Writing our Stories

"The universe is made of stories, not atoms."
                                                                    -Muriel Rukeyser (Poet)

Remember this quote? It's back with a vengeance. Stories define our world. I'm not just talking about the masses or society as a whole, but speaking for the individual. When looking at the influence of stories on an individual level, the concept was explained to us that we breathe in stories everyday. Some hold more sway over others. We in turn breathe out these same stories in our lives.

The more stories you add to your repertoire, the more influence you hold. Furthermore, you gain the ability to choose your path in life through the stories you hold onto. It may lead to more power or it could box you in. This isn't necessarily a bad thing though because if this is solely a world of becoming then some restrictions may provide stability, which would keep us from going insane (a good thing). Also these can be fairly open, flexible restrictions that still provide movement within.

Now these thoughts are those from class, and I've put them here because I highly respect them. As you can see it is based heavily on a state of Becoming. Here's my interpretation of the above quote from a Being perspective.

I think John Locke was onto something with his concept of Tabula rasa. His philosophical theory was that the mind from the moment of birth was a completely blank slate and that all our mental content is solely the product of experience. It's a fascinating concept that experience is what shapes our lives, however I disagree that all blank slates are equal at the moment of birth.

What drew me in specifically was the blank slate itself. I believe that everyone is literally writing their own stories in life. From the second we're born, that infant is holding their own unique utensil, be it a pen, quill, charcoal, black, blue, or any other combination. That is what makes them unique. Where do they write? They write in the metaphorical book the world has given them. The environment they have been brought into (though will not affect the quality of their story, just a vessel as unique as the individual). It may be a raggedy leather-bound novel or a pristine hard-cover volume, but it is theirs just as much as their pen. The instant that baby breaths its first breath the pen touches down on the first blank page.

It begins.

Each moment of that person's life is being written as they live. It is a chronicle of their very life written by their own hand. Word choice, handwriting, everything. Like any story, the character depicted is not the same as he/she begins, but grows and changes through the course of the novel by the experiences they have. A life story is no different, but since the author and character are one in the same the writing style will change. The more pages we fill, the more diverse the contents, the more complete we become. The voice behind the entire novel will stay the same.

So where does the Being come into play? It's quite simple really. Though the vast majority of our pages are blank, there are areas that are written. Chapters that no matter the course we take, we are destined to reach. How do we know what is written when we get there? We are the author. We know when we stumble upon a page the world has written in our ink. The world's words echo. Our story slides seamlessly into it because that same world shapes itself so we approach it. Then we branch off again to chart our course until we meet a similar juncture once more.

There are some complete flukes in the world that mean absolutely nothing. Look for meaning in every little aspect of your life and you'll find yourself disappointed. Some instances in people's lives though are far too coincidental to be logical. Moments that seem too perfect to be contrived, certainty that seems inhuman and surpasses all logic, but cannot be dismissed by even the harshest skeptics. These instances are meant to be. I know this implies Being and I would not state it if I had not heard it from others and had a similar experience  myself.

The ultimate relation to Being comes at the fact that everyone is writing and reading their own stories. Different stories that the world plays a hand in and based in the very world of their creation. The sum of these stories is the creation of Being. Getting back at the quote, the world is not made of atoms, but stories. They all come together to form one collaboration of unique stories stretching from the beginning to the end of time. A single volume called The Universe. One voice. One story of life.

This is just my personal philosophy theory. Can I guarantee with absolute certainty that it's true to critics? No, perhaps their stories are meant to have a completely different view. It's an epistemological idea that I've grown rather fond of and always adding to. In a nutshell, I suggest we live lives of Being, in the illusion of Becoming, but we can sense moments of true Being. Should we be depressed our existence could be planned out in specific moments? No, because these are moments specifically tailored for us. Our stories. We shouldn't wait around for these "Being moments" either because they're just as important as any other word in your book. We are the product of every sentence we write, fated or not. They're our experiences and our story.

This is my story.

Never stop questioning.

Is There a Selfless Action?

