Will religion ever disappear?

Will religion ever disappear? (BBC)

Auntie Beeb says "no".

God I hope so*.

* For a certain definition of "religion"

I'd love to see fundamentalist religions die out. There seems to be something about them that demands that their followers turn off their brains and blindly follow their doctrine no matter how illogical or hateful.

>2 binders: For a certain definition of "religion"

That's the rub, of course. The lack of a clear, generally agreed definition makes the question unanswerable.

"Will Christianity ever disappear?" Of course.

I disagree that Christianity will ever disappear for the reasons I stated above. The most fundamentalist Christian churches like the Catholics and the Mormons have believers that stubbornly refuse to accept that the Bible is not the literal word of God. The more they are pushed on this point, the more devout they become - accepting with it the homophobia, racism and misogyny that comes with it. The numbers of people who are devout Christians will dwindle but there will always be a segment of society that are "believers".

>5 Canadian_Down_Under:

Even the most conservative Catholics don't qualify as "fundamentalist" in my book. (The term was coined by and for Protestants.) Also, when Christianity is in thrall to right-wing social agendas, that's when it has the worst prognosis -- see what happened to the churches in Germany during and after the Nazi regime.

Regardless of the origin of the word "fundamentalist", today it is accepted as people (and churches) that believe in the literal word of the Bible. Hence you are more likely to find people in the Catholic or Mormon churches using passages from the Bible to justify their homophobia and misogyny.

>7 Canadian_Down_Under: You're rather out on a limb in classing the Catholic Church as believing in "the literal word of the Bible". Like most mainstream global churches the Catholic Church accepts biblical exegesis and bases its teaching on scripture, tradition and reason. Bible literalism is a feature of some modern protestant churches. That's not to say that biblical passages are not one of the foundations of Catholic teaching, but not in a literalist sense.

You may be right about the Catholics in viewing the Bible as literal or not. What I see is that the Catholic church has historically been behind the times when it comes to civil rights. They supported slavery and the Nazis. They do not allow women priests and it is only the current pope who is beginning a dialogue on gay rights.

Perhaps I have been using the word fundamentalist incorrectly. I have been using it as if it was synonymous with backwards which is, in fact, what I meant.

I like this video from Intelligence Squared. Stephen Fry is addressing a question about the RCC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGFS_hkHfCc

I don't think religion will disappear. But knowledge of religion and the notion that one ought to understand something one disagrees with already has.

>9 Canadian_Down_Under: Of course I love Stephen Fry as a comedian, but I'm not sure that particular soundbite has much depth to it.

Not sure whether the Catholic Church was "behind the times" on slavery, in that its changing attitude to slavery was parallel to other people's, and was certainly ahead of many. The Catholic Church is now playing a leading role against modern slavery and people trafficking - cf for example Churches key to combating slavery across the world, a recent article on BBC. On the Nazis, I think the allegation is that the Catholic Church didn't do enough to stand up against Nazism in some cases rather than that they "supported" it.

On civil rights generally, the Catholic Church has a patchy record. As far as women and homosexuality are concerned, clearly there are issues. but Catholic Social Thought in general is pretty progressive. In many situations the Catholic Church is seen as being in the forefront of human rights, eg when Marcos was overthrown in the Philippines, or the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, or the rights of Palestinians, and in many developing countries in Africa. In Latin America elements of the Catholic Church were on both sides, but it is undeniable that some elements were in the forefront of human rights - liberation theology, nuns and priests who were murdered by the right-wing regimes, Oscar Romero, Helder Camara, etc.

So I don't deny your assertion that there have been and still are problems, but I think it's more complex and nuanced.

>11 John5918: Not sure whether the Catholic Church was "behind the times" on slavery, in that its changing attitude to slavery was parallel to other people's, and was certainly ahead of many

Ultimately, the "official" stance of any church, of any organization, is a composite of the opinions and views of its members. The Catholic Church is composed of Catholic people, who like any group of people have a range of views and guiding principles and interpretations of those principles. I don't think there is really such a thing as a monolithic organization, as long as there are two or more people in it.

>12 southernbooklady: I agree entirely, although I do think it is significant that there was a point when the institution changed its official stance to opposition to slavery.

>13 John5918: I do think it is significant that there was a point when the institution changed its official stance to opposition to slavery.

I suppose I think what is significant about such a moment is that it represents a sea-change in the attitudes of its members, rather than the other way around. I think the drive to change "significantly" is more of a bottom-up instead of top-down process.

Of course it won't. The question is foolish. And so is the BBC piece inasmuch as it sets out atheism and religion as a mutually exclusive binary system.

On the other hand, any given Religion X will disappear at some point, as will any given Language Y. And in many cases the two processes are closely connected, I suspect.

>11 John5918:

The Catholic Church was undoubtedly a follower, not a leader, on the slavery question. The history is very clear on that.

