NARRATIVES, revisited

Human use of stories as a means of sharing goes back to tribal times. The narrative; the unfolding of events-in-time is hard wired into our brains.

Example: An Australian aboriginal was being driven in a car. He asked the driver to slow down, as he was unable to narrate to himself the changing scenes because they were flashing by too fast. Such stories of travels were “maps”, when shared with others. Some persons are better than others in remembering and telling stories. Instructions for doing were related as stories. Happenings in dreams also were shared as narratives.

Narratives remain a powerful means for communication, now enhanced by writing and reading. The time frames for narratives need extending beyond the changing perceptual experience. Histories were an early extension.

I propose a holarchy (nested hierarchy) of narratives:

Pictures/Events/Scenes/Stories/Scenarios/Developments/……/Evolution

Might we call this holarchy a STORY FIELD?

Frequent use of the term, “BIG PICTURE” (in English), puzzles me. Is a “Big Scenario” conceived as a static “Picture”? Why do we use a static metaphor to label a complex narrative? “Movies” = Moving Picture Show.

How do persons learn to use this holarchy? Are there persons who lack the competencies to process narratives with long temporal durations? How do the concepts of “causation”, “freedom”, and “determination” weave into our narratives?

Is our seeming inability to explore “multi-dimensional time” or “temporal textures” because of a lock-in to narratives that unfold in linear, one-dimensional time? The paradox of “free creativity” in a “determined world”  can be resolved with “temporal texture”, by a process I label, “feedpast bootstrapping” .

As powerful as our narrativity is, might there be aspects that are blocking our ability to adequately function in this hyper complex world, where most happenings of significance involve durations beyond perception and conventional story telling?

Might the patterns of happenings covering “Global Eras” be shown to have a “Societal Weirdness”, in analogy with Quantum Weirdness of the very, very, small (also beyond direct perception)? “Laws” don’t necessarily “scale”.