Instead I think the problem is actually the exact opposite: people don’t embrace stories enough. Modernity is accurately described as a place without any coherent sort of arch-story for society and local-story for individuals and places. To use the concept by Deleuze, everything has been too “deterritorialized.” We’d all probably be happier with a solid narrative underlying our senses of self and society.

Those arch-theories already exist in the theories like Dialectical Materialism, or worse, Fascism, and with terrible consequences once they confronted reality.

The circumstantial perspective of (Liberal Western) Modernism & Postmodernism may have it's flaws, but it has offered more practical results in policymaking than not.

In fact, I think the lack of such an attempt to make a coherent story is what draws people to the over simplified ones in the first place.

Unless your position is a kind of Daoist quietism, I’m not sure what you are suggesting instead.

Maybe there aren’t any such that are risk free. So you have to evaluate both the potential upsides and downsides to see if it’s a net positive and worthwhile risk to take.

> We might never fully escape the narratives that surround us, but we can learn to change the perspectives behind them. And so, we are never bound by stories, only by our ability to understand how our beliefs and values shape the way we perceive and engage with the world. We don’t need better narratives; we need to expand and refine our perspectives.

Sure. You would also be much happier taking drugs all day.

Maybe we just need to accept that our narrative is more James Joyce and Marcel Proust than it is Michael Crichton.

The answer that is really needed IMO is a way of squaring contemporary scientific knowledge with a story that still centers humanity in the universe and offers a better worldview than "you're a primate lost in space."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes#Satires

Copernicus and Darwin didn’t change much things on that side.

I wholly disagree with your later point though. Knowing that we are only primate lost in space, that civilizations and even our whole species could totally disappear tomorrow without any deity to help, save, rescue, blame or give congrats is actually a far more appealing scenario in term of being challenged to excel. Compare that with "you are full first class member of that special species that the most perfect imaginable being ever created and whatever you do you’ll be granted salvation and experiment an eternal existence in paradise".

That's really not an accurate description of the role religion has played in human psychology, and is only accurate for a very specific subset of beliefs in a specific time and place.

My argument was more that humans thought of themselves as inhabiting a world designed for them, but then learned that this was (likely) not true, and that for many people this is a pessimistic, nihilistic conclusion.

- I'm talking primarily about the Western world and its legacy of Christianity. The situation is different in India, China, etc.

- Even then, in practice, most successful religions tend to have a human-like personal figure in an important place, even if the religion itself is technically non-personal.

The fact of being a self-aware meta-cognitive primate lost in space isn't enough of a miracle to justify feeling centered in the universe?

A western professor once went to a zen master in order to study zen. The master welcomed him, and offered him a cup of tea. When tea was ready, he began to pour the liquid into the professor's cup. When the liquid reached the top of the cup, the master continued filling it, making the tea go all over the floor. The professor asked what he was doing, and the master answered: "This cup couldn't hold more tea because it was already full. If you don't first empty your mind from your prejudices, how can I teach you anything?"

It’s always confusing to read an article where the way your mind works is seen as an error. It must work somehow. You cannot operate without simple algorithms or more complex “narratives”.

If you ever moved you know the feeling of a new apartment when you have no automatic habits yet. You have to decide everything - how to hold your keys, where is a light switch, which side is too sunny and requires blinds, does elevator work or is it just slow. But then you adapt cause your mind automates the hell out of it. Left hand, further on the right, the one with the table, it’s not that slow (it is).

If you ever learned something new, you know the feeling and you know how much you want an overview before digging deep. To make sense of it, to structure it anyhow, just that much. Otherwise it stays untackable and overwhelming.

A waiter in the article is a template/overview that you start with. It’s only a problem if you’re “a little autistic” and stick to it despite receiving negative feedback. But then narratives aren’t your primary problem.

If your every thought and action started afresh, you’d be incapable. Otoh detecting that an algorithm is messing with your life is a useful skill. I think that the article could drop the (probably click/read-bait) idea of “narrative bad” and instead simply point out that this phenomenon exists and can be analyzed for overuse.

Think of life as one long trial. The narrative you weave is not for your benefit, really. It's for the Tribe: the judges and the jurys. So trying to weave an esoteric or arcane narrative won't work, and you know it wont, if you know others won't buy it or understand it. You need a narrative that others, or at least a subset of others that represents authority, would be able to buy. You don't really have a choice in it. It's just how we are built. And why would you want to go against it really.

all very confusing

Whether their latest choice has been probably good or probably bad, keeping those choices as something they did rather than something they are keeps the future open for them.

"The whole process of nature is an integrated process of immense complexity, and it’s really impossible to tell whether anything that happens in it is good or bad - because you never know what will be the consequence of the misfortune; or, you never know what will be the consequences of good fortune." ~ Alan Watts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWd6fNVZ20o

Till then I used to do things that fit the narrative. A voice in head that criticises when it deviates.

Now I am free to do more things that don't fit the narrative.

It's brings much more freedom. But with narrative going away you also need to find a good replacement for the existential questions which will soon starts knocking down the door.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rtvwu75K3I

The End of the Movie Starring Josh Groban Featuring rachel bloom

So this is the end of the movie Whoa whoa whoa But real life isn’t a movie No no no.

You want things to be wrapped up neatly The way that stories do.

You’re looking for answers But answers aren’t looking for you.

Because life is a gradual series of revelations That occur over a period of time It’s not some carefully crafted story It’s a mess and we’re all gonna die.

If you saw a movie that was like real life You’d be like “what the hell was that movie about?” It was really all over the place Life doesn’t make narrative sense.

Nuhuh

We tell ourselves that we’re in a movie. Whoa whoa whoa Each one of us thinks we got the starring role. Role role role.

But the truth is sometimes you’re the lead And sometimes you’re an extra Just walking by in the background Like me, Josh Groban!

Because life is a gradual series of revelations That occur over a period of time Some things might happen that seem connected But there’s not always a reason or rhyme

People aren’t characters They’re complicated And their choices don’t always make sense