There are complexities, given say the Church was always against the slave trade more or less, but it never really demanded existing slaves be freed until most of them already were. There are good reasons for that, which can be reasonably and strongly defended, but it can't be said moral innovation is a calling card of the Catholic Church post the immediate and early Gospel era.

>12 southernbooklady:

I am not sure that is true. The Catholic Church very much has capital "O" official teaching, some of which perhaps a majority of its members don't accept. But it remains the official teaching, written in the book, and provided as the official answer when questions are asked.

>16 hf22:

Any large organization will contain individual viewpoints that are at variance (sometimes a wide variance) of the official policies and statements; religious organizations are not exempt. So, I agree that it would be better to judge the Catholic Church on its stated, official teachings and actions, rather than the statements and actions of individuals who are Catholic.

>16 hf22: But it remains the official teaching, written in the book, and provided as the official answer when questions are asked.

But not absolutely unchanging. Even the Catholic Church will amend doctrine to conform to new understanding, given enough time.

I agree that it would be better to judge the Catholic Church on its stated, official teachings and actions, rather than the statements and actions of individuals who are Catholic.

On the other hand, it is better to judge individual Catholics on their own opinions and actions rather than on the official teachings of the Catholic Church.

>18 southernbooklady:

But not absolutely unchanging. Even the Catholic Church will amend doctrine to conform to new understanding, given enough time.

Depends on the question and the nature of the change being proposed (i.e. if the new understanding is able to be integrated into the system of thought, or if it is fundamentally inconsistent with it). But most of the official teachings from which there is much dissent will outlast the dissent.

On the other hand, it is better to judge individual Catholics on their own opinions and actions rather than on the official teachings of the Catholic Church.

But no one is asking you to judge individuals based on the official teachings of the Catholic Church - You are confusing two separate matters.

One judges the Catholic Church, as a corporate body, on its official teachings. One judges individual members, as individuals, based on their own opinions and actions. These two judgements may or may not have much to do with each other, depending on the particular circumstances.

Sadly, only when mankind disappears.

>20 Studedoo: "Sadly"

Oddly, I'm told it's offensive when someone declares the atheistic worldview to be "sad."

>21 nathanielcampbell: Oddly, I'm told it's offensive when someone declares the atheistic worldview to be "sad."

I imagine it depends on who you associate with. I don't personally claim any offence when theists call atheists names. I would, however, be happy if there was no religion, therefore I am sad that there is religion.

If you find that offensive, too bad, I guess.

>21 nathanielcampbell: the atheistic worldview

I perceive as much variety of worldviews among atheists as I do, say, among Double-dip Baptists, Saivite Hindus, and União do Vegetal. The oversimplification is more cause for dismay than any dubious characterization as "sad."

>19 hf22: One judges the Catholic Church, as a corporate body, on its official teachings.

That is not how I judge corporate bodies. Philosophies, yes, but not actual organizations. In fact, it's a rather minor part of how I judge corporate bodies. Walmart can claim as much as it wants to love US jobs, but what difference does that make when its actions say different?

>19 hf22: One judges the Catholic Church, as a corporate body, on its official teachings. One judges individual members, as individuals, based on their own opinions and actions.

I object to a monolithic assessment of either. A Church may be in the business of maintaining a collection of "official teachings" but it is made up of people, and people are all different. And a congregation of people may be a group of wildly disparate personalities, but they are brought together by some commonalities of belief or inclination. Assigning the term "fundamentalist" to either obscures more than it illuminates.

>21 nathanielcampbell: Oddly, I'm told it's offensive when someone declares the atheistic worldview to be "sad."

People tend to get irritated over broad-spectrum value judgments. But I'm not sure I would use the word "offensive" either -- I know my world view is considered both "sad" and "untenable" by some religiously-inclined people, but since I don't find it to be so, I don't take offense, I just think their opinions are wrong. :-)

>24 prosfilaes:

Official teachings and actions then.

>25 southernbooklady:

Error bars don't prevent judgements from being able to be made.

>1 John5918: No, I don't think so. Humans are storytelling animals. At the risk of redundancy, see The Storytelling Animal by Jonathan Gottschall. Humans are also social animals who even seek society with ancestors and other people past and long past. The story of any religion (the basic story, not necessarily all the frills and adornments) can and does satisfy these needs. The thing about a religion is that it lets each of us weave its story into our own story, or perhaps it's the other way around. The good religions also grow and change as the stories of individuals and communities require growth and change. This is happening in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, many others.

Only if science can find an answer (that people will accept) to the questions, "Why are we here? For that matter, why am I here? And what happens to us, and to me, when we go?"

>27 jburlinson: Thanks. Nice way of putting it.

>27 jburlinson:

I find the generalization "humans are storytellers" about as meaningful as "humans are tool users". The word story means different things to different people. To me a story is a lie, a fiction or a creative presentation of events edited for its value as entertainment. So when you associate storytelling with religion, for me those meanings are brought to mind, which I don't think was your intention, was it?

