Excellent piece! I remember a line one of my very competent friends in college used: The line between arrogance and confidence is "accuracy". I've always loved that bit of insight.
It's funny you bring up Captain Marvel, as I hadn't really been able to put my finger on it, but reading your thoughts I realize that she should have been written like Dr Manhattan from Watchmen: So powerful and beyond humanity that she has trouble even remembering what it was like. That would have been an interesting arc for her at least, instead of the nonsense we got.
Finally, I think you would like Smith's points on how we make moral decisions. Essentially his whole conception of how we form moral sentiments is that we run simulations of layer upon layer of moral judgements by others and ourselves. He doesn't specifically mention the value of reading stories to aid that (at least that I can recall) but it fits in perfectly with the notion of imagining what better, more admirable impartial spectators would think of a situation.
Excellent! Regarding positive disintegration, reading "Upside: The New Science of Post-Traumatic Growth" really stuck with me and this phenomenon completely confirms Dabrowski's theory. Basically, after traumatic events of various kinds many people change completely for the better and become a new person. There others though who become bitter or self-destructive or worse. This means that it's a choice at some level. Something to learn. Fiction used to be a big part of that since the dawn of time, but alas...
The moment of personality disintegration is one of absolute vulnerability. Reintegration is always adaptive, and the difficulty lies in avoiding adaptation to circumstances imposed by the manipulations of others.
There is a reason why predators invoke chaos; it imposes disintegration.
Mar 24, 2023·edited Mar 24, 2023Liked by Harrison Koehli
I think when you are vulnerable you senses are heightened with respect to potential predators. Then, when you get deep down the rabbit hole, there is a sort of non-verbal communication regarding potential predators, and then the rabbits take care of each other and the predators end up lonely unless they find a rabbit in the mood for a predator.
If you know what I mean.....
Basically, what I'm saying is I agree that "personality disintegration" is a moment of "absolute vulnerability". It is the moment when one disavows their own ego. It is a vulnerable moment, but it could be, one gets past that moment, then a whole new world emerges bereft of ego's flaw. The flaws of ego are many I reckon.
Palacio is great. I picked up his first sword and sorcery novel recently; very much looking forward to reading it, the reviews are great.
I think the reason the current generation of Hollywood writers have no ability to write heroic characters is at least partly because they have no actual experience of heroism in their own lives. To them, being good merely comes down to having the correct opinions. Which has nothing to do with it of course. Then they see the way heroic characters are portrayed in older works, and utterly misunderstand the confident self-assurance, confusing it with arrogance and pushiness. They see only the exterior, utterly failing to penetrate to the interior, and this lack of insight results in unintentional parody and pastiche.
If we wait for every mortal to benefit from "positive integration" by exposure to perfect dramatic literature, it could take millions of years! My teacher prefers a slightly more proactive approach, though it could still take centuries. But those considerations are not the focus of my involvement on sites like this,
My training distinguishes these two "heroes" by Tone Level. Robin Hood, at his best, operates at the level of Action or Games. These levels are almost impossible for a human to sustain, and thus Robin is a hero among men, though in other contexts he might only be one of thousands of accomplished warriors.
The modern hero (heroine?) exhibits extraordinary power and fighting skill. Like Robin, she can originate somewhat witty remarks in the midst of a violent struggle. Yet she seems, at best, only bored. Not really involved in the ideals behind her work and thus possibly not that in agreement with those ideals. At worse (or is this normal for her?) she seems to exhibit a lack of sympathy for others, which is a bit psychopathic and destructive of good social relationships. Thus we get the impression of a girl immersed in a video game where she is compelled to fight and kill to proceed to the "next level" yet is not so much involved with the game as she is trapped in it. One should always be able to rise above the games one has chosen, should it seem appropriate. If one cannot, one is trapped and little more than a slave. Only the psychopath wishes to be surrounded by slaves rather than by free men and women.
A wonderful compare and contrast. In a multitude of ways you have demonstrated an objective case for the classical Aristotelian mimesis... that Art does indeed imitate life.
This is great! I was just ranting about this today, in fact lol. The drag queen story hour people are attacking the faith based patriotic story time people on and on infinitum. Fiction and stories and myths and legends and tales have many salutory effects, but I would argue that the most ancient and most vital one isn't moral at all: it is a pattern for surviving, and it is fascinating and pleasurable, as pretend and rough and tumble play are fascinating and pleasurable, because it is so deeply tied to survival. Walter Burkert, the historian of Greek religions mapped the episodes of the Propp Sequence, essentially the hero's journey. over the stages of food getting behavior in mammals. So I argue forget the morality, the edification, and plunge into the mind simulation of adventure for adventure's sake. Prior to film, we were all making images in our brains when we were immersed in hearing or reading stories, and our right hemispheres are creating worlds. I am right now both myself and an elderly poet in Lithuania (The Last Girl, Stephan Collishaw)in his world, in his story, which has a phenomenological reality that is wispy to myself in this room, but waiting there when I return, palpable and real. What is vital, I hypothesize, is to get everyone, but especially kids, back to co-creating worlds with authors or storytellers and off the screens (not that I"m against illustrated books or tv or films in some portion) and back to creating imagined worlds in our heads. We've been making these images since the Upper Paleolithic, at least, and we have stopped, and this may be one filament of what is driving us mad. Thanks for this great article. I sometimes think an algorithm is writing books and making film plots these days. Sorry to leap in and rant lol.