We've been looking a lot recently on the potentiality of a society in which the government becomes little more than a protection agency to its people. The idea being that the personal freedoms of the individuals can be released without any kind of chaos due to spontaneous rule (order merely happens of its own accord by the people). The good news is that this video believes that such a society is definitely possible. The bad news is that it's based on the principle that human beings are inherently selfish.

John Nash created actual mathematical formulas to prove this behaviour using what is known as "Game Theory". It's a set of equations based on the idea of poker and how the move you make is based on what your opponent thinks you'll do. Basically how we're trying to manipulate one another for self-gain and are constantly suspicious of one another. It was the style of strategy used during the Cold War at the time, which Nash also applied to the people. If true, a functional society could be created, so long as we thought of everyone as an opponent. Our personal wants would be in balance and thus no chaos. (He won a Nobel Prize for this)

R.D. Lang supported this theory and tried to undermine trust and love. He also came up with disturbing results by mathematically proving through various matrices that relationships were really all about manipulation and control over one another. Focused on couples, this data could easily correlate to family and even simple friendships.

So is there such a thing as a selfless action or do we really only act in our own benefit?

She's in it for the free cookies.

When you really think about it, technically the answer is no. I mean any kind of known relationship is sketchy because if you do something nice or kind, you're getting into the person's good books. Even if you simply donate money to a charity anonymously you're getting a positive feeling from it, which can be seen as selfish. The show Friends tackles this issue when Joey challenges Phoebe to find a selfless good deed. She eventually comes to the realization that the only way to truly be selfless is by making herself miserable for the benefit of someone else.

I don't agree with that... at all. Yes, you can get a good feeling from doing something nice for someone, but is that really such a terrible thing? I mean there are people who donate their time and effort volunteering at soup kitchens for no reason, except to be helpful. I'm sorry, but there comes a point where you just have to say "screw the technicality". I think it goes back to the Kantian Ethic principle that it is the intention that matters. If you plan on doing a good deed and have absolutely no intention of getting something out of it, besides a good feeling or maybe a smile, I say you get it.

Yes, for couple relationships I can see where they're coming from with the whole power struggle concept, but I think that if it's really that big of an issue it should be talked about or the relationship just won't work. It's all about a balance of give and take on both ends. Friendships are all about helping one another out and so long as it's not entirely one sided, I don't see a huge issue with it.

In the world we live in, I think a little good deed can go a long way to brighten up someone's day. Hold the elevator door, pay for the person behind you in the drive-thru, compliment a complete stranger. Little actions like that can go a long way, and studies show they're much more likely to perform a similar gesture to someone else. All this detailed disection into the nature of "selflessness" is really getting in the way and it's kind of sad we have to analyze this kind of positive action. Especially when these little gestures shine a ray of hope in the world.

Never stop questioning.

Individuality and Purpose

Song Lyrics

This was a very cool song and quite peaceful despite the title. Along with the smooth melody, it brings an interesting point about individuality. Is it really such a good thing to be a snowflake?



As we talked about in the past, human beings may enjoy the idea of choice, but, when it comes down to it, the truth is that it's actually really scary. If this truly is completely a world of becoming, then that means there's an infinite number of choices. Making a decision that is best for you involves a hell of a lot of indecision, especially since sometimes it's nearly impossible to determine the outcomes of your choice. The idea behind the song resonates with this concept; the whole idea of being told exactly what you're supposed to do and ultimately your purpose would make us much happier. We want some kind of direction.

So...many...choices...



When it comes down to it though, I don't really think that we have an "infinite" number of options even in a world of becoming. Many people for instance can dream about being a professional athlete, but even if they have the right mindset, you also need the right body. Without the combination, it's nearly impossible to occur. As terrible as this sounds, a person stuck in a wheelchair probably isn't likely to become a professional dancer either. All I'm saying is that we as humans have limits for what we can and can't do. At the same time there are countless real world situations where someone has surpassed all the odds and done something amazing (a la Gattaca).

I suppose what I'm getting at is that I think we're naturally drawn to the things we're good at and know we can do because our enthusiasm is often what makes us exceptional at it. Will a tall person always want to play basketball? No, but her passion for photography may make her a great photographer. Opportunity can also be a huge factor in choice because if you aren't given the chance to do something you won't take advantage of it. A poorer person is likely to have less options than one born into a rich family for instance. Enthusiasm in a certain area however will bring likely about opportunities to pursue in that field.