>1 John5918:

Will religion ever disappear?

=======
This question will make more sense after the (secular) newspapers stop printing horoscopes.

"A 2005 Gallup poll and a 2009 survey by the Pew Research Center reported that 25% of U.S. adults believe in astrology. According to data released in the National Science Foundation's 2014 Science and Engineering Indicators study, "Fewer Americans rejected astrology in 2012 than in recent years." The NSF study noted that in 2012, "slightly more than half of Americans said that astrology was 'not at all scientific,' whereas nearly two-thirds gave this response in 2010. The comparable percentage has not been this low since 1983." wiki

Taking the short view, as long as there are humans there will be some people that are mental in some way. Some of these people will always suffer religious mania.

Religion amongst humans will shrink or change in drastic ways in the short term, no doubt, but it will not just go away entirely - But - perhaps if humans evolve into another species it will. Who knows?

Taking the long view, of course religion will die out. At some point the human race will go extinct and thus everything they created or made up will go "poof" also. lol.

Of course if the multi-universe theory is correct then anything and everything (including every unique human being) that exists will exist infinitely, that is to say, will (in effect) be reproduced infinitely. So there is that.

Whenever someone brings up the multiverse in connection with religion, it always makes me ponder. If there are an infinite number of universes then there is surely at least one (more likely an infinite number of) universes where there has evolved a super-intelligent race of beings capable of creating their own personal universe which they can control and observe at any time (in effect being omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience). One (more likely an infinite number of) these beings are benevolent, caring and loving to the inhabitants of their personal universe, intervening from time to time to affect the course of its history.

Who can say we don't live in one of those universes?

>30 rrp: Is it your intention to declare that if most people use a word one way (story simply as narrative, whether true or invented), but you use it in a different way (story is always invented, and falsely so), then most people must abandon their use of the word because you might misunderstand them?

>34 nathanielcampbell:

No. It's not that I might misunderstand them when they use the word story, it's that that I do misunderstand them. I don't understand 'story' talk. You substitute narrative for story, which doesn't add much. We agree that stories or narratives can be fiction (or in another word, made-up) or non-fiction (or in another word, history). What is not clear is which is meant in this context. Assuming that fiction is not the intent, I think perhaps more meaning is intended than history, but it what ever that meaning is, it eludes me.

>30 rrp: The word story means different things to different people. To me a story is a lie, a fiction or a creative presentation of events edited for its value as entertainment.

You seem to be adding a value judgment to the word "story" that doesn't have to be there. The dictionary definition is just: "an account of incidents or events". As an account, no matter how veracious one might try to be, it will include some things and not other things. Reality is just too multifarious to be accommodated with complete accuracy by any single account.

Generally, people like to make sense, and stories enable people to make sense out of a reality that is literally "too much" for them.

>30 rrp:

I find the generalization "humans are storytellers" about as meaningful as "humans are tool users".

As I gaze about me — vans, pans, pails, scales, forks, corks, jugs, and rugs — I am impressed by how brief my future would be without tools, now at the dark of year, here at a high latitude. As you tap away at your keyboard or touch screen, do you have something against tools, rrp? And I think you need to do a great deal more perceptive thinking about the role of story in the way humans navigate the world.

Edited for fun

>30 rrp: To me a story is a lie, a fiction or a creative presentation of events edited for its value as entertainment.

I think you're telling a story.

>36 jburlinson: Reality is just too multifarious to be accommodated with complete accuracy by any single account.

History is what happened. There are can be many different accounts of what happened from different perspectives (no two people can occupy the same space at the same time.) And as memories a limited and can err, no one may have a completely accurate account of any event. But one would hope that any two histories we both accept as accurate would agree on some basic facts. If an account doesn't get the basic facts rights, that's a bad thing, surely? We all evaluate accounts for veracity. We all apply value judgements to stories.

Generally, people like to make sense, and stories enable people to make sense out of a reality that is literally "too much" for them.

This smells like appreciating being deluded. I'll choose the account that fits with my prejudices, the account that make me feel better rather than face the truth.

>37 librorumamans:

I have nothing against tools. I do however have something against cliches like "humans are storytellers" and "humans are tool users".

I think you need to do a great deal more perceptive thinking about the role of story in the way humans navigate the world.

There you may be right, unless, of course, the emperor has no clothes and all this "story" talk is just nonsense. What exactly does the word "story" mean in the sentence I quoted above?

>38 southernbooklady: I think you're telling a story.

I think we are having a discussion which is surely distinct from a story? What am I missing?

>40 rrp: I do however have something against cliches like "humans are storytellers" and "humans are tool users".

Perhaps it has something to do with your objection to objective reality. "Humans are tool users" is objective fact; every human uses tools, and modern humans use an insane variety of them.

