I certainly did not interpret your question(s) were meant that way. You appear to be attempting to reconcile your worldview with a set of tools that allow for, but do not require, absolute and knowable capital “t” Truth to be used for narrative creation and analysis.
2 Likes
I think @chuntley said it best.
I will add that a statement like “All meaning comes from context” is an exaggeration. It Is self referentially a false and true statement. So, Dramatica doesn’t require that. It only requires that the meaning of a Grand Argument Story be limited by the context it chooses to explore and therefore cannot explore everything there is to explore. But, what can?
That being said, this is true of every last theory in life. Humans are meaning making machines. So, people invent meaning without a complete story all the time. But, many kinds of meaning are not functional and thus have many interpretations.
So, Dramatica fits with every consistent and incomplete worldview. Dramatica’s advantageous approach gives an author the tools to give a work a clear message where an audience can enjoy the meaning based on the context of the argument through the lens of a character they can relate to.
Hey Brian, I usually refer to this as “meaning comes from context…without context there is no meaning”, which I fully stand behind. Usually the context is an unspoken given, but it is there nonetheless.
1 Like
Thanks for adding this. I’m with you. I think a little more clarity will help me, stand there more firmly in solidarity.
I only did this because this is the foundation of our whole theory. So, I don’t care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin—I promise. And, I apologize in advance for the length of this. But, better for me to do it now so I can defend it academically for us later.
Would you mind checking my work:
Since the original topic is focused on Dramatica as having an agnostic “philosophical worldview,” It may help to remind everyone that a Dramatica argument can be seen through the lens of exception as follows in this example:
People need air in order to breathe, unless they don’t because they want to die.
Note: while some may believe this implies existentialism as in existence comes before essence—This is not necessary because the argument for existentialism can be of the above form:
Existence comes before essence unless it doesn’t because we aren’t all free (or as free as Sartre would like).
If we look at these two propositions, they have a different truth value when I read them:
-
“All meaning comes from context.”
-
“Meaning comes from context…without context there is no meaning.”
For rigor, I’m splitting 2) into 2a) and 2b) and forcing them to be propositions.
- All meaning comes from context.
2a) Meaning comes from context.
AND
2b) Without context there is no meaning.
Proposition 1) is a self referentially incoherent statement because…
The statement is false if the word context has a meaning as it cannot get that meaning from itself anymore than the word meaning can define itself.
The statement is also true if the word context Is undefined. But, this implies that meaning also must be left as an undefined term—So, we were better off with the statement being false. But, it can’t be false because it is true. Uh oh. Contradiction.
On to something better…
Proposition 2a) and 2b)
Proposition 2a) doesn’t suffer from a self reference issue as the context sets the boundary condition for the meaning. This is perhaps the most elegant definition of a set I have ever seen! And, it is a true statement regarding meaning given some definition for context.
Proposition 2b) is tough to swallow because it is so hard for us to imagine a world, a story, a statement, or even a sentence with no context.
So, let’s just focus on a sentence for a moment. A sentence with no context is easy to construct… “Boo!” …this sentence has no context. I’m not even sure if “boo” is even in the dictionary.
If I said, “Boo!” while wearing a sheet, we could get some meaning from the context. Namely, that I am being a ghost.
If I said “Boo, to hypocrites!”, we can get the context of my feelings given the context in the sentence.
But, in both cases, these don’t have a truth value because they are not propositions. If we don’t have a problem with those sentences having contexts without truth values, then a statement is sure to have context as a proposition because it has a truth value (meaning). Same for stories and the world.
Okay, so far so good. Now, all we need to do is see if proposition 2b), “Without context there is no meaning.” is true. It may be tough to prove this as a metaphysical statement because we live in a world full of context. Let me try something easier first and see if I can work up to it.
Let’s change “Without context there is no meaning.“ into the following epistemological proposition “Without context, the meaning of a message cannot be determined.” and see if it holds up to our sensibilities. This holds true in cryptography as it takes a key to decode a message. Ciphers don’t decipher themselves. Ok, I buy that epistemologically because we restricted it to knowledge. But, that just leaves us with a question mark as if we divided by zero or clicked on a website link with resolution—Error. In otherwords, rather than no meaning, we are getting an error message; AKA a singularity for the metaphysical case.
But, can I get away with it metaphysically? Maybe. Let’s try and gross up the last version to “Without context, the meaning of a message is lost.” …Not bad. But, still knowledge based. And, therefore, not adequate for metaphysics.
