I'm interested in the way that identity is entangled with worldview. It seems to me that any metanarrative or grand metaphysics carves out a place for the bearer of that metaphysics. — syntax

Imagine that you become aware that you're acting out a role in a play. You peer around trying to get a sense of this play. What's the tone? Where are you in the dramatic arc? How is this the same play that's forever been played? How is it unprecedented?

I think that's what it's like to try to see your own worldview.

Who are you to ask who I am? I definitely don't want to get tangled up in somebody else's metaphorical metanarrative.

Any thoughts on this, team? Do you agree or disagree that identity is tangled with worldview? Do you reflect on this in your own case? Do you think we choose our worldviews? Or does life beat us into a certain shape? — syntax

So, what's the difference between a metanarrative and a world view? Is it that, with the metanarrative, I'm in the picture? It's a story about me and how I fit into the world. I'm thinking now - "So, what is T Clark's metanarrative?" Am I the only one who can write my metanarrative? Can I write yours?

I've thought about writing my autobiography and I can't think of anything interesting to say. Not because my life is particularly boring, but there's no theme. I could tell about some noteworthy events in my life. I think I have interesting and valuable things to say about human nature, science, morality, beauty....but I don't think I can characterize my life in any helpful way except to say something like this - The T Clark Story - white, male, American, smart, middle class, liberal, married, three children, 66 years old, overweight, reasonably healthy....

When push comes to shove, metanarratives are illusions. As a person who has lived most of his life mired in illusion, I think they are probably self-destructive. They're lies we tell ourselves. We have no stories. I think maybe poetry would work better. I think life is more about tone, mood than it is about meaning. What color is my life? I'd like to say "orange" which is a color I feel deep inside, but that's not right. I think maybe that's the color I want it to be. That's not right either.

Checking now, I think my life is probably kind of beigey. Now there's a surprise.

Just to make sure it's clear - I'm not joking about all this.

In some meditative state of thought-free non-attachment, I've tried keep the identity to 'I am-ness' -- without optional add-ons, attachments, tight-fitting self-identifications and storylines that spin off into the past and future, but even then it can become an identity of 'I am one who is non-attached', with some attendant story attached. Seems to be our story-telling destiny. Perhaps all I really know for sure is this presence of awareness, while all else is story time ... End of story :wink:

an overarching account or interpretation of events and circumstances that provides a pattern or structure for people’s beliefs and gives meaning to their experiences.

Do you agree or disagree that identity is tangled with worldview?

I don't think there is a "worldview", "an overarching account", rather there are many narratives that intersect, combine, diminish, accentuate, are modern, postmodern, anachronisms... all part of our language game.

Thus the society of the future falls less within the province of a Newtonian anthropology (such as structuralism or systems theory) than a pragmatics of language particles. There are many different language games a heterogeneity of elements. They only give rise to institutions in patches-local determinism.

JF Lyotard

That said we can't speak without reference to meta narratives because of the complexities of our modern ecology. The whole techo/historic complex is behind very simple statements such as "turn on the light" and we are equally aware and unaware of the the various infrastructures behind such a simple statement.

The fragmentation of the overarching meta narrative, has lead us to the fragmentation of the autonomous self, into our schizoid personalities. The neutrality of the ego as witness and role player who plays multiple parts but without full absorption into any of its roles. This is the difference between parody of an officially designated style, and pastiche where there are many styles and none of them are official.

Do you agree or disagree that identity is tangled with worldview? — syntax

Most def. Meta-narratives mostly serve to bind groups in common values/purposes. It is important to identify with such groups in order to be bound to them.

Do you reflect on this in your own case? — syntax

Sure. For whatever reason I tend to be a loner and not a joiner, so meta-narratives tend to not hold much weight for me. I'm naturally drawn to those that express my values and goals, however.

Or does life beat us into a certain shape? — syntax

It certainly does, probably to more of a degree than we care to realize. We can at least have the appearance of beating ourselves into particular shapes. Meta-narratives may help us do so.

