Thoughts On Storytelling and Consciousness

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”
― Henry Ford

As humans developed language they were better able to teach and pass on adaptive strategies for survival.

Storytelling is the most effective way to pass on lessons. It takes the lesson and puts it into context which makes it much easier to relate to and remember. Songs do an even better job of helping people remember by adding patterns and rhyming to the story.

I wonder if people started using language to impart helpful information about survival and emotional states before they were able to observe themselves in a conscious way. It seems that many animals have a language or other form of communication but we do not think of them as conscious or of having a sophisticated self awareness and certainly not free will. This would indicate that language evolved prior to consciousness, if consciousness is a new phenomenon so it is reasonable to think that people were telling primitive stories prior to the modern conception of consciousness.

I think that storytelling may be the precursor to the development of consciousness and the more complex the storytelling the more complex the expression of consciousness can manifest. To tell a story is typically to incorporate time into the information being communicated. It also involves the creation of characters, archetypes and perspectives. If communication can develop from primitive grunts to sophisticated storytelling then it may be possible that consciousness is a product of this development.

This would explain why we are so drawn toward narratives and stories. We understand identities and memories as stories that we tell ourselves and others. The more abstract the language the more abstract the self identity and since abstraction seems to be beneficial it grows and is propagated throughout time ever adapting.

I don't think that consciousness came about like a switch being turned on. I think it is the result of incremental advancements in communication over long periods of time. It is a social and mental adaptation that is much more subtle and illusive than physical characteristics. It hides in the brain and taunts from the shadows.

As humans increased in population they begin to interact with others who do not communicate in the same way and therefor do not think in the same way. They would have differing principles and expectations for how one should act. This can lead to conflict but if the two groups can come to an understanding and find some mutual benefits in working together they can trade and intermingle which would allow for more potential adaptation and refinement of survival strategies.

In the modern world groups have become very entrenched in their ideas and some survival strategies seem to work better than others and some are certainly not compatible with others. National identities consist of individual identities which are products of stories.

This is all to say that storytelling is a very powerful force aiding human expansion and proliferation. Storytelling is also a powerful tool for defining the self. Telling yourself a story of woe and sorrow defines the parameters that you see enclosing you, just as telling yourself a story of triumph and empowerment can free you to be the hero of your own story.

"Be the hero of your own movie. If your life was a movie and it started now. Forget about whatever financial disasters you’ve had, personal failures, relationship failures. What would the hero of your life’s movie do right now? Do that, do those things. We define ourselves far too often by our past failures. We look at our past and we say, “Well that’s me”. That’s not you, you are this person right now. You’re this person right now, you’re the person who’s learned from those failures and you can choose to be the hero of your own movie right now. Write down your goals, write down things you want to improve, write down things you won’t tolerate from yourself, write down things that you’ve done in the past that you never want to see yourself do again. And go forth, from here, as the hero of your own movie. Build momentum. Build confidence and momentum with each good decision that you make from here on out. You can do it, anyone can do it. We live in unique times. We live in one of the rarest times in human history where you can choose almost all the input that comes your way, whether it’s the movie that you watch, the books you read, the podcasts you listen to. You can choose to be inspired. Do that. Do that and be the hero of your own movie."
— Joe Rogan

Too Abstract

Sometimes people speak too abstractly and lose something in the translation. Such as when a headline says, "Wrestling still isn't sure what to do with women..." What they really mean is that women do not occupy a major role in the wresting industry. "Wresting" isn't a thing that can do things to women. People personify concepts such as "wresting" and give it agency. This is partly in an attempt to understand it better and creates a subject in which to assign blame. You can't understand something better by defining it incorrectly and to blame a concept incapable of physical action is irrational.

Another example of this is when someone says "we" when referring to all people. Someone may say, "We are all just animals," or, "We all want happiness," or, "We are fundamentally good," what they are doing is abstracting their own concept of who they are and projecting it onto the world of people. In many cases it would be more accurate to say "I" in these circumstances. (One can make accurate generalizations about all humans but they have to be based on some evidence and not just an assertion about the nature of humanity.) Also, I used absolute examples here, which is another example of people not using precise language. Absolutes are rarely accurate.

When people use idioms and cliches too much they are also utilizing abstraction to a degree that can lead to a lack of precise thinking and communicating. Prescribed phrases such as, "Obviously" or, "Don't cry over spilt milk", allow people to blurt out what seems like the right thing to say but is really just an automatic response indicating a lack of contemplation and autonomy. (More examples of idioms: http://www.smart-words.org/quotes-sayings/idioms-meaning.html)

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”
― George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

I try to listen for people blathering and I wonder whether they know just what they have said. 

The art of bullshitting becomes a fast friend to those that find it difficult to admit that they don't know something. Abstraction makes this easier as well. Saying vague things like, "Boys will be boys," or, "it is was it is," one can hide in the abstract instead of the concrete and plain. 

Try to use your own words and think about what it is you're actually trying to communicate. It isn't always necessary to create an elaborate metaphor or use a pithy phrase. Sometimes, "I'm hungry," or,"I'm sad" are more effective than, "I could eat a horse" or, "It is what it is." 

Metaphors can be very powerful tools for communication so sometimes they are highly effective and aid the speaker in relating a concept to their audience and I have used plenty of pithy phrases but I think it is important to get out of the automatic response system and search for the right words to express myself as much as possible. It can be clunky at times and awkward pauses are bound to happen but I enjoy the rare occasions where I say exactly what I'm thinking. 

Thoughts on Postmodernism

If Postmodernism can be characterized as a philosophy predicated on the denial of logic, science and reason, then by what standard do they substantiate their claims?