>40 rrp: Interesting that you illustrate your point about story with the allusion "the emperor has no clothes".

E. M. Forster wrote that "The king died. Then the queen died." is not a story; but "The king died, and the queen died of grief" is a story. The second finds an explanatory connection between the events; it attempts to make sense of the second event. And that's what we do: attempt to make sense of events by coming up with explanatory connections. The Big Bang is a story; an increasingly well-attested and useful one, but a story all the same.

And to my mind, "humans are storytellers" is a cliché only as much as it is a cliché to write that humans are bipeds.

So we have another meaning of "story", as "explanation". That's the problem with the word, it's such a fuzzy concept it doesn't to any useful work.

Stories of all kinds get captured in books. A book is "an account of incidents or events". If I rewrite part of >27 jburlinson: substituting "book" for "story" we get

The book of any religion (the basic book, not necessarily all the frills and adornments) can and does satisfy these needs. The thing about a religion is that it lets each of us weave its book into our own book, or perhaps it's the other way around. The good religions also grow and change as the books of individuals and communities require growth and change.

... which looses some meaning. So what's the difference between a story and a book?

If I tell you I read a really good book yesterday; I read a really good story yesterday, it conveys little information. The kind of book, the kind of story is what conveys information. So what kind of story is >27 jburlinson: talking about?

>44 rrp: You might think some, too, about metonymy.

You known I always find it mildly irritating when some journalist says "The White House said ..." when they mean "The Office of the President issued a statement". Houses don't talk. People don't have stories. People tell stories. People have histories.

>46 rrp: You known I always find it mildly irritating when some journalist says "The White House said ..." when they mean "The Office of the President issued a statement". Houses don't talk.

Neither do offices.

>1 John5918:

=====

In 300 years or less some sort of deification of Mao will be a major factor in Chinese history.

>47 prosfilaes: Neither do offices what?

I wonder if the powers that be at Librarything would consider having members prove they score average or above on an academically-recognized I.Q. test of some type before being allowed to post on the LT forum?

I think it would save a LOT of wasted energy TRYING to explain simple logic to the below-average crowd - something that is MANY times OBVIOUSLY an impossible and forever frustrating task.

Would it be elitist? I am just asking about a restriction of usage to the top half of I.Q. scores. I don't see how that would be elitist.

And, yes, I am being serious.

Why not go further and restrict posting only to those with a PhD from one of the top Universities in the world?

>49 rrp: Why do you do this? I find it hard to believe you really are so stupid as to fail to understand simple English statements like "Houses don't talk." "Neither do offices." It leads me to believe you're actually trying to troll here.

> 52

Either that or the other obvious explanation.

Logically, it could be both, but apparently must be at least one.

>52 prosfilaes:

Oh. OK. Offices don't talk. But what's that got to do with anything? I said the Office issued a statement which Offices do, as it is one of their functions. The issue, I think you will find, is one of precision. Which is my point with "story". It lacks precision.

>54 rrp: I said the Office issued a statement which Offices do

No, they don't. Offices don't do anything; people who work in that administrative division do, and "issuing a statement" is inherently obfuscatory of what actually happens, which may involve someone speaking to a press conference or sending an email or posting to a webpage. In any case, you aren't being any more precise; you're merely being more bureaucratic. The two sentences convey the same meaning, so they are equally precise.

Which is my point with "story".

I'm always impressed by the importance of careful precise language when brought to me in sentence fragments.

>44 rrp: So what kind of story is >27 jburlinson: jburlinson: talking about?

I'm talking about the story that each person constructs slowly and painstakingly and ultimately is given the title of "My Self". This, IMO, is the only self there is: a constructed one that has been patchworked together in order to present oneself to oneself with oneself as the hero, or at least the protagonist.

Here's an interesting article on memory, which explains that, "the emerging story fits in with the needs of the self, which often involves portraying the ego in the best possible light." The article, written by psychologist Charles Fernyhough, concludes: "When I think back to my first attempt at solo swimming, it doesn't bother me that I have probably got some of the details wrong. It might be a fiction, but it's my fiction, and I treasure it. Memory is like that. It makes storytellers of us all."

The story of the self

Followup reading by Fernyhough: Pieces of Light: How the New Science of Memory Illuminates the Stories We Tell About Our Pasts

>56 jburlinson:

Thanks for the interesting links. I just wonder why it is necessary to associate the self with a story. The self is an fascinating and perplexing concept, one I think we agree we will never be able to fully understand (because the thing that is trying to understand the self is itself which is limited by its own abilities. The association of self with a story is an analogy which to me seems rather weak, or at least doesn't work for me. The self is an aspect of the mind and the mind is perhaps the fundamental aspect of reality. The existence of mind is a philosophical problem as much as a psychological problem, and is also one of those mysteries we may never solve.

Regarding 'humans are story tellers', I agree with this --- almost. It's not that most humans are good story tellers, but rather that humans value stories so much, that good story tellers realize this and are very well compensated.

