DARPA's In Ur Brainz, Hacking Ur Storiez.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Great thread, sir! How does this not have more Flags?!

Because it doesn't match the narrative for which most readers have been pre-programmed by their masters to enjoy?

It is very interesting when you look at the posts that get the most flags and stars how they fit into a particular narrative which people are expecting.

This really is a very important topic as it intersects with so much of life...

Originally posted by mistermonculous
reply to post by Aeons

 

Narrative is the primary catalyst for personal transformation.

Will the call to embody an individual narrative always assert itself in the face of efforts to culture a narrative singularity? If so, huzzah.

Further, The Transformation of the Hero through narrative is primarily a biochemical shift. Most of the hero figures commonly identified with today (Neo, V, Chuck Norris) have themselves undergone alteration of an explicitly neurochemical nature. Which strikes me once again as narrative anticipating science.

The stories we tell ourselves about ourselves is maybe how we deal with our own experience of how our internal biochemistry is interacting with culture, other people and the environment. .

The individuation of people doesn't seem to be the only possible outcome of a cultural narrative. The collective narrative seems far more common, even if it seems to plant the seeds of its own destruction consistently. Or successfully hobble along in a state of homeostasis.

(A state of homeostasis until death. A cultural narrative that creeps me # out.)

Inducing people to not individuate seems far safer, put I bet it leads to violence. People projecting their inner angst.


Maybe here I'll pull in the thread about Archetypes in the populace. What if serotonin-reduced (ADD/ADHD etc) person is the Warrior? Or their mother's reduction in pregnancy is the catalyst for one. At what point does a narrative literally embed itself into "us" as a story carried in our genes?

Or perhaps the Archetype is just a common narrative that those with certain neurochemical make-ups commonly come to? Reinforcing each other?

Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by Aeons

 

Your pot brought me some mental gymnastics and I'm not entirely sure I comprehend what it is you're saying here.

I did begin to wonder when you use grok if it is possible that those who have given themselves fully to allow their narrative be told to them by the new guardians actually grok nothing. The implication here is that they have relinquished their godhood and fully given themselves over.

All that groks is god, when you stop trying you are trading your godhood for a good narrative.

On an interesting side note I recall years ago grok would always show up as a spelling error and Google spellcheck recognizes it as a word now. Very cool.

Grok - such a great word. It had to enter the dictionary sometime! I have to admit, I've been laying on the sci-fi talk thick but it just seems soooooooo appropriate.

I'm not sure everyone is capable of creating their own narrative. Needing one, and someone being willing to give you one that suits you seems like such a nice cross-parasitical relationship. Okay, I'm being mean. Surely this trait is one of the things that makes the human race successful?

I try to imagine someone like me in a small tribe situation. I'm not sure they'd let me make it to adulthood.

The other part of what I was saying is that I wonder if having media that provokes chemical rewards (punishments?) for engaging in that media, wouldn't create a form of craving for that reward. So you can control people, but that some of those people starting find new ways of getting their "fix." Because the "fix" is provoked by information, that the people reacting strongly to it actually become the people who start seeking out information for themselves.

The opposite of what I'd want to think - it isn't that somehow I'm more in control. It is that I react so very strongly that makes me aware of it.

reply to post by Aeons


And here's a thing: as you pointed out two posts above, we use stories to mediate between our inner world and our external reality. What else do we use for that purpose? Alcohol, gambling, sex, and the like. Anything that kicks our dopamine receptors in the junk.

Stories provide a milder oxytocin kick; serving as a release valve without the cirrhosis, penury or exotic crotch fauna that make those other options untenable.

Your metaphors alone make staying in this thread worthwhile.

I'm sitting in my house, just thinking to myself, playing with my dopamine. It kinda sounds dirty.

Hey baby, wanna share narratives.

reply to post by Aeons


Good God, woman, don't make me blush.

This is a serious angle, though. For the majority of post-industrial citizens; our labors are compartmentalized, the end results nebulous. There is a disconnect between the work we perform, and a authentic sense of accomplishment or fulfillment. We recognize ourselves when we observe a hamster jogging on it's wheel.

8-10 hours a day spent on activities which provide neither meaning nor value to the individual worker.

What has hitherto filled the gap are those activities which transport us from an automated state, which provide a sense of liberation and self-importance. Oh, and (most importantly) which get our stultified brain juices a-flowing.

Unfortunately, many of those activities are not good for the individual, and lead to societal instability when widely practiced.

Although drugs, sex, gambling and alcohol are currently too profitable to curtail; the day the ledger sheet reveals that we're shelling out more on the clean-up than we take in for revenue, I bet stories are going to be the go-to for an alternative way of mitigating our angst.

Remember when the government was all like, "Oh hey, we're shelling out way more on medicare for smoking-related illnesses than we take in from the tobacco lobbies and taxes. Okay, smoking is now officially BAD."

reply to post by mistermonculous


Exotic crotch fauna....I could read all day and find nothing phrased so uniquely so as to get me to comment. Have to admit it doesn't trip my trigger, though.....

posted by Aeons
Maybe here I'll pull in the thread about Archetypes in the populace. What if serotonin-reduced (ADD/ADHD etc) person is the Warrior? Or their mother's reduction in pregnancy is the catalyst for one. At what point does a narrative literally embed itself into "us" as a story carried in our genes? Or perhaps the Archetype is just a common narrative that those with certain neurochemical make-ups commonly come to? Reinforcing each other?

