sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:43 pm
I really like this. It reminds me of Laban efforts. As a thought experiment, an aid for introspection, and a way to sort of check and model authenticity and depth in fictional characters I think it has potential.
...
I like Communion and Assault more than Heaven and Hell.
I really liked that 12 was rationalised as 'Nature'.
'Mother' and 'Father' make sense as is.
Thanks. I didn't know about Laban efforts.
sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:43 pm
From what you've said this is a lot about establishing expectations of how characters behave or how their essence is composed, which can be subverted to create drama. It's a neat concept and could be a useful tool.
Surprise is a subset of the consequences of existential tension. More on that below.
Figures in the table should probably be thought of as aspects of the objects the interact in the narrative. For example, interacting with a given object (including people) in a given way is expected to produce a given result. There are 16 figures in the table. If each type of surprise is an unexpected metamorphosis of one figure into another, then this table can account for
16P
2 = 240 types of surprise. Some metamorphoses are probably more useful than others in a narrative context.
sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:43 pm
Like Yalensky, what I was most unsure about was 15 and its relationship to 0, and to the table in general. What do you mean by separating 'Person' and 'Self'? Your explanation didn't quite clear this up for me either (though maybe some more googling will). Is the idea that 15 is some sort of archetypal potential being? Is the dichotomy 'self' and 'other'? Something else?
15 is a person like you or me. 0 is just the "I am." The "I am" is the absolute essence of being, which is conceived of differently in different traditions. The bible says Yahweh is "I am that I am." In Indian philosophy, the absolute is usually said to be satcitananda or truth-knowledge-joy. One interpretation is "joy in knowledge of the truth". That is supposedly the absolute idea that cannot be negated. In Western rationalism, Descartes famously said, "I think, therefore I am."
The argument of the Ljubljana school would go something like this: Say the essence of being is truth-knowledge-joy. But someone can negate that through Descartes' universal doubt and say that the absolute is lies-oblivion-pain. That can again be negated back to truth-knowledge-joy. Who is right? Today, the usual answer is that this whole research program lacks objectivity. But perhaps we should consider the absolute to be existential tension itself. For example, the tension between truth-knowledge-joy and lies-oblivion-pain. This tension should be interpreted as the "I think" in cogito ergo sum, and it takes the form of the hysteric's question, "What do you want from me?"
Say you are sitting in a room. The curtain next to the window moves and you feel the gaze of an unseen Other. That is a figure of the absolute essence of being, the dimension of universality. Rather than just surprise, this existential tension can be better captured if the expectation depicted in the narrative is an ambiguous one. In other words, a character doesn't expect an outcome for sure, but is hoping for good news.
The ideologically correct move would be to change Self to Tension. However, notice that the one thing remaining constant throughout this discussion is that satcitananda, "I think" and existential tension are all figures of the Self.
sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:43 pm
The quartet gaze/eye, voice/mouth, breast and stain feels ever so slightly unbalanced to me.
Feel free to suggest changes to the list. The functions I used are the objects of the four drives in Lacanian psychoanalysis: scopic, aural, oral and anal. I chose them because they are "partial objects" that stand for the desire of another. Desire emanating from another disturbs the equanimity of a mind that seeks to maintain an emotional distance from experience. The Ljubljana school interprets this disturbance as the Cartesian cogito.
sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:43 pm
'Stain' could be more physically embodied, perhaps, to more strongly match the others? 'Blush'? Or even 'Shame', given that that is something felt in one's body?
The original interpretation is that the Stain is embodied in faeces. You know, anal retentive, anal expulsive, angry pooping in public, chimps slinging shit at their enemies; that kind of thing. The hyper-elevated interpretation is a Fall from grace. I chose a path of compromise.
Ask me to expand on anything that seems confusing.