"Applying language" versus "lived experience": more on the internal Narrator/narratives

[much_ado]

[Just as an FYI, this is a developing thought process, which means the logic loops are still falling in on themselves in places while I think this one through; it shakes the roots of a fundamental relationship principle I've held dear for a dozen-odd years, and I don't yet have something to replace it, so if the logic appears to cling in places and

Comments

[m_danson]

"So while I have no solutions to go with this observation, I do have a suggestion: ...

...there just a feeling looking for a little space to simply *be*?"

Your introspection is fantastically well timed for me to benefit from it. Would you mind if I quoted this offline in a situation I'm dealing with?

[much_ado]

Help yourself!

[m_danson]

Excellent. I shall. Thanks.

[vconaway]

I love you Arnora, I truly do. But this seems to be a lot of thought put into the process of "I think too much."

As for the narrator, I'm leaning more and more towards the idea that personality involves little other than the story we tell about what happens to us.

It's like we're Two! Different! People! :)

[much_ado]

"I think too much" may be true, and you may be throwing it out here because it's not what you do, hence the potential implied judgement tying your two opening sentences together :)

But for me, "I think too much" doesn't explain enough of the process to help me understand what other options might be introduced when *thinking* (too much or not enough) clearly isn't the solution to certain issues. It doesn't address enough of the whys and hows that *I* choose to try to understand.

You are quite welcome to be content with, "Hey, look at this awesome table!". I'm more fascinated by the atomic structures and bonds that create the thing you call "table" :)

Re: It's like we're Two! Different! People! :)

[vconaway]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I was judging you. I meant to state that you are too harshly judging yourself. And, in doing so, falling into the pattern you find yourself already judging.

My second sentence was intended to defend the concept of Narrator, which is what you're being so hard on yourself about. I'll try and be clearer next time :-)

Re: It's like we're Two! Different! People! :)

[much_ado]

"too harshly judging" - I love it when other people judge for me what is largely a subjective experience :). What exactly were you presuming I'm judging, here?

I'm not averse to the concept of narrator, but like many internal, unconscious processes, it develops in a "consciousness vacuum" as a default process, which means it serves (or served) a very good purpose at one point, but which will sometimes now be applied by default in situations that render it *less* useful. I'm a writer; my Narrator is, in many ways, the very real voice of my Muse. But now that I know there is also a purpose to the silence over which it applies its language filters, sometimes I *also* want the Narrator to just shut the fuck up :)

[lapsedagnostic]

You do a lot of exposition here on the concept of narrator and process / crisis resolution (and it's relevant, don't get me wrong). My first thought, though, is the possibility that the narrator can create a worldview (through spin control and subtle emphasis) that doesn't jibe with the worldview of the partner

[much_ado]

Like most tools, "Who has the need" was never meant to be a one-size-fits-all solution, though it became that, at least around my house (first with J, then with Matthew, which would suggest that I drove that particular progression as the common denominator there). It can seem aggressive because it really does put responsibility quite squarely on a particular person, with the point of sharing responsibility so that one partner isn't doing all the work for both (all) members of the relationship. It decreases the risk of the "fixer" in any relationship trying to own everyone else's shit; if it's *my* need, it's *my* responsibility to address it, not yours to guess at what I need in the absence of sufficient input from me and my express consent to have someone else fix my shit for me

[horsetraveller]

:)

This is true.

Step 1 for me was sorting everything "I feel good" or "I feel bad". Naming feelings is a much more advanced step.

I don't think animals have an inner narrator. I think only people have language to tell about things that do not currently exist. I think animals are in the moment all the time, which is part of the challenge of horse training or dog training. That to be with them, the human needs to be present as much as possible. It is so tangibly rewarding to get caught up in the moment with my horse. I listen to the radio as I drive home from the barn and wonder why there are no songs expressing how it feels to work with your horse.

You asked, "I don't know if there's a way to turn off or turn down the narrator". Yes, there is. And you are finding it. Bon courage!

[wesnotcrusher]

This is a very good post for a number of reasons having to do with clarity etc...

What I find interesting, and what my first thought is when I use the phrase "Who has the need..." is that the solution must be something that works for the person whose need isn't being met.

I feel it's my responsibility/commitment to friends/lovers/partners to assist them in being able to recognize and state their needs. If I realize that they are unable to do so on their own, I try (as best as I can) to journey with them to that place where they can.

The hope being, of course, that I'm not so lost in my own shite that I'm unable to see my own wants and needs.

"Who has the need..." comes into play once the need has been identified. It's a collaborative process that asks the one who has the need to help in/co-create the solution.

just my $0.02