to decide one way are simply impossible to actually do.
In practice I've found the best way to modify choices is to build tools. In particular my smartphone - at this point essentially all of my life is directed by apps. There are some cases where this backfires, e.g. recently I found myself driving to an event location and halfway there I realized the event had been cancelled and I had forgotten to remove it from my calendar, but it's the best I've got.
Math.
Frankly I don't think math is really a 'story.' You can try to fit it into that frame, but I don't think it's a natural fit. So often the data we need doesn't easily compress into story form: in fact, the best way to describe it is to use mathematical terms. Which leads me to my other example:
Physics.
Now here's an area where we've become really explicit about saying "Do NOT tell a story about this" in many situations. There's the math and what it describes, which goes first, and then some limited descriptions around that, which comes second and tends to get more wrong the more of a "story" it becomes. In fact we often say something like "this is what the math says and all interpretations beyond that are speculative." Which is about as anti-story as you can get.
Which is interesting and worth reflecting on. Because what could be more fundamental than that? And yet, if the most fundamental things cannot be fit into story form, that really calls the whole story framing into question.
A writer who's taken that concept and developed it is Timothy Morton, with his idea of hyperobjects. But you don't have to agree with that; the above examples make the point - they're as 'basic' to reality as you can get, and yet resistant to the story format.
What a load of crap.
Identity then is a narrative subroutine written in natural language, and in this way it becomes possible to speak forth identity and program a persona out of whole cloth through the force of the Word alone; this is the sense of the Logos and the famous declaration, "In the beginning was the Word," where all of reality was spoken forth through the utterance of language. This is the Western, Greek, and Abrahamic view of the primacy of language and of symbolic realism.
> As a result of embodying the waiter-narrative, he lives inauthentically because he can only act in a way that fits with the role. The narrative he follows gives him a limited understanding of himself [...]
This is why it is of paramount importance that one minds the language and narratives they use to describe one's self, for every utterance ascribed to one's persona circumscribes and limits it, setting it off on a fixed trajectory instead of maximizing optionality (see also pg's Keep Your Identity Small: "the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible" [0]). You are neither a waiter, nor a parent, a child, an athlete nor a hobbyist [1]:
The principal disadvantage of symbols is that we confuse them with
reality, just as we confuse money with actual wealth, and our names
about ourselves, our ideas of ourselves, with ourselves.
The advent of postmodern social media has given rise to a new form of "hyperreal identity" now, where it becomes possible to publish language that literally creates personas and identities with no basis in physical reality. Confusing symbols of self with the actual self is not only easier than ever, it is the default mode of existence in the digital era, and one's avatar or social media profile takes precedence over the person themselves - a "simulacrum of the fourth order." One must be careful of the media they use to carry the language and narrative of their identity, because all messages are constrained by the medium they inhabit, and if the language of one's narrative is constrained, so too is their self-concept and their identity; we have progresses from "the medium is the message" to "the medium is your identity."