Without a standard measurement tool to judge the validity of a claim all claims are valid, therefore, in order to decide which claim should be followed one must rely on some form of scheme or model that becomes a mechanism to reach an ideal outcome.

There have been no better tools for exacting change in the world than those of the logical and scientific kind.

Why should I believe that logic, debate, math, science and capitalism are only tools of "the oppressor" without appealing to some attempt at a logical argument?

You can't just say that it is true because you say it's true. Then anything anyone said could be true. "That's a rock," one could say. "That's a tree," another might say. But if they are both pointing at the same thing and have distinct definitions of the words rock and tree, then both cannot be true. If there is any kind of truth it would be one that helped people navigate the differences between a rock and a tree.

The degree to which two people can communicate honesty and accurately is related to the degree to which they agree on the definitions of the words they use. In other words, the less agreement in definitions the more communication breaks down, and without rational discourse the only options left are fight, flight or submit.

If one person defines freedom as freedom to forcing others to act and another person defines freedom as the freedom from other people's actions and another defines freedom as freedom to act then a discussion on freedom between these people will most likely become contentious. Especially because they all prescribe their own boundaries of the others' precious freedoms.

In order to persuade others, in a world where the value of intelligence is increasing, you would be advised to utilize the tools of the intelligent.

A reason that Postmodern believers are achieving so much at certain Universities, in that they are achieving violence, suppression, destruction, etc., is because that type of behavior is strictly prohibited in the normal world outside certain Universities. The Universities that allow for mayhem to occur on their campuses are not setting a good example to their students about how the real world works.

In the real, working world, you don't get to foist your opinions on others by way of force. In order to succeed in a free market economy you have to get along and cooperate with others. If you want to use force then you will be met with force and if you break the law you will be met with an unbalanced return of force in order to swiftly punish those that cause violence.

If a Postmodernist were to propose laws that infringe on other's freedoms then they will be making the claim that their laws are just and lead to some ideal outcome. Luckily there is a mechanism for determining how strong this statement is. Unluckily though, the mechanism is logic, reason, science, debate and all the things Postmodernists believe are only tools of the oppressors.

Isn't someone who is currently oppressing others' freedoms, such as the freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom from violence, a tool of the oppressor?

If you want to fight oppression then at least fight the real oppressor, the government, not fellow citizens trying to pay their rent and shit. Taxes, unjust acts, wrongful imprisonment, corruption, etc., all all products of the governments around the world. What mechanism is in place to squelch these indiscretions in the government? At least in capitalism one can opt out of supporting a business regime they find destructive and immoral.

If words can oppress then any words a Postmodernist says can and will be used against them in the court of public opinion.

Building Film

Sometimes I forget the 7 years I spent building film.

When I was 19 I got my first management position working for a three screen movie theater. The man that hired me was a great example of how to be a good manager. He was knowledgeable, authoritative, balanced and had a great sense of humor. His honesty and strong work ethic was admirable and I learned a lot from him. I remember one time I decided to get entirely too high on a lunch break and when I was back on shift he noticed immediately. Instead of reacting with moral outrage or firing me, he made a few jokes and then after I had time to come down and realize how I had put my position in jeopardy, he took me aside and had a conversation about what he expected of me and how once he was done expressing his disappointment he made it a point to not keep a grudge. That's when I learned that you can be a leader by being honest about your expectations and not let the tension create a long lasting problem. 

That theater is also where I learned how to build film. Before digital cameras and digital projectors 35 milometer film dominated the film industry and it was a lot of fun to work with. A standard movie came on about three to six separate reels that had to be spliced together to make two very large reels. Then the two huge reels were threaded onto a huge metal platter. Also, the ads at the beginning of the movie had to be added in as well as the cues for the projector to turn off and the theater lights to go down and then back up had to be added. Then the film was threaded through a complex set of rollers, through the projector and back onto another platter from the inside out. 

The reels would arrive in large metal tins containing the separate reels and trailers that would be added. Sometimes the tins would have code names so that the handlers wouldn't know what movie it was and steal it. This was always a fun part of the business because it meant that I knew something most people did not and that what I was working with was very important and expensive. After the media would arrive I would have to create the approved trailer reel. At the beginning end of a reel were many frames of black that would have to be cut off with a splicer tool and when two ends would meet I would tape them together on each side of the seam. It was important to cut exactly at the frame ends and the connect them smoothly. With 24 frames per second and about an inch per frame a two hour movie was roughly 170,000 inches or 14,400 feet (~4 miles), so it took quite a while to turn separate pieces of discrete media into one coherent presentation. 

I can remember one time, when I was first starting in the projection booth, I was alone trying to build a film late at night when most of an entire reel fell to the floor. I spent hours, cursing and sweating, trying to wind up and disentangle long lines of dark film strewn this way and that across the floor. I would often stay up until 4 or 5 in the morning previewing the films that I built to make sure there weren't any errors. I watched "The Notebook", "Veggie Tales" and many other terrible movies but I also watched some of the best movies alone or with work mates after hours where we had the entire theater to ourselves. 

I spent hundreds of hours working in dark booths manipulating hundreds of miles of 35 mm film and developed an expertise in an area that would soon become obsolete but I met a lot of great people, had great conversations and learned a lot in projection booths. I worked hard and learned most of what there was to know about the projection profession, when I wasn't distracted from my work by an amazing scene in the next great movie or surveying the theater from the booth window watching people eating entire dinners or engaging in public sexual acts. It was a time well spent but to no real end. Soon after I left the theater I worked at converted to all digital and building film changed to organizing files on a computer. There are still theaters that haven't converted and there will always be those who appreciate film and the older ways and I'm glad I got the experience of being a small part of the real film industry.

*Here are some pictures from the internet that projectionists might appreciate.