I'll just add that maybe a lot of our morality is directly related to food-getting! E.g. how to do so in teams, who gets what, etc. There's a lot of social interaction involved with that most fundamental aspect of human life. ;)
Speaking of a good dramatic new series being hailed for the main male character’s toxic masculinity which is required for him to survive and his rugged individuality also required for his survival versus putting the good of the “people” first. Have you watched the futuristic dramatic new series on HBO and Crave entirely filmed in Alberta Canada where a virus initially infecting one grain mill that spreads with alarming speed and quickly creates an apocalypse with the virus turning humans into vicious zombie like creatures? Your comment about our morality in relation to food-getting immediately brought to mind last night’s episode in relation to a lone group of a church congregation who’s “leader” had headless frozen human bodies hanging upside down in a barn like structure mimicking the method butchers use in order to feed his congregation who relied upon him for their survival and who were supposedly unaware of what they were eating. So yes a true test of one’s morality is food-getting contrasted by the young heroine being able to hunt down a deer and shoot it with a hunting rifle which was difficult but what one would hope and one would like to believe would be the one and only choice for food-getting!
If that Robin Hood from the movie is for real, then yes, I agree - we could use more Robin Hood type theatre. Now, I know the Robin Hood from the movie is not "real" (it was a show about a story), but at least the show had redeeming value about the "human experience".
Robin Hood and His Merry Men was one of my favourite stories as a child and their sole purpose for existing was to steal from the rich in order to give to the poor which I was easily able to conceive of and fully support as a child lol. All of Robin’s human flaws and failings is exactly what made him so believable and so endearing a hero as well as his self confidence and his bravery in standing strong for his principles despite the dangers he risked. His charming character and his infectious laugh and sense of humour with which he approached every situation he faced alone or with his band of merry men is exactly what made Robin Hood so believable and so lovable to a child.
Excellent piece! I remember a line one of my very competent friends in college used: The line between arrogance and confidence is "accuracy". I've always loved that bit of insight.
It's funny you bring up Captain Marvel, as I hadn't really been able to put my finger on it, but reading your thoughts I realize that she should have been written like Dr Manhattan from Watchmen: So powerful and beyond humanity that she has trouble even remembering what it was like. That would have been an interesting arc for her at least, instead of the nonsense we got.
Finally, I think you would like Smith's points on how we make moral decisions. Essentially his whole conception of how we form moral sentiments is that we run simulations of layer upon layer of moral judgements by others and ourselves. He doesn't specifically mention the value of reading stories to aid that (at least that I can recall) but it fits in perfectly with the notion of imagining what better, more admirable impartial spectators would think of a situation.
You'll be happy to hear I just picked up TMS, in the preferred edition! ;)
Hooray! I am happy :D I've been hoping for someone to discuss it with again... Grant merely got the audiobook. What a pleb. :P
Excellent! Regarding positive disintegration, reading "Upside: The New Science of Post-Traumatic Growth" really stuck with me and this phenomenon completely confirms Dabrowski's theory. Basically, after traumatic events of various kinds many people change completely for the better and become a new person. There others though who become bitter or self-destructive or worse. This means that it's a choice at some level. Something to learn. Fiction used to be a big part of that since the dawn of time, but alas...
The moment of personality disintegration is one of absolute vulnerability. Reintegration is always adaptive, and the difficulty lies in avoiding adaptation to circumstances imposed by the manipulations of others.
There is a reason why predators invoke chaos; it imposes disintegration.
I think when you are vulnerable you senses are heightened with respect to potential predators. Then, when you get deep down the rabbit hole, there is a sort of non-verbal communication regarding potential predators, and then the rabbits take care of each other and the predators end up lonely unless they find a rabbit in the mood for a predator.
If you know what I mean.....
Basically, what I'm saying is I agree that "personality disintegration" is a moment of "absolute vulnerability". It is the moment when one disavows their own ego. It is a vulnerable moment, but it could be, one gets past that moment, then a whole new world emerges bereft of ego's flaw. The flaws of ego are many I reckon.
BK
Koehli, one of your best. I’m 76 yo, son of a real man of the Greatest Generation. Where are the real men of today’s generation?
Palacio is great. I picked up his first sword and sorcery novel recently; very much looking forward to reading it, the reviews are great.
I think the reason the current generation of Hollywood writers have no ability to write heroic characters is at least partly because they have no actual experience of heroism in their own lives. To them, being good merely comes down to having the correct opinions. Which has nothing to do with it of course. Then they see the way heroic characters are portrayed in older works, and utterly misunderstand the confident self-assurance, confusing it with arrogance and pushiness. They see only the exterior, utterly failing to penetrate to the interior, and this lack of insight results in unintentional parody and pastiche.