Isn’t the term ‘meta-narrative’ just another word for a belief system? Lately I’ve been pondering this idea of being ‘addicted’ to a paradigmatic mindset. It does seem, in a sense, that once indoctrinated, or bought into a given prevailing collective meta-narrative, oblivious to any alternative, it could be said that one becomes entirely dependent and fixated upon that mindset, through and from which one then derives a filtered interpretive understanding of one's experiential domain, and the meaning of one’s relational role within it. So it surely seems that, in effect, one’s identity and purpose in life becomes inextricably linked to that. So, for example, if indoctrinated into the materialist paradigm, it then becomes a meta-narrative of cultural materialism, and thus the ‘addictive’ need to attain more and more materiality, and carnal satisfaction, in order to feed and fulfill that corporeal identity and its cravings. Likewise, one can be indoctrinated into a religious or sociopolitical or militaristic meta-narrative, with its own problematic addictive implications. No doubt there are many examples of more extremist identifications from religious fundamentalists to neo-Nazis to militant fanatics of all types.

if indoctrinated into the materialist paradigm, it then becomes a meta-narrative of cultural materialism, and thus the ‘addictive’ need to attain more and more materiality, and carnal satisfaction, in order to feed and fulfill that corporeal identity and its cravings. — snowleopard

I don't believe it's that simple. Generally speaking, we all have corporeal needs and a desire for meaning. Materialistic behavior or wanton production/consumption may be more an expression of rationalistic values overshadowing or obscuring our empathy, compassion, and creative spontaneity. Love is fundamentally irrational.

My own metanarrative is that metanarratives are tools and identities. — syntax

For who? Who is pulling the strings? The meta-meta identity?

You know the word 'person' is from the mask used in classical dramas, the 'persona'. But if you're not *really* the 'persona' - then what else could you be? A meta-person?

Freud of course had a model of the personality in terms of id/ego/superego - and I can't really bring to mind many competing models from current culture. The traditional model was 'body soul and spirit' but that has been eclipsed by biological explanations and I suppose also in terms of 'identity politics' (which are a fertile source of meta-narratives, or so I would have thought.)

I suppose in cultural terms, our 'defining meta-narrative' must be something modelled from a composite of your occupation, your family ties, and artistic or professional aspirations. In the absence of an meta-narrative, what else is there?

For whatever reason I tend to be a loner and not a joiner, so meta-narratives tend to not hold much weight for me. — praxis

I think that might be an aspect of your time and place. You have leisure time to dwell on it, and you do, so your mind probably wasn't dulled in childhood by intensive labor. You have the financial power to be a loner, plus you live in a world where there isn't a single beating drum. You can pick and choose beliefs. You can take this from Buddhism, this from science, this from a green movement, etc. without fear of a Spanish Inquisition.

One ground-zero for that kind of eclecticism was post WW2 California.

19th Century Russians had an unusual experience with meta-narrative. Artists felt like the Russian identity had been invaded by a French identity because the elite spoke French and were fairly francized. A conscious effort to dredge up a real Russian identity from the lower classes who still spoke Russian resulted in an artistic explosion. The attempt to capture what's true and essential about the Russian character ironically became an artificial shell in whose hollowness a desolate, barren Russian soul appeared briefly before descending into madness like in Solaris.

The above story isn't entirely true. It's a myth.

True enough ... I didn't intend to conflate cravings and needs. And it may be more than mere desire for meaning, but our imperative.

I'm suspicious of our tendency to hypostatize. I'm concerned that referring to "metanarratives" or "identity" or "worldview" inclines us to fabricate characteristics in the nature of definable, separable "things" we're supposed to possess which distinguish us from others. It's unclear to me whether it's useful to categorize people in this fashion, except perhaps in pursuit of a purpose which wouldn't necessarily be benign.

Ha, I live on ground-zero.

Imagine that you become aware that you're acting out a role in a play. You peer around trying to get a sense of this play. What's the tone? Where are you in the dramatic arc? How is this the same play that's forever been played? How is it unprecedented?

