Saturday, 25 February 2023

Pistis ponders narratives (weekending February 25th 2023)

 

‽istis ponders: narratives (weekending February 25th 2023)

This week

·        as a speech is broadcast coinciding with the anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine[i] and a resolution is passed in the United Nations[ii],

·        as a potential new leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party expresses their views[iii]

·        as a pattern for the week beds in and short-term procrastinatory ‘notes to self’ about what to do next subside a little and long-term planning narratives influence more how minutes and hours are spent

‽istis has pondered the way that narratives perhaps, possibly, maybe allow us to do something or not to do something; the stories that we tell ourselves and that we tell others - that perhaps explain or excuse or justify – that lead us to consider something as ‘wrong’ or ‘right’, ‘false’ or ‘true’.

‽istis wonders what are the narratives that represent or underpin ‽istis’ own views… and Vladimir Putin’s views… and Kate Forbes’ views…  and your views?  Where have they perhaps come from? How have they been formed and shaped, inherited or forged? Where are they possibly located – at what may be conscious, subconscious or unconscious levels? How often and how rigorously are they perhaps examined or ‘tested’ for any sort of validity, reliability[iv], veracity, authority or impact? And how could that sort of test be made anyway?[v] How is the potential link between views/ideas/thoughts/cognition, feelings/affect and behaviour/action to be understood?

If there are different internal narrative voices (see above re: procrastinatory v ‘just get on with it, stop faffing[vi] about’), then why and how does one win out over another or another or another when it comes to what one actually does or say?

This week, ‽istis has wondered particularly why:

·        'Thou shalt not kill' has apparently meant nothing to so many, for so long‽

This week, ‽istis has wondered particularly how:

·        ‘3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…’[vii] – apparently can be flouted so flagrantly yet membership continued, including a seat within the select body that ‘has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security’[viii]‽

And perhaps an interesting question is: what narrative might we develop to explain what may happen when we come across new ideas, or ‘evidence’ or experience or information, or others’ views? Might it be that our existing ideas or views and narratives are confirmed and reinforced; are challenged yet upheld; are complexified[ix]; or are even - perhaps, possibly, maybe - changed, renewed or replaced…?

So ‽istis is left wondering and pondering what would it take for ‽istis, or anyone else for that matter (including those mentioned above), to hold a different view… and then to act differently, accordingly‽  

© ‽istis                                                                                                                    

NB: further reflections and comments linked to this week’s theme and past blog entries to be found on Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t necessarily indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’: @Pistis_wonders. ‘Follows’ and respectful comment and dialogue welcome...  


at

‽istis ponders a pause (weekending July 27th 2024)

  ‽istis ponders a pause (weekending July 27 th 2024) This weekending ‽istis is pondering a pause, after 5 years of weekly posts (aside f...