How about, “Without context, a message is meaningless.” …Yes, this is true. But, it is a bit of a cheat because meaningless doesn’t mean to have no meaning in this strict use. It means that the meaning has no value or utility. But, it is still pretty close and a decent fallback position!
Okay, third try. What about “without context, a message has no meaning.” Sounds good. But, we’ve got a self reference problem because no meaning isn’t the same as meaningless. The word Meaningless, as I am using it, allows for both no meaning and overwhelming noise of meanings. In other words, meaninglessness happens for both extremes of no meaning and many meanings; perhaps due to the absence of context.
To show this is true, consider the statement, “Without context, there is all meaning(s)”…huh? Ok, I know this sounds weird. But, in the absence of context, we could have just one large unbounded meaning. You know, like the number 42 in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the galaxy. The sublimity of this is something left for philosophy. But, I can imagine an unbounded expanding universe where there is meaning without context because meaning and context would be the same thing. Right, but isn’t that trivial? Unfortunately, no. This is crucial. But, don’t worry when we say crucial we mean you don’t have to think about it if you use Dramatica!
It is crucial because this is Russel’s paradox and if we allow for the set of all sets, we run into a big mess.
Here is Russell’s paradox:
In a town, a barber shaves all those and only those who do not shave themselves.
But, who shaves the barber? If he shaves himself then he can’t shave anyone. But, if he doesn’t shave himself, then someone else shaved the barber. But, who shaves that guy? The barber shaves him, too…uh oh…that’s a contradiction. Thus, it is a paradox because it lies at the base of all logic. So, we can’t do naive set theory, we gotta do it with rigor.
Notice how the town’s city limits should have provided enough context for us to get meaning from Russell’s proposition. But, we can’t. Does it have no meaning or too many meanings? Well, in a word, yes. But, if this all seems too much, let’s just look at a couple statements where it is obvious that this falls apart:
The following statement is true.
The previous statement is false.
When I split it up like that, the loop is pretty clear, no?
This isn’t a problem for Dramatica, it is a problem for set theory and therefore everything from language to laundry. So, it would be best for us to avoid that problem by sticking to a rigorous definition. But, we all opt for shorthand because TLDR; …we just have to be careful that we know what we mean given the context.
So, when we use the short hand of “Without context, there is no meaning.”, what we really mean is, “Without context, a message is meaningless.” We can even get away with, “Everything (under the sun) is meaningless (or vapor), without context,” as is referenced in Gattaca if we want to sound epic.
In conclusion, while someone will probably go look up the definition of meaninglessness and post a definition that shows that it means to have no meaning without wrestling with the theory above. The way I am using it, in this context, is how it is used in technical jargon from Gattaca to Ecclesiastes as it pertains to entropy. It is absolutely amazing that Chris and Melanie contributed all of their work and without their shorthand, we wouldn’t have such an incredible tool.
So, ironically, I provide context to the meaning of their shorthand so we can stand by our theory without people thinking we have some sort of religious or other bias. There is enough disclosed bias as it is, we don’t need to add any more bias that isn’t already present in the system. So, I hope this settles things in regards to worldviews, reserved for authors and audiences, and Dramatica—it is a tool that lets us prove whatever we want as long as we don’t break our universe or our minds in the process like “naive set theory” does with Russell’s Paradox.
While all the axioms in set theory help us avoid Russell’s Paradox, “modern set theory” doesn’t allow sets to be members of themselves by regularity, the set of all sets is avoided at all costs, and the axiom of choice allows us the freedom to choose from an infinite amount of sets to make infinitely more sets without constructing the set of all sets.
At the end of the day, if you want your story’s message to be a functional argument that conveys meaning, use Dramatica, unless you don’t need it because you hope your audience will embrace ignorance, increase their bias and circulate your propaganda. 
1 Like
Brian, you’re overthinking this. What I said was not intended to be a proof. If it will make you happier, stick with “There is no meaning without context,” or, “Context creates meaning.” Cheers, Chris
I appreciate your work and feedback and I hope to continue to improve my communication.
I’m sorry if I stepped on any toes as I knew your post was not intend it to be a proof. At the same time, the improved statements both avoid paradoxical implications and clear confusion. So, I provided proof to conclusion because it only strengthens our current definitions in my opinion.
“Context creates meaning” is a true proposition as deduced from “Context creates and only creates meaning.” But, so is “meaning creates context” —I believe this is the source of confusion that led to this topic as I once had the same confusion, too.
“There is no meaning without context” is only shorthand at best as proved above by counter example.
“There is meaninglessness without context” avoids the implied paradox and is simplified. I prefer “Messages without context are meaningless” for story applications.