I think that's what it's like to try to see your own worldview. — frank

Good description. Hamlet comes to mind. What's interesting is our power to shape the play. A charismatic person can influence others. It seems to me that the great philosophers have, among other things, shaped the way that others see themselves. For the less bookish, the lyrics of a rock star or rapper seem to accomplish he same thing. I'd guess that whether or not we take bookish or pop-culture heroes is itself a function of even earlier identifications.

Who are you to ask who I am? I definitely don't want to get tangled up in somebody else's metaphorical metanarrative. — Bitter Crank

Ha. Well, there's no chance of avoiding that, is there? This is one way to read 'Hell is other people.' These others are 'hell' because they refuse to see us as we want to be seen. I speculate that enduring this 'hell' is important to growth. Isn't reading at times a walk through the inferno? A risk of one's precious prejudices?

So, what's the difference between a metanarrative and a world view? Is it that, with the metanarrative, I'm in the picture? It's a story about me and how I fit into the world. I'm thinking now - "So, what is T Clark's metanarrative?" Am I the only one who can write my metanarrative? Can I write yours? — T Clark

No difference really. I suggest that worldviews tend to come with roles for the worldviewer.

Can we write our own metanarratives? In some sense, yes, perhaps, but it also seems that our metanarratives write us. As soon as we get distance from our worldview, it's no longer our worldview. It is already a former worldview. We see ourselves as the kind of person who used to see ourselves that way. Or currently but now optionally see ourselves that way. Occasionally there's an explosive reversal. But mostly we seem to change our worldview piecemeal. It's a boat that we replace part by part, so that we don't drown in a kind of chaos. That's what I'd suggest.

When push comes to shove, metanarratives are illusions. As a person who has lived most of his life mired in illusion, I think they are probably self-destructive. They're lies we tell ourselves. We have no stories. I think maybe poetry would work better. I think life is more about tone, mood than it is about meaning. — T Clark

But isn't this a grand narrative too? You are person who lived much of your life in an illusion, the illusion that there was a narrative or a plot. Now you see the truth on tone and meaning. I like this and can relate, by the way. I'm just saying that I'd count it as a worldview.

but even then it can become an identity of 'I am one who is non-attached', with some attendant story attached. Seems to be our story-telling destiny. Perhaps all I really know for sure is this presence of awareness, while all else is story time ... End of story :wink: — snowleopard

Great example. 'I am the non-attached.' 'I am the one who sees through all illusions.' These (as you imply) are leading roles themselves.

I think every living moment of a human being’s life, unless the person is starving or in immediate danger of death in some other way, is controlled by a concern for status. — Tom Wolfe

Maybe that's putting it a little too strongly? But it makes for great novels.

I don't think there is a "worldview", "an overarching account", rather there are many narratives that intersect, combine, diminish, accentuate, are modern, postmodern, anachronisms... all part of our language game. — Cavacava

But isn't this absence of an overarching account a kind of overarching account? All of the many narratives seem to be squeezed together into one grand language game in the quote above. Of course I agree that we can zoom in and see plurality. Still, I speculate that individuals tend have a set of interlocking or systematic self-descriptive and world-descriptive keywords that they are especially slow to relinquish.

The fragmentation of the overarching meta narrative, has lead us to the fragmentation of the autonomous self, into our schizoid personalities. The neutrality of the ego as witness and role player who plays multiple parts but without full absorption into any of its roles. This is the difference between parody of an officially designated style, and pastiche where there are many styles and none of them are official. — Cavacava

Well written. While I think you capture something important about our current situation, I still think we have (often enough) a full absorption at least in a role play for the mirror. We know ourselves to be the grand and absurd beings who play lots of little roles that aren't us in our fullness. Only we know our fullness. Even friends and lovers can only follow us so far, since at some point our differences are threats to one another. So we learn to play in the intersections and politely ignore these differences. And when it comes to business or just interacting with strangers, we might not even think of trying to be authentic. It's safer to collectively agree on a kind of neutral background. (This is the public/private split in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, for instance. )

Most def. Meta-narratives mostly serve to bind groups in common values/purposes. It is important to identify with such groups in order to be bound to them. — praxis

I agree. Groups seem to tend to form around a few basic virtues and vices (hoorays and boos.) Philospohers are fascinating because at least some of them enjoy trying to get outside of any group, except for that group which hoorays transcending every other identity.

