Monday, 12 October 2009

The halo of narrativity on the way to become a character

In philosophy of language and logic there is a original sin (shared with common sense): that contents can be identified and described. Clearly, precisely, analytically. In other words that the origin of the meaning of content could be translated digitally. You can translate meanings in digital form. Yes. But they weren’t born that way (at least, up to now. Interestingly in the future we could start to create content digitally: programming is a way to produce digitally content. But you inhabit a world of meanings that are not created that way. Up to now).
Contents are the emissions and the feedback of an informational exchange with the environment. Contents are the exchange: this is why we exchange meanings and not things. We exchange an essence, a spirit, an abstraction. A virtual tool. But this virtual and informational environment is not univocally determined. Everyone with his personal experience changes and modify the environment: contents are dynamic. The bundle of stories and their exchange produce a shared meaning, a shared content: analogically with your social environment and individually mastered. But the analogy preserves the dynamics.

Contents are per definition stories of our experience, of our lives. Our lives are stories of stories. But sometimes this narrativity doesn’t produce living narrative: it’s lifeless, it’s a verbalism. A story of a story that never saw the light: shadows of shadows.
What is the method to tell a verbalism from a story? We are sure there is one? Narrativity is populated by characters.
What is the difference? There is one? Maybe one is a good story and the other is a boring one? There is a method to tell which one is more rooted in our experience ? And it’s a good thing to be rooted?

Why you can decide one is a verbalism and one is a story? A verbalism is the insane prison of a mind that never met characters, that never become one. A mind maskless. The schizophrenic story of a divided mind: an incomplete character that never touched the light of existence. A narrativity full of puppets instead of characters. There is hope to find light? I’m not sure. Sometimes narrativity is simply lazy to appear. Sometimes lacks of talent. Still ,you can develop a character. But if a character never appeared, what happened? If you don’t learn how to speak until 20, it’s likely you’ll never do. Becoming a character could be affected in the same way?

No comments:

Post a Comment