If anything a self-referential incoherence causes an “overthinking loop.” So, I respectfully disagree with the characterization made about my thinking. When someone is overthinking they don’t complete their thought and remain unproductive due to inefficiency or ineffectiveness. I’m sharing the knowledge produced when I completed the thought.
It would make me happier to enjoy validation, encouragement, or reward in response to rigorously and definitively answering a given topic.
Thanks again for your feedback as we greatly benefit from wrestling with it.
The above is a perfect example of the difference between Deduction and Induction:
- All meaning is context
- Meaning comes from context
Both statements communicate the relationship between meaning and context. To suggest that one approach is somehow more appropriate than the other is a perfect illustration of a Problem of Deduction.
In fact, if anyone struggles with what Dramatica means by Deduction and Induction, observe the intent behind these two statements. The first operates from a basis of Induction and potential to connect meaning and context. The second relies on Deduction and certainty to secure a connection.
When working with narrative, there is nothing inherently false, or wrong, about one mode of thinking over the other. Being able to bounce back and forth between deduction and inference is a key competency for those engaging with Dramatica. Without that balance, bias takes over and the conversation stops.
The initial article, Writing Complete Stories, was meant to trigger readers through inference. Wait, what? My belief system is tricking me into thinking life carries a specific meaning? And it’s worked perfectly for over a decade (see the above initial post).
The Dramatica User Group meetings operate from a bias of Deduction to find Storyform. Subtext, and its Premise feature, finds bias with Induction as it intuits Storyform. The problem with the former approach is endless debates over evidence without a connection to a greater meaning (Premise). The problem with the latter is confirmation bias and possible projection of self onto the outcome.
The Deductive thinker accuses Mr. Induction of lazy thinking, the Inductive thinker looks back and observes someone who doesn’t see the forest for the trees.
The great thing about the Dramatica theory of story is its ability to objectify problematic issues. Take, for instance, the issue of Analysis within a context of Learning:
There’s Deduction and Induction pitted right across from each, with Reduction and Production making an appearance. The Deductive thinker reduces possibility in search of much-needed certainty (Reduction)—but needs pages and pages of explanation to get there (Production). The Inductive thinker sees unbridled debate (“overthinking”) as a detriment to Learning, and employs Reduction to quickly get to the point and keep the conversation flowing.
Regardless of what corner you currently find yourself in, you need to be able to see the totality of the quad if you’re going to successfully participate in the Dramatica community.
6 Likes
Theory:
I couldn’t agree more with this statement about bias. But, bias can just as easily start conversations.
Unfortunately, this post is only partly true despite the praise heaped upon it.
Material equivalence and equivalence are not equivalent operations. The first statement is a false equivalence. —This can be shown using any method of analysis as shown previously. The same is true for proof by counter examples: A counter example will work to defeat any form of analysis if the analysis has a problem. I encourage anyone interested to find them using all four forms of analysis as this leads to a better understanding of the quad.
This mis-characterization strawman is a double ad hominem. I am not accusing anyone of lazy thinking and I do not hold that opinion because this is an impersonal problem for me. I merely produced proof by rigorous deduction after reduction was not accepted at face value. When something is proved with deduction, it is certain and it follows that the induction is unnecessary when the proof is correct.
It isn’t one mode of analysis (or the underlying prerequisites) that is necessarily causing a bias over another, but rather that analysis (or the underlying prerequisites) may be being avoided for a problem in another quad.
While I love a good pun as much as the next Dramatica enthusiast and we agree on this statement, it has not been applied correctly.
All forms of analysis require logic to be observed and all models have to be self-consistent. There are a number of unnecessary logical errors in this post that undermine it’s critique that I didn’t address. These logical errors lead to a bias the same way emotion leads to a bias when it is misapplied. In this case, I believe this stems from a repetition bias.
I stand by my claim as it remains undefeated.
While it may feel like my discovery weakens the foundation of our theory, it actually strengthens it. What do we have to lose by strengthening our theories?
Tools:
Should be a separate post, but it seems we are now limited by the posting gods to a single reply:
As a separate discussion, this is also false. The DUG, Dramatica and Subtext all fall prey to the same biases. In point of fact, we use both deduction and induction during the DUG meetings. We have many examples of where either can result in an analytical error. The user’s application of the tool causes as much bias if not more than the tool used. But, if we are going to talk about bias for tools, that is a whole other issue than theoretical bias.
I’m all for disclosing the bias of tools. But, let’s not jump to unnecessary conclusions. Dramatica is a far more powerful tool than how it is represented.