I think this type of research may have been going on quite a long time, and has long ago uncovered the power the narrative has over certain already or naturally occurring (if there was or is now, such a thing) neurochemical make ups, and is obviously used for mutual reinforcement in order to manipulate a bigger, cultural narrative, and perhaps also to give a false sense of control and ability to shape destiny by individuals so that a powerless feeling does not ensue, which, I think, would either lead to violence or suicide. Being able to "create" the hero, and give him characteristics that the masses want and require, what they will respond to and what will resonate with them, has huge implications for planning an electorate response, for example. And part of the story being carried in our genes, surely, is not only controlling the story of archetypal patterns in family lines, so that one identifies with it through their personal heritage, which would also make it harder as an individual to fight being defined, instead of controlling ones own definition. And certainly, the inclusion in DARPA's research of neuroscience and neurotransmitter chemicals clearly shows an interest in manipulating the same to influence the creation and outcomes of all narratives, and thus, the future, in terms of relations and destinies of individuals, and who I'll shape, lead and follow, and how to also provide where the leader will lead.
As to the individuals reactions, what strikes me here as so very obvious, is the whole point is to nullify almost completely the whole notion of the individual, for it is the individuals story that is being manipulated, robbed and passed on for synthesis, and in the creation of archetypes, the nature of that is to further and further narrow down narratives so that all we have are copies of a few, making the outcomes more malleable and virtually completely assured, with no possible deviation. Increasingly, it seems, we are reliant upon numbers and equations, to provide a calculated response to be controlled, and precisely forecast, by external and internal cues of every possible kind. One of you mentioned giving up ones own godhood, but as I see this it is to ensure that there will be no godhood for anyone or anything. The glitch in the equation that cannot be calculated, quantified or manipulated, I believe, is where godhood resides.

reply to post by mistermonculous


Although your reply was directed to Aeons, just wanted to say, exactly...so sad many of us resort to this to either retain our individuality if only through the seeking of pleasure and justification in continuing to live, to dull our pain, or quell a narrative we hear that may not be a reflection of who we are at all. I doubt you were inferring all that, and I will hope you forgive me for taking it there, purely as a matter of personal experience I willingly admit to, but I think this may, in fact, be a truth for many. The problem with studying, giving away and assimilating these narratives is when an individual, frankly, is robbed of their own experiential narrative so that it can be attributed elsewhere, then that said individual might find their unique narrative replaced with, may be so antithetical to their true identity, and so completely hijack their ability to function in even the hamster on the wheel of slave labor type of way, that they are left only with someone else's prescribed problems in their "hacked" reality. It occurs to me that there can be no "greater good" if the individually innocent are turned into something completely opposite, for if the narrative is to be assimilated, does that not then mean, that the same will happen to every other individual eventually?

reply to post by Aeons


I am savoring the reading but I had to just stop right there for a sec...

I've been laying on the sci-fi talk thick but it just seems soooooooo appropriate.

Yoyoma? You there? Pretty cool huh?

We loves us some science fiction, Aeons. All I can really say about what I have read so far is; Damn. What she said<

reply to post by mistermonculous

Although drugs, sex, gambling and alcohol are currently too profitable to curtail; the day the ledger sheet reveals that we're shelling out more on the clean-up than we take in for revenue, I bet stories are going to be the go-to for an alternative way of mitigating our angst.

You make me love ATS. You are like ATS icing.

I learned something from playing video games and the fact that I am a compulsive gambler. Firstly, the gambling glitch was discovered at 26 on a trip to the vortexes in Arizona. Laughlin, Nevada happened to be between here and there so we stopped. Had to turn back the next day due to lack of funds. I learned overnight what I needed to know and never returned to gambling.

Then I met Diablo II. I played enough to realize that there was something beyond the fact that it is the best game ever that makes it so playable. The experience in Nevada allowed me the insight to realize that it was a gambling element, first of all, that made it so hard to put the game down. There is a distinct lever pull every time you kill or open something as the machine decides if you score an item or gold or what have you. The story is also vague or simple in some way that allows one to project heavily in to the narrative. I remember a lot of 'hardcore' fan-fiction. Hardcore; remember that. One played as though one has only one life. No respawn. Some players eschew magic altogether. Makes for good narrative.

But the main thing I learned is that it is the decision making. And that is what allowed me to really cure the gambling thing; and my desire to play Diablo quickly evaporated. It is this thing our brain does when we make a decision. We are neurochemically rewarded for it somehow with dopamine. I now see all video games in this way. I still enjoy 1 or 2 but find it hard to sit still for almost all of them any longer.

It made me think of a lot of what I end up watching on T.V.. Crime procedurals, 'I shouldn't be alive" type documentaries, Tales of Everest of all types, missing person procedurals on I.D. (best channel ever). All things in to which I can try to introject my own experimental narratives; what would I do in this or that situation? This must be one of the things that makes good narrative compelling to the one enjoined by the narrative. It would be just the thing to cause the dialectic to be activated because it instantly activates inquiry.

