TED Conversations

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

The stories we tell and retell about who we are influence who we are and the experiences we experience as well as the stories we tell.

What we experience (including who we think we are) stems from a combination of factors (intrinsic, extrinsic and 'atrinsic') that when properly combined, mixed and processed produce enriching personas, singular individuals as well as families, communities, organizations, states, beliefs and other stuff (even misguided souls and histories). The stories created by individuals also are stories that create the individuals; in symbiotic and 'asymbiotic' (parasitic or other) relationships. The thing is how to change who one thinks to be and who one be, through actually changing the stories told within individuals, within the groups of individuals especially when such a change involves transcending and going beyond, the exiting notions boundaries. How does an outsider become an insider while also remaining an outsider? How does the rookie change the directives of the sergeants' and generals' got while following their orders? How does a single voice of the righteous individual guide and direct the workings of the whole group towards righteousness? How does one think again and conceive anew story rather than recreating the same story again and again? How does one choose to do what's right without knowing what's right? These are the ideas to wonder and ponder in this conversation. So now what will you and others contribute?

-----
'atrinsic': the idea of belonging steaming from -Affiliations- that 'transcend' dualistic notions (like internal vs external, natural vs nurtured, fixed vs growth, what is vs what isn't, relative vs absolute, means or ends, individual vs group and additional other notions ). This 'atrinsic' idea moves beyond bounded limited-limitless conceptions to an encompassing complete state of what be possible and real. 'Within' and 'without' become 'with' a singular affiliation to the 'aternal' (internal, external eternal- temporal).

Share:
  • Nov 4 2013: okay makes sense to me.
    • Nov 4 2013: Thank you. I heard the talk you linked. Several notions struck me from the presentation and now I wonder what to say next. I do see how some individuals see stories as a contradiction looking for harmony while seeking the ultimate acceptance of their story. The things is transcending and going beyond, the exiting notions boundaries involves transcending 'dualistic contradictions and oppositions' and embracing the the singular divine story that be the ultimate reality in which what be includes what is what isn't and other stuff. The story of the relationship of one and the reality. I like to say that to be or not to be isn't the question, the question be how to be.

      In the context of stories... that translate to how to tell each story (its not about telling it or not telling it its about how to tell it) and how that changes the experiences and constitutes individuals... The thing still is how to change who one thinks to be and who one be, through actually changing the stories told within individuals, within the groups of individuals especially when a change involves transcending and going beyond, the exiting stories conceived boundaries. Put bluntly how to think the unthinkable that happens to be divine, true, lovely, beautiful, beneficial etc... within the infinite?
      • thumb
        Nov 4 2013: I cannot comment on the connection to the divine, but what you describe sounds quite like the premise in cognitive behavior therapy, a part of mental health practice that works with people to think of situations differently than they have.
        • Nov 4 2013: From my perspective it would be a bit more like observing the situation as is, as can be and freely choosing what to cultivate/build. Uh oh I just realized you said 'have' rather than 'are' in " to think of situations differently than they have"... still my comment stands because I consider it clarifies a bit more the position.
  • Dec 2 2013: Conversation allotted time will expire shortly and though it would be nice for any last comments to be made and maybe jointly forming some shared conclusions.

    I find curious the paradoxical nature of certain stories... in that when there is agreement there seem little else follows where as when there is disagreement there seems to follow all sort of actions. I wonder about fostering conversational flow along the lines of agreement and joint exploration.
  • Nov 7 2013: Are you asking about the folk stories told to each generation by each culture?
    • Nov 7 2013: My intention centered on the stories each tells and uses on a moment by moment daily basis. folk stories told to each other do contain some of the stories that each uses thus it could be included in this interchange though the idea was to wonder and ponder about the stories and models we use to live by...why we choose them and the possible alternatives.

      For example the idea of 'competing' with 'the competition' rather than 'collaborating' with 'others working in one's own field'... alternate stories told to describe 'a particular situation' (incidentally the story used may define the situation, redefine it, distort it, reflect it among other possibilities ).

      It seems to me that how we define something tends to direct and guide how we approach it... the same statement may be perceived and responded differently by us depending on who, how, when, why it happens... thing is why do we associate certain stories to the same statement... what we can do to change that in ourselves and in others. To some a complement is an insult and an insult is a complement, heck to some stating the truth of the matter is offensive rather than a factual statement of the facts. I believe some stories guide us to certain actions (sometimes for the story sake rather than our sake)!
  • Nov 5 2013: Memory is creation, not recollection. Because we are always recalling things as the people we are now, not who we were at any moment in the past, then our memories are always changing as we do. Sometimes this is a subtle and seemingly insignificant shift, at other times it is profound. Our stories and our memories are the same in your proposition. As we change (an inevitable effect of time and growth), we change our stories; and the changes to our stories change us. This is the natural and inevitable and continuous process of our lives. Groups of various sizes do have collective stories to a degree, but within the collective stories each individual lives his or her own stories as well. But individually or collectively we cannot ever live exactly the same story twice.
    Sometimes we change the stories so that we can resolve problems the stories create, problems of grief, guilt, regret, fear, anger and so forth. Sometimes we change them to enhance the positive; we make happy moments happier, funny events funnier, grand and exciting moments grander and more exciting.
    But you seem to be asking about how this process can become more deliberate, first to make the kind of changes we would like to see in ourselves and then to make changes in others and in the world. This is a question about power. Some stories have more power than others, some for the individual, some for the group. It is in crafting these stories that we seek to give them power. For the group the stories are crafted through its collective story-telling, which is the nature of culture.
    Questions of righteousness, however, are not about the stories themselves, but about the judgments we make as we create them. Every story has the potential to point us in many directions. What is the right except one or more of those directions? Each of us must decide what is the moral of our stories. Then the group develops from those stories complex collective moral judgments, which become new stories.
    • Nov 5 2013: Indeed in the present experience memories and stories are created or recreated anew at every recall; opening the door to sublet and profound shifts or more of the same. Liked the idea you expressed of 'we cannot ever live exactly the same story twice'. That statement reminded me of the idea that one can't bathe in the same river twice. I wonder if one can change without changing their stories. I realize that we can change the stories and the stories can change us, that there exists multidirectional interactions in individual and collective stories, though I wonder if there are certain stories that remain unchanged thought actors and forms in them change.

      Yes I been asking how to guide and direct the process deliberately as a means to change ourselves and others for the betterment of individuals, groups and stories. I would like to find/create an appealing powerful story that facilitates individual and group transformations helping each to do what ought to be done according to what ought to be done regardless of knowing it or not ( while also getting and helping others get abundantly enriched).

      I concur with your assessment : Questions of righteousness, are not about the stories themselves
      in fact Questions of righteousness, are not about the stories we tell in our judgments
      Questions of righteousness, are about righteousness... deciding what is the moral of our stories is a bit different than understanding what is moral and what is moral within our stories. I ponder, given that we constantly create in the moment each memory and story why is it we keep certain alive and giving ourselves over to certain ideas rather than cultivate the better ways.