From: jimruttshow8596
Narratology is a philosophical discipline focused on understanding the different kinds of stories humans tell about themselves and each other, and why these stories serve distinct purposes [00:04:42].
Components of Narratives
Narratology distinguishes between different components of how stories are told and understood:
Logos
The “logos” represents what actually happened, the factual truth of events [00:08:45].
Mythos
The “mythos” is how humans tell stories about these facts, incorporating imagination and fantasy to define what it’s like to be human [00:08:52]. The mythos is invented and projected onto history, the present, and fantasies about the future [00:09:10]. For instance, the “Game A” and “Game B” concepts represent two different mythoses [00:09:21].
Pathos
The “pathical narrative” is the incoherent location of stories about sex, violence, the subconscious, human drives, desires, rivalry, and envy [00:51:38]. Unlike logos and mythos, pathos is never harmonious or balanced [00:50:51], and it needs to be dealt with [00:51:58]. Eastern philosophy approaches pathos as “tantra,” something to be visited if one is ready for it, acknowledging it as part of humanity [00:52:03]. In contrast, Christianity and Islam have historically tried to ban pathos, leading to it constantly re-emerging and causing disruption [00:52:20].
Ethos
Ethos is explicitly not a narrative itself [00:53:10]. Instead, ethos refers to “the right thing to do,” representing pure ethics [00:53:15]. It is a result of narratives [00:55:53]. A constructive mindset towards the future, where one’s thoughts, speech, and actions determine future thinking, is an example of ethos [00:54:26]. This concept, known as “ashavohishta” in ancient Persia, emphasizes collaboration with “how the world works” (similar to “Dao” in Daoism) [00:54:58].
Narratives and Societal Models
Critique of Utopian and Dystopian Narratives
A key aspect of this framework is the rejection of dualistic utopian and dystopian worldviews [00:21:00]. These ideas, rooted in Christianity and Islam, promise an afterlife or offer “cheap ways out,” serving as engines for feudal tyranny [00:21:50]. Utopian thinking is criticized as leading to stagnant, “perfect” worlds that cannot change [00:24:48], and historically, it has resulted in horrors like Pol Pot’s regime, which was inspired by Rousseau’s utopian ideals [00:26:32]. Similarly, dystopian narratives can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies of global conflict [00:26:27].
Embracing Protopianism
Instead, the concept of protopianism is advocated [00:25:19]. Protopianism involves continuously deconstructing and rebuilding the world, seeking slight improvements in its construction daily [00:25:22]. This approach aligns with Eastern philosophy and system/complexity theory, fostering a constant process of optimization [00:36:36]. It supports an “exodus” from exploitative paradigms to “implotation,” a concept where resources are replenished after use [00:50:50] [00:09:49].
Historical Interpretation and the Future
The ability to reinterpret the past through historiography holds significant power [00:08:32]. While the past is viewed as a necessity (“amor fati”), the future is contingent and full of freedom, allowing humans to be co-creators and responsible engineers [00:54:07]. New technologies disrupt the world, leading to anarchy, which then shifts to a “plurality” where leaders figure out how to use technology to their advantage and set models for others to mimic [00:43:40].
Technology as Pharmakon
All technology is viewed as a “pharmakon” [00:52:51]—a neutral force that can be either constructive or destructive depending on human choices [00:40:51]. Examples include the atomic bomb (destructive) versus nuclear power (potentially constructive) [00:40:58]. The discernment of what technology to integrate into life is crucial [00:39:17].
Building New Societal Models
Membranes and Protocols
New societal models, such as “proto-B” communities, should operate with “membranes” rather than walls [00:33:04]. These semi-permeable membranes allow individuals to voluntarily enter and exit systems [00:34:36]. This contrasts with totalitarian models that dictate inclusion [00:33:17]. The internal “protocols” of these communities—which are standards intended to be copied and shared—define their functions, allowing for cooperation and the creation of new technologies [00:47:11]. These protocols can also be specific, such as regulating smartphone use for children [00:39:26]. This approach supports a “gated community” model that is protopian rather than dystopian or utopian, constantly re-innovating the world through optimization [00:45:56].