The story is not constrained to a book or a movie. Most people work most of the day for wages, then work at home to take care of the family, leaving very little time for relaxation (this is my point of view from Oregon, USA). So what do they do with that very little, and thus precious free time? I observe most of my friends indulging in stories.

While some read, many more watch television and movies --- the explosion of video on demand has enabled this as a relatively cheap option. It could be Game of Thrones or Downton Abbey or Big Bang Theory or hollywood movies --- but they relax with the story.

They also engage in hours and hours each week with online video games -- for they stories and interaction with friends as they team up to be part of the story. I also see sports enthusiasts as participating in a story. They know the importance of the games they watch, how they fit into the larger picture in relation to other teams and playoffs. They know the characters of the athletes, the outside the game drama, whether it is injuries, slumps, talks of wanting to move to another team, or what not. It is a story.

At this point, it may be easier to ask what we do in our precious free time that is not based on stories? I put any sort of creative tasks in there --- whether it be handicrafts such as crochet, or woodworking, or cooking (for pleasure, not basic needs). Gardening and exercise are also not storytelling.

Alas, 'surfing the net' rivals storytelling as to how one spends their time. This includes reading this post. I'm not sure that is for the best, and I would likely be better off as a person if I always picked up a book to read for 15 minutes instead.

How do you spend your truly free time? What portion is related to indulging in a story?

sdawson

>58 sdawson: it may be easier to ask what we do in our precious free time that is not based on stories? I put any sort of creative tasks in there --- whether it be handicrafts such as crochet, or woodworking, or cooking (for pleasure, not basic needs). Gardening and exercise are also not storytelling.

If a story is "a recounting of a sequence of events" then all of the above most certainly can be a kind of storytelling. They just don't use words to do the telling.

>59 southernbooklady:

How on earth is gardening "a recounting of a sequence of events"? I don't see why is you think that link needs to me made.

>58 sdawson: Most people work most of the day for wages, then work at home to take care of the family, leaving very little time for relaxation

For anyone included in "most people", wouldn't this constitute some of the foundational elements of their story: hard-working, probably competent if not exemplary in their chosen field, family loving, responsible, upright, law-abiding, hard-pressed by circumstances, deserving of some level of comfort and happiness, etc.?

What portion is related to indulging in a story?

All of it. The fun part is trying to fit in the discordant elements so that the seams don't show.

>60 rrp: How on earth is gardening "a recounting of a sequence of events"?

Interesting choice of words, since gardening is a sequence of events "on earth". The recounting part takes place in the gardener's head as she makes decisions and takes actions regarding what lives or dies.

>60 rrp: How on earth is gardening "a recounting of a sequence of events"?

There's a reason a geologist can look at a rock formation and say, with perfect accuracy, that it "tells a story." The kind of rock, the place it appears in the layers, the rocks around it, the amount of weathering and the way it has been carved by the elements...all these things speak to the sequence of events that made that formation what the geologist sees today.

The same thing applies to gardens, to farms, to woods, to land. These are all things that demonstrate an ongoing sequence of events, and if you "speak the language" -- if you can read the signs -- then it all tells a story.

The Universe Story by Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme

>63 southernbooklady: And any activity or study that includes logos in its etymology almost certainly involves story-making in some way.

>62 jburlinson:,>63 southernbooklady:

I have a garden. I make decisions, in a sequence of events, regarding what lives and what dies (mostly what dies). I call that activity "gardening". I then relax by reading a story in a novel. Nothing in my garden, apart from me, can either speak or write, so it tells no stories.

My garden also has a history. You would have a hard time working out what it's history was without me telling you. You might look up the history of the land in books at the local library. Those books tell the history, not the garden or the land.

What is it with all this "story" talk? What does it add to what we know? It seems completely superfluous too me.

>64 John5918:

Mmmm. I looked that one up. From the Publishers Weekly review -- "The admixture of physics and anthropology soon decays into an artificial comprehension akin to the most irresponsible New Age reasoning."

I think I'll give it a miss. Thanks for the pointer though.

>66 rrp: What is it with all this "story" talk?

This story talk started as a negative response to the OP's question "Will religion ever disappear?" The answer is no because people will not stop telling stories in order to help them make sense of their experiences. Whether or not a story diverges from what you've been calling history doesn't matter at all.

Gandhi's last words were "Rama, Rahim". In 1931, he told some Christian missionaries that whereas the name "God" had no particular appeal for him, "when I think of Him as Rama, He thrills me". Not long before his assassination, he said: "Even if I am killed, I will not give up repeating the names of Rama and Rahim, which mean to me the same God. With these names on my lips, I will die cheerfully."

