What are Stories? - #9

In this book, when we speak of “stories,” we use the term in the broadest possible sense. Among “stories,” we include, for example, ideals, values, beliefs, religions, narratives, and various “isms.”

Communism, capitalism, any form of theism, progressivism, conservatism – all of these are examples of “stories.”

“Stories” define how people interpret the world – what is “good” or “bad,” “virtuous” or “wicked,” “sin” or “morality,” etc. Someone who believes strongly in the “story” of capitalism may see hard work and profit as proof of virtue. Someone raised to believe the communist “story” may see shared ownership as a sign of fairness. Whatever the “story,” it shapes what people believe, think, want and do.

By “story,” we do not necessarily mean something false. Rather, we mean a way of encoding information that represents reality. Furthermore, “stories” are also tools that give meaning to things.

When we use the word “story,” we are not implying that the “story” is false. ”Stories” are the instruments we use to encode our “map of reality.”

For example, people who believe in the “story” of capitalism believe that private property is important, and that we should avoid violence between people by having an orderly system of trade where people can freely decide to trade with each other without resorting to violence.

But why? Many ancient societies (and some modern ones) say the opposite, that something should belong to you if you are strong enough to take it – the “law of the jungle.”

---

Stories can be divided into three categories:

Category #1: Society “stories.” These “stories” are measured by how effective they are at fostering cooperation in society. They are not measured by how accurately they correspond to reality (“truthfulness”).

For example, capitalism is not a “story” that is measured by its “truthfulness,” because it does not attempt to describe reality. Instead, capitalism is a “story” that leads to organizing people in order to promote cooperation in society in a certain way. It is measured exclusively by its ability to produce cooperation, which is the “goal” of that “story.” This type of “story” can never be unfounded. Why? Because whether or not a “story” is “unfounded” is measured by “truthfulness,” and “truthfulness” does not apply to society “stories” – just as the concept of “color” does not apply to numbers (We do not ask, “What color is four?”).

Category #2: Non-society “stories.” These “stories” are measured by the degree they correspond to reality (“truthfulness”).

These “stories” are usually related to the individual and not to society as a whole.

Some of these “stories” are unfounded, such as “should stories” and “identity stories.” Unfounded “stories” are the “stories” we focus on in this book.

Category #3: Hybrid “stories.” These are “stories” that can be measured in two ways. One component of a hybrid “story” is measured by “truthfulness.” The other component of a hybrid “story” is measured by its effectiveness in organizing society.

For example, religions are hybrid “stories.” Let’s examine the component of those stories measured by the “effectiveness” in organizing society:

• If a religion says that it’s “bad” to kill and it’s “bad” to steal, it’s probably effective in organizing society because it reduces crime.

• If a religion says that you will go to heaven if you martyr yourself by killing yourself and others, it’s probably destructive to society because it creates religious terrorism that can kill many people.

• Assuming there is a significantly preponderant religion in a country, that religion will promote unity. This can be for “good” or for “bad,” because that unity might motivate people to work harder together for progress, or it might motivate them to make war on nations where people are united by a different religion.

Therefore, based on the component measured by “effectiveness” in organizing society, religion can be both a “positive” and a “negative” for society. Organizing society to reduce stealing, caring for the poor, or being kind to others are “good” things for society. Religious terrorism and religious wars are “bad” things for society.

Next, let’s examine the component of the hybrid “story” of religions measured by “truthfulness,” which is the attempt to describe ultimate Reality. This is the part of the hybrid “story” we are interested in, because this component is measured by “truthfulness,” so this “story” can be founded or unfounded, whereas the ones about organizing society cannot be.

(We are not trying to dismantle the component of hybrid “stories” measured by its “effectiveness” in organizing society because that one is not measured by its degree of “truthfulness.” Our interest is in dismantling “stories” that are measured by their degree of “truthfulness” and that do not accurately describe Reality.)

Let’s say that a religion tells us it’s “bad” to steal because if you steal you will go to hell. In this book, we are only interested in the part about the existence of “hell” and not the “incentive” part that could lead people to steal less if they believe in hell. Whether hell exists or not is measured by “truthfulness,” whereas if the belief in the existence of hell is going to reduce theft or not is measured by effectiveness.