I think that the danger lies not so much in the question of whether the narrative is good or bad, but in how it may slip its premise by us. We are not always required to answer all questions and a flurrious, strobe light assault on our decision making process may subvert us from inquiry in to some questions that may be more important than others.

reply to post by Frater210


False jeopardy: it's not just a great way to start a war.

You're totally correct, hermano. The most compelling narratives are those which draw us into a sense of personal danger. Some will just stay right there, enjoying the back-brain tingle. Others will ride that neutered fear into a heightened state of inquiry. And most of the questions posed will be variations on, "How do I win?"

Here's the thing about gambling: it's the losing that is addictive. With narrative, it is just the opposite.

Originally posted by tetra50
reply to post by mistermonculous

 

Although your reply was directed to Aeons, just wanted to say, exactly...so sad many of us resort to this to either retain our individuality if only through the seeking of pleasure and justification in continuing to live, to dull our pain, or quell a narrative we hear that may not be a reflection of who we are at all. I doubt you were inferring all that,

I absolutely was.

It occurs to me that there can be no "greater good" if the individually innocent are turned into something completely opposite, for if the narrative is to be assimilated, does that not then mean, that the same will happen to every other individual eventually?

Aeons nailed this point. Should some evil genius concoct a narrative that provokes universal identification at the expense of everyone's mental autonomy, there will always be infophages there to make it personal and complex again.

Those of us with an appetite will consume and process as much data as we can get our ravenous brains on. We will swallow that hypothetical magic bullet narrative, and we will spit it back out in a rapid fire hail of variation.

In Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics", the author makes the point that faces are rendered simply so that the reader has an easier time identifying with the characters. You can then render as rich a character as you like. Dickensian layers of motive, language and behavior made possible by coaxing the reader over that first hurdle of identification with visual trickery.

Many video narratives seem to go the opposite direction. A physical appearance no one can identify with, language and behavior bland enough for mass appeal. Transparent, single-pointed motives.

Maybe here I'll pull in the thread about Archetypes in the populace. What if serotonin-reduced (ADD/ADHD etc) person is the Warrior? Or their mother's reduction in pregnancy is the catalyst for one. At what point does a narrative literally embed itself into "us" as a story carried in our genes?

This made me shiver.

Or perhaps the Archetype is just a common narrative that those with certain neurochemical make-ups commonly come to? Reinforcing each other?

Far more likely, but I didn't get the same, "Holy &*^%, this is very important!" response that I got from the first statement. I'm going to have to digest statement the first for a bit. Meanwhile, here's something silly.

Hey, quick survey for the regulars on this thread. Indulge me, this isn't just idle feckery. I'm on the scent for Aeons' modern permutations of genetic archetypes.

Do you have a Hero with whom you strongly identify?

I'll go:

reply to post by mistermonculous


Presently it is Dean 'Come get some white meat, Bitch' Winchester of the first two seasons (maybe two and a half) of supernatural. The show jumped the shark after that, in my opinion. In this day and age it would be Dean just on principle.



Yep, those is flareguns. Just right for terminating Wendigos.

It looks like he is standing in Mordor so I made this...



I also wanted to say that it was a stunner, what MM has said about it being the losing with the gambling. I have found this to be true from personal experience. There is something with any addiction that has to do with feeling like #. I believe that after the honeymoon wears off with whatever addiction, that the person becomes addicted to feeling like #. The person will go out of their way to feel like # even when there is no reason to. It is enough to cause a person to believe that the whole thing is about feeling at loss and like crap.

After a long time that is all that is left. As though the person has been consumed by it and are no longer there.

Pink Floyd. The Wall movie. Hash piano scene.

reply to post by mistermonculous


Mine change. I'm not sure I have one that I identify strongly with right now.

Petra Arkanian?

Andrew "Ender" Wiggin. President Laura Roslin. Captain Creideiki. Bruce Wayne. John Constantine.

The fact that some of these authours don't like each other and have contrary politics tickles my funny bone.

There are stories that stay with me, but where no particular character stands out for me.

Asimov's and Heinlein's female characters tend to be pretty flat, and their male characters I don't find that much more engaging. But I love their stories.

I don't always identify because of a hero/anti-hero reaction. I had a pretty intense reaction to David from A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

So, are we maybe discussing in part the use of narrative as a neural chemical biofeedback mechanism?

I was reading today in a magazine about a science and fringe innovation about alpha wave biofeedback training. It even mentioned Stubblebine. Can't remember the name of the mag - I was reading it at the Science Centre.

Anyways, it seemed to me that if you can use audio training to train yourself to use different brain waves more effectively, that you could consider the use of narrative the same way. Provoke a reaction, over and over, until you learn to use it for yourself.

reply to post by Aeons


Lady, you are on fire.

I'm seeing a preliminary pattern wherein being predisposed genetically to a given Archetype comes with a craving for stories that define and reinforce that disposition. I need more grist for that particular mill, though.