Does this mean that Gandhi actually thought that once upon a time Rama crossed the ocean on a floating bridge constructed by two monkeys named Nala and Nila? I don't think so. But I do think that the Ramayana was fundamentally meaningful to him in a way that "history" might not have been. And, of course, Gandhi's story has now intersected with Rama's story in a way that is meaningful to many other people.

>66 rrp: What is it with all this "story" talk? What does it add to what we know?

Life would be easier if every word had only one specific meaning, wouldn't it? Of course, then we wouldn't have fiction, but maybe that would be an okay trade off for the ability to know when you are being told a story.

>69 southernbooklady: maybe that would be an okay trade off for the ability to know when you are being told a story.

Maybe we already have that ability, if we realize that we're always being told a story.

>69 southernbooklady:

Why can't fiction be written in a language where words have only one specific meaning?

>68 jburlinson:

So you have another example of an event from history and make a claim that two stories have intersected "in a way that is meaningful to many other people". I am sorry, but I still don't get it. I, in my experience, can't think of a story that has interacted with another story to create meaning. In fact, I am not really sure what you mean by "stories intersecting to create meaning", which is why I asked "What is it with all this "story" talk?".You example doesn't work for me because I am not Gandhi or one of those people for whom the "intersection" has created meaning.

>71 rrp: Why can't fiction be written in a language where words have only one specific meaning?

More to the point, why should fiction be limited to using words with only one meaning?* Multiplicity of meaning is much more efficient at conveying information. (....and now we're back to the usefulness of poetry. :) )

*How many words can be said to have only one meaning, I wonder?

>71 rrp: & >73 southernbooklady:

I wonder whether important human communication would be in fact possible using words of only one meaning. I expect not. Stoppard and Ionesco, among others, explore the margins of this problem in some of their plays.

>74 librorumamans: Stoppard and Ionesco, among others, explore the margins of this problem in some of their plays.

So does Chico Marx.

>58 sdawson: Regarding 'humans are story tellers', I agree with this --- almost. It's not that most humans are good story tellers, but rather that humans value stories so much, that good story tellers realize this and are very well compensated.

I think David Brin is right; if all the published authors died, new people would be lining up to take their place, and given time they would become equals of those who they followed. Storytelling, like many other skills, is one found latent in far more people then exercise it. And the problem is, we don't well compensate storytellers. For the latter half of the 20th century, there was one English-writing author who made living writing mystery short stories, Edward D. Hoch. Piers Anthony, the 55th most-held LT author, mentions in his author notes at one point around 1985 that he had just hit 100k, after he'd hit the NY bestseller list and published most of the books most held on LT. The UK has about 1000 authors making anywhere near the poverty line*. Writing, at least, is just not that lucrative a job.

* http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/08/authors-incomes-collapse-alcs-surve...

>73 southernbooklady:

"The hat had been on the man's head. George thought it would be nice to have it on his own head. He picked it up and put it on."

There you go. There's some classic fiction with words that, in context, have only one meaning, intentionally have only one meaning, whose purpose is to convey that one meaning. If they were ambiguous, they would not be performing their intended function. In this case, fiction is rightly limited to using words with only one meaning.

>77 rrp: Yes, well, I suppose we could decide fiction reached its peak with Curious George. I think that would be sort of sad, personally, but to each his own.

On the other hand, the story isn't really just about wearing a hat, is it?

>76 prosfilaes:

"And the problem is, we don't well compensate storytellers."

Ever hear of Walt Disney, George Lucas, R. K. Rowling, or Shawn Corey Carter? Some story tellers get compensated very well.

>77 rrp:
Stop monkeying around. Whose hat was it. Did George mug the man for his hat? Was George guilty of theft or something far worse? this George sounds like the kind of ape who would rip a man's head off just to get his hat.

I think that hairy ape George resents the man's success.

>78 southernbooklady:

You are moving the goal posts here. I just gave Curious George as an example of fiction with words that, in context, have only one meaning. Therefore, we can and do have fiction with words that have only one meaning. That is all. As to the quality of the fiction, well quality like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder (or reader in this case) is in not?

>82 rrp: I just gave Curious George as an example of fiction with words that, in context, have only one meaning.

-- "The hat had been on the man's head. George thought it would be nice to have it on his own head. He picked it up and put it on."

Let's examine this a little more closely. The word "it" in the last sentence, for example: does "it" refer to the hat or George's head? There's a big difference in the story's meaning depending on how this question is answered. Come to think of it, does the "it" in the second sentence refer to the hat or the man's head? Depending on how this question is answered, the answer to my first question becomes even more complicated. Did George put on (a) the hat, (b) the man's head, or (c) his own head? Or did George act contrary to his desire and put the hat back on the man's head? Or do the two "it"s in the last sentence refer to the same thing? Perhaps George picked up the hat but put on the man's head, or vice versa.

>83 jburlinson:

This is kid's stuff. The it is the hat. George picked up the hat and put the hat on his own head. This is a book that is mean to have one, and only one meaning. It's purpose is to be simple and clear in order to teach children to read and comprehend English.