Despite being told we can do whatever we want when we grow up as a child, it's probably not going to be true. Suddenly an infinite number of choices becomes much smaller. Our interests may be diverse though which can still lead to confusion. I was interested in both biology and television production careers for instance, so the potential to be indecisive is still high.

The song's solution to the whole thing is being told you're going to do this. This is what you're meant to do. It makes sense because there's really no second guessing involved. More than that, I think the song is hinting about a want to fit into something greater; to know that your existence is going to make a difference (whole idea of being a cog in a machine). I don't like that idea though because I think it implies the want to be all the same, which I disagree with. Individuality should be encouraged, otherwise we'd be born the same. I think a more fitting metaphor would be a piece to a puzzle. The parts are the same, yet each is unique, will only fit in one place and only all together will they make a giant masterpiece.

The whole "knowing your purpose" idea is interesting. To be sure it would make things so much more easier, especially if we were all completely the same, but I disagree. I think we do all have a place in this world meant for us. Part of what makes life so intriguing is discovering what that is for yourself. It may take some wrong turns, but it makes the destination so much more worthwhile. When you're on the right path I trust that you'll know it's right for you.

Never stop questioning.

Stories and Metanarratives - Society

"Those who tell the stories, rule the society."
                                                                       -Plato

Just to re-cap, the idea of stories plays a gigantic role in our society. By "stories", what I mean is actually the morals/lessons that form the meaning of these stories (can even be those found in literal stories like nursery rhymes or the Bible). The morals repeated time and time again become those that are reflected in society and are known as metanarratives. These form a mock state of "Being" with which we can live by. So something along the lines of how we should respect our elders, share, be ambitious, etc. As we explored earlier, the easiest way to control a society is by keeping the stories in your favour, which is really easy to do when you're the storyteller.

Read between the lines.

We were challenged earlier this month to find the stories that illustrate the world we live in. I'll admit we didn't get all that far with that line of thought. I think the reason why is because society's stories have, for the majority, become second nature to us, so it's hard to dissect something that your way of life is based on. You need an external perspective.

Recently we've been going through the past century with politics and corporations in relation to society and it's actually extremely surprising to see just how much the metanarratives have changed over time. One of the more obvious one was the shift from a "needs" to a "wants" society in the Roaring 20's. The moral changed from just getting by, to a society of obtaining luxury to ensure happiness.

Then there was also the Counter Culture Movement in the 60's (around the time of the Vietnam War), when the public (especially the youth), spoke out and were skeptical/paranoid of the government as well as other agencies of potential control. Looking at history in steps makes these changes in metanarratives much more obvious and you can almost see how we slowly became the world of today.

Ambition!

I'd like to take another stab at answering the question of what stories rule our society at present. Gender role stories aside, I believe the greatest story that our society holds is that we should be ambitious and contribute in some manner to society. I'm not saying everybody needs to be the CEO of a major company, but there is a definite push to be successful at whatever field you are interested in. More than that, there's a focus that it's better to be extremely good at one thing opposed to mediocre in several different areas.

Whatever happened to being well-versed in many things? The world has so much to offer it really does seem a shame to focus yourself solely on one or two aspects of it. When factoring in society however, this view is entirely logical. Without contributors, the economy would effectively crash, so it makes complete sense that this would be a story circulated throughout society. In addition, the best way to make contributions to your field, and thus society as a whole, is by focusing all your effort on it (rather than splitting one's focus). A scientist is more likely to prove string theory if he works on it constantly opposed to also being an expert fisherman.

In this light, society repeats this story through demonstrating material gains for the "successful" individuals, that members of society see. Fame, fortune, etc. We do not see whether or not this person is truly happy. Ambition for the sake of ambition and not personal pursuit is doomed for depression.

The stories told by those in power are ones told to control. Not necessarily at the level of slavery, but to reduce the potential for chaos and create docile masses. They will do this however they can regardless of the individual's needs (satisfy subconscious desires through products, create skepticism, etc.). In terms of ambition, contributing to society is definitely important in some form. Don't sacrifice your own happiness for it though because it's your life, and the world is too big and interesting for you to spend all your time in a cubicle. I find it's often our side pursuits that make us so fascinating.

