3 ms·
This is a VERY silly article. A better article would have the title: Life is Not A Story, Life is Many Stories. I have but one meager, measly, impoverished p
by csours 2y ago
This is a VERY silly article.
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."
- nyeah 2y agoFolks. Please. I have a request. Read the article first. Someone took the time to write it. Don't dash off a quick gut reaction to the title and then go back and read the text later.
- csours 2y agoI read the first 3 paragraphs, skimmed, and the last paragraph, and did a keyword search (I should have search for perspective, but that wasn't on my mind). 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
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- aaron695 2y ago[dead]
- Der_Einzige 2y agoWhy should I? It’s full of critical theorists, whose whole careers were based on nothing but critiquing things they either didn’t read at all (see Zizek admitting to this repeatedly), or poorly/narrowly read. 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!
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nyeah 2y agoI don't know who Zizek is. I don't think Sartre and Wallace Stevens are pomo nonsense-mongers. (In case that's what you mean by 'Zizek'.) Criticizing the article without reading it is misleading and a waste of time. I think we ... agree on that? Not 100% sure.