From: jimruttshow8596
This article explores the concepts of metaphysics and storytelling as presented by author, lecturer, and artist Alexander Bard on the Jim Rut Show. The discussion primarily draws from his book “Process and Event,” co-authored with Jan Söndqvist [01:39:27].
Redefining Metaphysics through Narratology
Alexander Bard and Jan Söndqvist redefine metaphysics as an ultimate form of storytelling about storytelling, or “meta-storytelling” [06:16:00]. This approach, known as narratology, views human beings as fundamentally engaged in storytelling, whether conversing with others or thinking to themselves [05:51:00].
The authors’ philosophy is based on the idea that humans constantly encounter dialectical deadlocks because language inherently contains contradictions [06:38:00]. This leads to three fundamental approaches to storytelling: Logos, Mythos, and Pathos [06:48:00]. These correspond to three different parts of the human brain:
- The rational brain [07:06:00]
- The emotional brain [07:06:00]
- The mimetic (social) brain [07:08:00]
The aim of this work is to properly categorize these different types of stories and their purposes, preventing them from being mistaken for one another [07:19:00].
Rejecting “Supernatural Entities”
Bard emphasizes that anything truly existing would be either natural or cultural, not supernatural [07:31:00]. Stories about supernatural phenomena are categorized as mythical storytelling, but they are neither rational nor emotional [07:50:00]. Their purpose is primarily to serve as a social glue, helping a society cohere [07:58:00].
The Narratological Triad: Logos, Mythos, and Pathos
Logos
Logos relates to the rational brain, dealing with factual truth and calculations, akin to the “zeros and ones of the brain” [01:04:25]. Rationality was essential for human flocks to survive and evolve [01:11:05].
Pathos
Pathos concerns emotions and feelings, representing the spirit or desire to live, purpose, meaning, and libidinal forces [01:04:37]. Pathos-driven narratives are direct and brutal, showing reality without analysis, like news feeds or pornography [01:04:45].
Mythos
Mythos is the third category, representing the mimetic or social brain [01:04:56]. It is the only way to temporarily unify Logos and Pathos, creating a shared narrative for larger populations [01:04:58]. Historically, religions served as the original “memeplexes” (borrowing from Daniel Dennett) that produced group coherence and reduced bloodshed [01:13:54].
The Danger of Mythos as Dogma
[!WARNING|Mythos as Dogma] The central problem arises when people literally believe their Mythos as literal truth, turning it into dogma [01:10:11]. This leads to issues such as religious conflicts [01:10:31]. Bard argues that the age of mass religion, particularly those with simple dogma tied to the printing press, is ending with the internet [01:16:54]. He hopes the internet will “devastatingly slaughter these mass religions” [01:17:06], pushing for an “educated elite” to understand the philosophical convictions of the world [01:17:19].
The Bard Absolute and Navigating Truth
The “Bard Absolute” (a play on words for Alexander Bard and the philosophical concept of “barred”) is derived from Zizek’s concept of the “barred subject” [01:19:59]. This means that one’s own subjectivity is a blind spot, inaccessible directly, and only fully realized through relationships with others [01:20:08].
The “barred absolute” functions as a principle to acknowledge things one cannot or should not understand [01:21:14].
“If you meet somebody Jim who’s stuck in a Mythos and it’s so stupid you get embarrassed to have a dinner conversation with them and you decide that you can’t understand it so you basically tell them listen I guess truth is a bar absolute to you because you’re stuck in front of the bar absolute your Mythos so I’m not going to have a dinner conversation with you because I’m actually on the other side of the bar which means I see a reality more for what it is than you do and that’s just the way it is to me sorry that’s my conviction no dinner right” [01:21:46]
This concept is presented as a tool to counter problematic forms of Mythos and reject the notion that everyone is equally capable of understanding complex realities [01:23:00]. It is argued to be on the side of those who advocate for truth and critical thinking against “conspiracy theories and astrologist and all these stupid mythal things” [01:23:09].
However, the host, Jim Rut, expresses concern that this concept could lead to a “noble lie” scenario or Platonic elite rule where an elite group decides what people are “ready for” [01:17:57]. Bard clarifies he is not a Platonist and that the “barred absolute” should be about individuals recognizing their own limitations in understanding [01:19:15].
“The bar absolute is all mine in same way you’re learning science right so you’re learning physics you start with Statics and simple Dynamics and you work up to waves and vibrations then relativity and so that sense if you take B absolute in that sense I have no problem with it nor would Zack Stein but it’s when you say that there is only 1% ever going to understand this and we’re never going to tell people about it we’re going to run a B Burgers or whatever the they are going to run the world because they’re smarter than everybody else and Etc that I strongly disagree with” [01:26:50]
The “barred absolute” is also used to justify the need for “membranes” in society, creating contained environments for radical experimentation (like “tantric labs” or research into viruses) that should not leak out to the general public [01:46:19]. This allows for diverse social experiments without undermining a broader “coherent pluralism” [01:43:31].