You may play all the silly games you want with it, go ahead, have fun, knock yourself out. But does that have any serious purpose? Does "story" talk have any serious purpose? To me it's still an empty concept.

>84 rrp: Hey, why so touchy?

does that have any serious purpose?

The "serious purpose" is an attempt to demonstrate the futility of your quest for the holy grail of "words that, in context, have only one meaning".

This is a book that is mean to have one, and only one meaning.

How do you know what the book was meant to have -- did the author tell you? And what difference does it make what the book was meant to do? Joyce Kilmer meant for "Trees" to be profoundly inspirational. I meant for post #83 to be taken seriously -- and yet you called it "kid's stuff". Why didn't you read my post the way I meant for you to read it? Could it be that your story of my post (i.e. that it was a facetious silly game) was different from my story of my own post?

As others have pointed out, some people dish "it" out better than they can take "it". Of course, what did they mean by "it"? Are we talking about something new or the same old "it"?

>85 jburlinson:

I don't know with complete certainty what meaning Curious George was meant to have; I didn't talk to the author. But it was written for a purpose; of that I am certain. You might have a different interpretation of the book to me, but I seriously doubt it. It is a book written for young children. Books written for children tend to be simple and straightforward in their meaning, simple so that the children can understand them. They represent an ideal of communication, clear, concise, and unambiguous. We can be as certain as we can of anything, that the author meant to convey what he wrote, interpreted as a child would interpret the content, and no more.

If you wish to communicate, to transfer information from you to a reader, then you should similarly make every effort to use language that is clear, concise and unambiguous.

I will apologize. If you thought "kid stuff" referred to your commentary, you were mistaken. I meant "kid stuff" to refer to the book. That's what I meant. This is how ambiguities are resolved. If your post was meant to convince me that Curious George means something other than it appears to mean then, I am sorry, but you have not succeeded. Maybe if you resolve the ambiguities, you will be more successful.

>87 rrp: Sorry, my specialty is not the solving or resolving of ambiguities, but rather the detection, if not the creation, of them. Attempting to resolve ambiguities leads only to headache and heartache.

>86 quicksiva: It happens.

>88 jburlinson:

But why? What possible benefit does anyone get from creating ambiguity? I would say that detecting an ambiguity is one thing that without fail gives me a headache. Resolving the ambiguity doesn't cause the headache but cures it. Working to resolve it gives hope of a cure.

>83 jburlinson: The interesting thing about Curious George is that George isn't only a monkey, he's a stand in for every curious kid that ever made his parents nuts by poking his nose into every possible thing.

>87 rrp:
"Books written for children tend to be simple and straightforward in their meaning, simple so that the children can understand them. They represent an ideal of communication, clear, concise, and unambiguous. We can be as certain as we can of anything, that the author meant to convey what he wrote, interpreted as a child would interpret the content, and no more."

===========

A listing of the top twenty books written for children over the past few years doesn't support your thesis.

>92 quicksiva: For young children? What's the list?

>91 southernbooklady:

No. He is just a monkey.

>94 rrp: and a cigar is just a cigar.

>76 prosfilaes: 'And the problem is, we don't well compensate storytellers'

Hi prosfilaes, I agree with you that making a living as a writer of novels, short stories, or magazine articles is difficult. But that is not how the majority of people get their stories today. Movies, television, animators, games (sigh) are much more lucrative and have more opportunities. Read the credits on the next movie you watch -- hundreds and hundreds of people are employed for each. Most aren't storytellers, but they work with the process to get the story delivered.

>93 rrp:
"What possible benefit does anyone get from creating ambiguity? I would say that detecting an ambiguity is one thing that without fail gives me a headache. Resolving the ambiguity doesn't cause the headache but cures it. Working to resolve it gives hope of a cure."
==========

Here is a section from the Bible that admittedly pushes the envelope. This passage might be from another text, it is so radical. So how are we to assign the pronouns? It is totally out of context with what comes before and after.

“ex.4.24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. ex.4.25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.† ex.4.26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.”

inspired, God (2011-01-08). Bible KJV with Apocrypha (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 3312-3316). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.