“If you steal, you will go to hell” is a hybrid “story” (#3) because it has two components measured in two different ways:

• “If you steal, you will go to…” is the “organizing society” part (#1), measured by how well it reduces theft and, in consequence, how well it fosters cooperation.

• “...hell” (its existence or not) is the “truthfulness” part (#2), measured by if it corresponds to reality or not.

For the purpose of dismantling “stories”, our interest is whether or not hell exists, because this is something that is measured by its “truthfulness,” meaning it’s either true or not. Instead, whether or not society will function better if people believe they might go to hell if they steal or if they commit a crime is irrelevant to our book. A belief in hell is an incentive to behave in a certain way, but the incentive cannot be measured by “truthfulness” – and in this book we are only focusing on dismantling “stories” that can be measured by their “truthfulness.” For the “stories” that are measured exclusively by effectiveness, “truthfulness” does not apply, so they are not the focus of this book.

In this book, our focus is on “stories” that can be measured by their “truthfulness.” A “story” that is not “truthful” is unfounded. Once we recognize that a “story” is unfounded, we stop believing it, and it is impossible to go back to believing it: the story is dismantled.

“Stories” are just a way to encode information to produce a “map of reality,” and we use those maps to interpret reality and give meaning to our actions. For example, if you have a lot of money in the bank, how we interpret reality depends entirely on a “story.” From a capitalist perspective, the person with money in the bank is successful. From the perspective of a communist, the person with so much money in the bank is a greedy thief.

The only way to judge what happens around you is by using the “stories” you believe. Just because someone insists that their “story-standard” is “the best” does not mean that their “story-standard” is true, and does not make it an absolute standard for everyone. To take an extreme example, whether killing someone is cruel or an act of heroism depends on the “stories” you tell yourself.

In this book, we encourage readers to identify unfounded “stories” – that is, those that do not represent reality – such as the “story” of Santa Claus.

The word “unfounded” is important. In this book, “unfounded” means that a “story” measured by “truthfulness” contains internal contradictions and/or does not correspond to reality. The purpose of this book is to help people identify unfounded “stories” and not to argue for or against broader systems of belief such as communism or capitalism which, unlike non-society “stories,” are only useful to organize society but cannot be “measured” by “truthfulness.”

So in this book we concern ourselves only with non-society “stories” and the component of hybrid “stories” that can be measured by “truthfulness.” When it comes to organizing society, religion may be useful or damaging, such as by reducing crime or by inciting terrorism. In this book we focus only on “stories” that are measured by their degree of “truthfulness.”

The two main categories of “stories” are “should” stories and “identity” stories. “Should” stories involve judging perceived reality against a hypothetical alternative reality, while “identity” stories are based on who we believe we are or would like to be.

As we have discussed in this book, “stories” of “should” and “stories” of “identity” are always unfounded. The main purpose of this book is to help the reader identify which “stories” are unfounded and which ones correspond to reality. We exclude society “stories” because those “stories” are not measured by “truthfulness” but by effectiveness to foster cooperation in society.

Readers are encouraged to use introspection and logic to examine the contradictions within these “stories” and identify which ones are unfounded.

When we look closely at ourselves, we find these “stories” everywhere. We tell ourselves, “I should be more successful by now,” or “People should treat me better,” and we feel bad when reality does not match our “story.” We rarely stop to ask whether our “story” corresponds to reality.

Once we realize that a “story” is unfounded, we stop believing in it. Once we realize the contradictions in the Santa “story,” we stop believing in it, and we cannot go back to believing it even if we wanted to. The result of dismantling an unfounded “story” is a reduction in distortion which improves discernment.

Removing these unfounded “stories” sharpens discernment and reduces the suffering that arises when we judge perceived reality against the alternative reality we construct through our “stories,” allowing us to see things more clearly and with less distortion.

A “story” has two side effects.

One effect is that the “story” produces distortion, which reduces discernment, which leads to bad decisions.

The other effect is that the “story” produces an imagined reality, which is almost always better than actual reality. We then compare imagined reality to actual reality and, because imagined reality is better, we make a judgment that something is wrong. This produces suffering.