Sure. For whatever reason I tend to be a loner and not a joiner, so meta-narratives tend to not hold much weight for me. I'm naturally drawn to those that express my values and goals, however. — praxis

I feel you. I would, however, see being a loner in terms of one of the more interesting metanarratives --that evolving narrative of the hero that thrusts against being possessed by narratives. That's what I've perhaps loved most about the philosophical tradition.

Isn’t the term ‘meta-narrative’ just another word for a belief system? Lately I’ve been pondering this idea of being ‘addicted’ to a paradigmatic mindset. It does seem, in a sense, that once indoctrinated, or bought into a given prevailing collective meta-narrative, oblivious to any alternative, it could be said that one becomes entirely dependent and fixated upon that mindset, through and from which one then derives a filtered interpretive understanding of one's experiential domain, and the meaning of one’s relational role within it. So it surely seems that, in effect, one’s identity and purpose in life becomes inextricably linked to that. So, for example, if indoctrinated into the materialist paradigm, it then becomes a meta-narrative of cultural materialism, and thus the ‘addictive’ need to attain more and more materiality, and carnal satisfaction, in order to feed and fulfill that corporeal identity and its cravings. Likewise, one can be indoctrinated into a religious or sociopolitical or militaristic meta-narrative, with its own problematic addictive implications. No doubt there are many examples of more extremist identifications from religious fundamentalists to neo-Nazis to militant fanatics of all types. — snowleopard

Totally. Yes, these are good examples. This is the kind of thing I have in mind.

I guess things get really interesting when one starts to pride one's self on being critically minded --on not being a slave to bad narratives at least. So then there's a motive to push against one's prejudices. What comes to mind is the pleasure-pain of picking a scab. There's a kind of self-mutilation in critical thinking turned against one's self. A person 'dies forward.'

But if you're not *really* the 'persona' - then what else could you be? A meta-person? — Wayfarer

I read through some of your old posts to try to find an example. You mention the 'vertical dimension' in a way that suggests that it's a kind of key phrase for your 'philosophical identity.' I'm not saying that that is bad or good, just presenting an example. Anyway, I didn't have to read much to get a general sense of a set of interlocking positions. It was hard not to imagine someone who imagined himself as a sort of knight of the vertical dimension. (I'm a 'knight' of something-or-another myself, so I mean no offense. )

As I see it, it is angst or doubt that is crucial here. It's one thing to be aware of your positions and passionate affirm them, though even this puts a little distance between the eye that sees and its image of itself. But angst or doubt really makes aware of wearing what we have been and may not continue to be. 'I am my past in the mode of no longer being it.'

Maybe we could talk of the center of a self being a pure consciousness devoid of personality, pure seeing if you will, the dry witness. But I think it's useful to think in terms of an onion. Some identifications are so lightly held that it doesn't hurt to reverse them completely. Others are so deep and 'natural' that they are invisible. They are too close to the 'eye.' As I see it, one way to be a great philosopher or exciting thinker is to become aware of these deep/'natural'/invisible parts of a worldview and simultaneously make them both explicit and optional.

I suppose in cultural terms, our 'defining meta-narrative' must be something modelled from a composite of your occupation, your family ties, and artistic or professional aspirations. In the absence of an meta-narrative, what else is there? — Wayfarer

Indeed. But is there ever an absence of meta-narrative? Or are there just moments of one dominant narrative and other moments of thousands of individual narratives? Theocracy versus democracy.

But isn't this a grand narrative too? You are person who lived much of your life in an illusion, the illusion that there was a narrative or a plot. Now you see the truth on tone and meaning. I like this and can relate, by the way. I'm just saying that I'd count it as a worldview. — syntax

No fair. I question the value of metanarratives and you say the denial of metanarratives is part of my metanarrative.