Final thoughts. The idea of stories being told as a set of universal ideas for the society to hold are unavoidable. The encouraging fact I find however is that we've witnessed how things can change over time. Leaders like Barack Obama trumpet the ideas of change. They have yet to deliver *grumble* *grumble*, but I truly believe the potential is there to bring fresh ideas to the table. Hopefully one where the powers can hold less power over the masses without chaos ensuing, or even a society where the individual actually holds power over the political system/media rather than the other way around. Time will tell.

Never stop questioning.

The Importance of Art

Okay, okay. No we haven't talked about art in this class yet, but I want to talk about art so dang it I'm going to talk about art! ...it's more so for review than anything.

Plato had an interesting love-hate relationship with art. While he did highly support the arts, he had certain particulars about the subject. First he believed that true art was that which depicted the origin of things because therein laid absolute truth. While some may argue that beauty for instance is a construct of society, Plato would counter that statement by saying that the reality is we know what beauty is before we are even born. It just is. Secondly he did not approve of anything that demonstrated the "bad side" of existence. This might include any pieces relating to hell or the underworld, constructing figures in decrepit states (not their ideal form) and lastly depicting negative emotions of hate, lust, sorrow, etc.

While I respect Plato's ideal to pursue true Being, I think he underestimated the complexity of such a statement. The whole point of Being is that it is something we are attempting to strive for, but can't necessarily pin-point.

Say we came together as a society and specifically defined what "beauty" is for instance. That would be how society would always view beauty. Just the same as we see the room shown above. According to Plato this would be correct. If we were to allow ourselves to diverge from that definition even slightly though...

Suddenly beauty looks entirely different! This is something we would never have seen if we stayed fixated on that one perspective. Art allows us to pursue ideas in completely different ways and answer the "What if" questions. My favourite example of this is The Curious Case of Benjamin Button where we ask, "What would happen if someone were to age backward while everyone else aged forwards?" By doing so we get to see how one might experience life, love, time and more from this perspective. Why bother? Because by asking all of these questions, even the ones unseen in reality, we explore all the possibilities of what something can be in our answers. This also means exploring the "good" and "bad" sides of existence because you can never truly appreciate one without knowing the other. Like we saw Becoming in class, the more ideas you have, the more likely you are to see things for what they truly are in Being. Art is about exploration.

Another vital component of art is expression. Plato says we need to avoid negative emotions because they will merely inspire those same emotions in their viewers. Logical, however I believe that just because these feelings aren't portrayed, doesn't mean they won't exist. If anything, art allows one to release these negative emotions. Art is also a means of communicating. Say I were sad about something and all I could do was say "I'm sad.". It wouldn't convey any real message to someone else because they can only associate it with what they define "sad" as from their experience. Art transcends the need for words by speaking in the universal language of emotion and says things simple words could never express. Dance, make a sculpture or even a short film truly capturing how you feel and it breaks down walls. Suddenly anyone can see your message because you're speaking the basic human language.

I could go on, but I hold a view similar to that of Aristotle, who encouraged all arts and believed it was the method we used to imitate life. I however think it's truly more than a simple imitation. Art is never about saying what something is or isn't, but exploring all of the possibilities of what something can be. Until we discover what these things truly are, art is here to stay.

Never stop questioning.

Individuality/Conformity Paradox

I know I've preached a lot about how important it is to be unique, but at the same time I've been forced to ask myself, "Is there a limit to how unique we should be?" It's something we touched on briefly in class, but really caught my interest. If you have a personality that is largely different than that from the norm, (such as walking around your day-to-day life in a spiderman costume, a tutu or even both) then others will likely avoid you. Yes we want to strive for independence, but at the same time part of our human nature is seeking acceptance. It's one of the reason we join clubs, teams and make connections with people. What we end up with is this this weird paradox that we should "be different", but want to "fit in".