If we wait for every mortal to benefit from "positive integration" by exposure to perfect dramatic literature, it could take millions of years! My teacher prefers a slightly more proactive approach, though it could still take centuries. But those considerations are not the focus of my involvement on sites like this,
My training distinguishes these two "heroes" by Tone Level. Robin Hood, at his best, operates at the level of Action or Games. These levels are almost impossible for a human to sustain, and thus Robin is a hero among men, though in other contexts he might only be one of thousands of accomplished warriors.
The modern hero (heroine?) exhibits extraordinary power and fighting skill. Like Robin, she can originate somewhat witty remarks in the midst of a violent struggle. Yet she seems, at best, only bored. Not really involved in the ideals behind her work and thus possibly not that in agreement with those ideals. At worse (or is this normal for her?) she seems to exhibit a lack of sympathy for others, which is a bit psychopathic and destructive of good social relationships. Thus we get the impression of a girl immersed in a video game where she is compelled to fight and kill to proceed to the "next level" yet is not so much involved with the game as she is trapped in it. One should always be able to rise above the games one has chosen, should it seem appropriate. If one cannot, one is trapped and little more than a slave. Only the psychopath wishes to be surrounded by slaves rather than by free men and women.
A wonderful compare and contrast. In a multitude of ways you have demonstrated an objective case for the classical Aristotelian mimesis... that Art does indeed imitate life.
Thanks. Great post.
This is what is meant when magic is called the art of changing consciousness at will.
This is great! I was just ranting about this today, in fact lol. The drag queen story hour people are attacking the faith based patriotic story time people on and on infinitum. Fiction and stories and myths and legends and tales have many salutory effects, but I would argue that the most ancient and most vital one isn't moral at all: it is a pattern for surviving, and it is fascinating and pleasurable, as pretend and rough and tumble play are fascinating and pleasurable, because it is so deeply tied to survival. Walter Burkert, the historian of Greek religions mapped the episodes of the Propp Sequence, essentially the hero's journey. over the stages of food getting behavior in mammals. So I argue forget the morality, the edification, and plunge into the mind simulation of adventure for adventure's sake. Prior to film, we were all making images in our brains when we were immersed in hearing or reading stories, and our right hemispheres are creating worlds. I am right now both myself and an elderly poet in Lithuania (The Last Girl, Stephan Collishaw)in his world, in his story, which has a phenomenological reality that is wispy to myself in this room, but waiting there when I return, palpable and real. What is vital, I hypothesize, is to get everyone, but especially kids, back to co-creating worlds with authors or storytellers and off the screens (not that I"m against illustrated books or tv or films in some portion) and back to creating imagined worlds in our heads. We've been making these images since the Upper Paleolithic, at least, and we have stopped, and this may be one filament of what is driving us mad. Thanks for this great article. I sometimes think an algorithm is writing books and making film plots these days. Sorry to leap in and rant lol.
I'll just add that maybe a lot of our morality is directly related to food-getting! E.g. how to do so in teams, who gets what, etc. There's a lot of social interaction involved with that most fundamental aspect of human life. ;)
Speaking of a good dramatic new series being hailed for the main male character’s toxic masculinity which is required for him to survive and his rugged individuality also required for his survival versus putting the good of the “people” first. Have you watched the futuristic dramatic new series on HBO and Crave entirely filmed in Alberta Canada where a virus initially infecting one grain mill that spreads with alarming speed and quickly creates an apocalypse with the virus turning humans into vicious zombie like creatures? Your comment about our morality in relation to food-getting immediately brought to mind last night’s episode in relation to a lone group of a church congregation who’s “leader” had headless frozen human bodies hanging upside down in a barn like structure mimicking the method butchers use in order to feed his congregation who relied upon him for their survival and who were supposedly unaware of what they were eating. So yes a true test of one’s morality is food-getting contrasted by the young heroine being able to hunt down a deer and shoot it with a hunting rifle which was difficult but what one would hope and one would like to believe would be the one and only choice for food-getting!
If that Robin Hood from the movie is for real, then yes, I agree - we could use more Robin Hood type theatre. Now, I know the Robin Hood from the movie is not "real" (it was a show about a story), but at least the show had redeeming value about the "human experience".
Thanks for this article,
BK
Robin Hood and His Merry Men was one of my favourite stories as a child and their sole purpose for existing was to steal from the rich in order to give to the poor which I was easily able to conceive of and fully support as a child lol. All of Robin’s human flaws and failings is exactly what made him so believable and so endearing a hero as well as his self confidence and his bravery in standing strong for his principles despite the dangers he risked. His charming character and his infectious laugh and sense of humour with which he approached every situation he faced alone or with his band of merry men is exactly what made Robin Hood so believable and so lovable to a child.