Of course I'm just playfully trying to communicate what the concept means for me. As far as I can tell, identities come largely in narrative form. We know that we have evolved, and we tell the story of that evolution to ourselves and others. And we are doing this already as teenagers. So telling the story of our lives is also telling the story of all the stories we have told about ourselves about ourselves throughout those lives.

Of course I'm just playfully trying to communicate what the concept means for me. As far as I can tell, identities come largely in narrative form. We know that we have evolved, and we tell the story of that evolution to ourselves and others. And we are doing this already as teenagers. So telling the story of our lives is also telling the story of all the stories we have told about ourselves about ourselves throughout those lives. — syntax

I do understand what you're trying to say. I've thought a lot about the stories we tell. I am a very verbal person - an obsessive storyteller. Although I've gotten better as I've aged, I've always had a running narrative of what's going on in the world and myself in my head. It's hard to stop, even when it's self-destructive. On the other hand, I have never been able to tell a credible story about myself that's anything other than a list of the things that have happened. My life is just my life. No themes, no conclusions, no meaning. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Ok, ok. Here's my metanarative:

1. I was once attacked by a cat because my cat imitation was so good.
2. My favorite meal is barbecued hotdogs and macaroni and cheese made with Velveeta.
3. My favorite possession is an orange rug.
4. My brother and I were on the Howdy Doody show when we were boys. They gave us Howdy Doody slippers and Hostess Snowballs.
5. I had my first automobile accident when I was 13.
6. I once got a D in algebra.
7. I am attracted to women with unusual names.
8. When I was 15, I was senior patrol leader of Boy Scout Troop 182 in Seaford, Delaware.
9. If I were rich, I would give each of my friends $2,000,000.
10. I am good at reading newspapers held upside down.
11. When I was 11, I broke my arm running down a wet sliding board.
12. I love the smell of asphalt.
13. I am not afraid of the dark.
14. I once heard squirrels running on the roof of my house and thought they were aliens from outer space.
15. When she was little, my daughter called elephants “elfasints.”
16. I once bowled a score of 0.
17. I remember my phone number from when I was a boy; 629-7369.
18. My older son was named after a horse in a song.
19. I once had two newspaper routes – the Wilmington Morning News in the morning and the Philadelphia Bulletin in the afternoon.
20. My favorite vegetables are brussels sprouts and lima beans.
21. For the first two years of my life, I lived in Germany.
22. Between 1980 and 1986, I was registered as a Republican.
23. I still remember the mnemonic for Moh’s scale of hardness from 7th grade – The girls can flirt and other queer things can do.
24. I once fell out of a tree and had to be taken to the hospital in an ambulance.
25. I know someone who saw Chubby Checker naked
26. When I was a boy, one of my favorite comic strips was “The Phantom,” but, since I’d never heard it pronounced, I called it “The Pontom.”
27. I like spiders but I’m afraid of them.
28. My favorite word is “geschwindigheitsbegrenzung.”
29. When I was 13, my father let my brother, three of our friends, and me wander around Manhattan all day by ourselves.
30. I once ate 17 ears of corn in one meal.
31. Talc, gypsum, calcite, fluorite, apatite, orthoclase, quartz, corundum, diamond.

I love the reply, but you ain't foolin' me with that rhetorical strategy. :smile: I think you've painted very well the kinds of things that aren't central to identity. They are charmingly concrete and abstract. They are flesh on the bones of the big narrative. Novelists use them to emphasize 'incarnation.' Our bright, universal fantasies of ourselves are entangled with a background of master-plan-neutral detail.

I love the reply, but you ain't foolin' me with that rhetorical strategy. :smile: I think you've painted very well the kinds of things that aren't central to identity. They are charmingly concrete and abstract. They are flesh on the bones of the big narrative. Novelists use them to emphasize 'incarnation.' Our bright, universal fantasies of ourselves are entangled with a background of master-plan-neutral detail. — syntax

To the contrary, I think what I've provided gives a much better understanding of who I am and what my life means to me than any narrative could. I guess that's the point. Narratives round off corners and putty over holes. Sand rough spots.

On the contrary, I read the entire list and don’t feel that I know you any better. Mostly superfluous details.