Now obviously if you see a 70 year old man walking around with bunny ears you're going to walk the other way, however we don't want to be just another fork in the drawer either. The class conclusion (and it's a popular one for many similar debates) was that it's all about fitting in the Goldilocks Zone. Not too different, not the same, but just right.


Also never sleep in a stranger's house.


Personally, I don't think that this should be a huge issue for the majority people. I mean certain personality types aside, we're going to grow up wanting the company of others so we're going to have those social skills. Be it through day-care, school, etc. The trick is really discovering what makes you unique, which shouldn't be difficult either since our experiences and desires are often our own. So it's like we're all given often given the same colouring book (social structure) and we're free to do whatever, even colour outside the lines, with our experiences.

"If everyone is special, then nobody is."  - The Incredibles

 I'd have to disagree with the above quote because special has a much deeper meaning than we give it credit. I mean if I'm a fantastic poet and someone else is an incredible juggler they're both special but clearly not the same. Every individual has something unique to bring to the table and that's what should be encouraged, not silenced. Otherwise you just get white noise. Don't purposely distance yourself from the world though. It's only by being a part of the world that we can make our own unique voice heard.

Never stop questioning.

Also I changed my mind about Spiderman in a tutu.

No words.

The Subconscious Manipulation

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-678466363224520614#docid=-3986506414855430309
(Rather long video, so I'll summarize)

The above is a portion of a series known as The Century of the Self - Happiness Machines, which essentially looks at the origin of consumer manipulation from around 1917 until the beginning of the Second World War. Based around Freud's pessimistic views that people are not based in rationality, but animalistic instincts, he believed that the mass needed to be controlled in order to prevent chaos. To him civilization was not an evolution to come together, but a necessity to control the people from themselves and one another.





His nephew, Edward Bernays, took his uncle's principle into practice in America. People were governed by subconscious desires and he used it to revolutionize the advertisement industry by targeting these hidden wants. 

The Flapper Movement of smoking cigarettes in public for instance didn't begin as a movement of breaking free, but actually a motion brought about by Bernays to increase the sale of cigarettes. (Link) Though disposing of the taboo that was women smoking and providing a feeling of power, was some of that message lost when it was made in this manner? Bernays would argue no, and that fulfilling these desires made the people happy, thus docile and therefore pacified them of their animalistic natures. Women wanted power. Bernays gave them it. This was the moment where society was pushed from a "needs" view to one of "wants".

I can see where Bernay is coming from and how he was able to use this technique to control the public, but he's saying the masses are the equivalent to a herd of sheep. It's based on the idea that people are stupid. The biggest problem is that now we had people controlling people, meaning the potentiality for mistakes in this manner is not only possible, but likely. When the depression hit, the people had an even greater fall because they had been built up on the concept of "want" that was thrust onto them.

I typically dislike Freud and his theories generally because of the pessimism displayed. The concepts are genius and intriguing, but cast a very sad light on true human nature that I don't agree with. I mean we say that the public's reaction to the recession is one example of our chaotic nature, however our fall from grace was partially due to advertiser manipulation. What I really liked, and gave me hope was Roosevelt's idea of the common citizen being rational enough to have insight on how their country should be run, corresponding to the classical liberalism view we discussed. When the society was in ruin it wasn't consumerism that picked it back up, but a democratic view.

I would have loved to see the outcome of this line of thought further, however once society picked itself up and started walking, companies caught up and proceeded to do the same as it had before with success. The difference was that they were able to manipulate the marriage of Capitalism with Democracy instead of a struggle, which of course brings us to society today.

The idea of selling us what we want to make us happy is a genius idea, but, as the video shows, what we want isn't necessarily what is best for us. Companies don't care what they sell so long as they're turning a profit. The only way I think we can counteract this thought is by trying to think for ourselves. We need to change what we fundamentally want in order to alter the messages out there. Sex for instance sells and is in advertising because it subconsciously works, though can at times appear degrading. The smoking campaign however brought about power for women by bringing a subconscious message they wanted to come forward for the better. The intentions of the company were of course in their own interest, but it brought empowerment as well. Perhaps we could take the same approach with other ideas that need to come forward, like equality. This is all thinking on a giant scale of course. Independently, don't be afraid to be a black sheep.

Never stop questioning.