>93 rrp:
For young children? What's the list?
=======

100 Best Books of the 20th Century (Online)

Adams. Watership Down
Ardizzone. Little Tim and the Brave Sea Captain
Averill. The Cat Club
Babbitt. Tuck Everlasting
Banner. Ant and Bee and Kind Dog
Bemelmans. Madeline
Bishop. Five Chinese Brothers
Boston. Children of Green Knowe
Brown. The Runaway Bunny
Brown. Goodnight Moon
Burton. Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel
Burton. The Little House
Cannon. Stellaluna
Carle. Very Hungry Caterpillar
Clark. The Poppy-Seed Cakes
Cooper. The Dark is Rising
Dahl. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Daugherty. Andy and the Lion
D'Aulaire. Ola and Blakken
De Brunhoff. L'Histoire de Babar
Dickinson. A Bone From A Dry Sea
Du Bois. Lion
Du Bois. The Twenty-One Balloons
Eager. Half-Magic
Enright. Thimble Summer
Estes. The Moffats
Ets. Mister Penny
Farjeon. Martin Pippin in the Daisy Field
Fenton. Penny Candy
Field. Hitty
Fitzhugh. Harriet the Spy
Flack. The Story About Ping
Freeman. Corduroy
Gag. Millions of Cats
Garner. The Stone Book Quartet
Hale. Orlando Buys A Farm
Hamilton. The Magical Adv. of Pretty Pearl
Heide. The Shrinking of Treehorn
Henry. King of the Wind
Heyward. The Country Bunny and the Little Gold Shoes
Hoban. Bedtime for Frances
Holling. Paddle-to-the-Sea
Jansson. Finn Family Moomintroll
Johnson. Harold and the Purple Crayon
Keats. The Snowy Day
Konigsburg. Throwing Shadows
Langton. The Diamond in the Window
Lawson. Ben and Me
Leaf. Wee Gillis
Leaf. The Story of Ferdinand
L'Engle. A Wrinkle in Time
Lenski. The Small Transportation series
Lindgren. Pippi Longstocking
Lionni. Little Blue and Little Yellow
Lionni. Frederick
Lovelace. Betsy-Tacy
MacDonald. Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle
Mahy. Memory
Mayne. Earthfasts
McCloskey. Blueberries for Sal
McCloskey. Burt Dow, Deep Water Man
Milne. Winnie the Pooh
Milne. When We Were Very Young
Mosel. Tikki Tikki Tembo
Munari. The Circus in the Mist
Newberry. Herbert the Lion
Newberry. April's Kittens
Norton. The Borrowers
Oakley. The Church Mouse
Paterson. Bridge to Terabithia
Paton Walsh. Unleaving
Pearce. Tom's Midnight Garden
Pullman. Northern Lights/Golden Compass
Ransome. Swallows and Amazons
Sandburg. The Wedding Procession of the Rag Doll and the Broom Handle
Sendak. The Nutshell Library
Sendak. Where the Wild Things Are
Seuss. Green Eggs and Ham
Seuss. Horton Hatches the Egg
Sleator. The Angry Moon
Slobodkina. Caps for Sale
Speare. Witch of Blackbird Pond
Steig. Sylvester and the Magic Pebble
Stong. Honk the Moose
Streatfeild. Ballet Shoes
Sutcliff. Knight's Fee
Taylor. Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry!
Thurber. Many Moons
Tison. Barbapapa
Tolkien. The Hobbit
Travers. Mary Poppins
Ungerer. Crictor
Vipont. The Elephant and the Bad Baby
Ward. The Biggest Bear
Wells. Max's Breakfast
White, E.B. Charlotte's Web
White, T.H. The Sword in the Stone
Wilder. The Long Winter
Zindel. The Pigman
Zion. Harry the Dirty Dog

>95 southernbooklady:

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". Freud

"Sometimes a cigar is just a blunt". Snoop Dog

>87 rrp: Books written for children tend to be simple and straightforward in their meaning, simple so that the children can understand them.

"Up the crick," the Bobcat says, wavin his right paw roun, "lives an ol bar what thinks he's Chief Cornstalk: an down the crick," wavin t'other paw, "lives a Civil War Vetran who fitt on both sides, agin hissef. Visit whichever you like: they's both tetched."

"But I don't wanna go mongst tetched folks," Alice remarks.

"Oh, you cain't hep thet," says the Bobcat. "We're all tetched here. I'm tetched. You're tetched."

"How you know I'm tetched?" says Alice.

"You must be," says the Bobcat, "or you would'n'a come up here in these high hollers." Alice in an Appalachian Wonderland

The original that is an adaptation from is no more simple and straightforward.

>96 sdawson: games (sigh)

They're the only form of storytelling that promises true interactivity. You can be passive to the point of sleeping when watching a movie, but you have to interact with a game, and in some games, that has real interactions with the storyline of the game.

Read the credits on the next movie you watch -- hundreds and hundreds of people are employed for each. Most aren't storytellers, but they work with the process to get the story delivered.

Same problem with moviemaking as writing, though. There's a lot of people who get paid decently in bookselling: UPS drivers, warehouse workers, website developers, etc. In movies, there's a handful of high-profile people very well-compensated, and quite a number of workers that pull a paycheck that pays the bills, but for most of the story tellers, there's so many people fighting for their job that they don't get well-paid for it. Most actors in Hollywood are professional waiters.

I can't believe I just wasted the time to catch up on more than 50 unread messages, most of which rode the merry-go-round of trying to please the one person here who can't seem to deal with the fact that language is polysemous (and who also seems convinced, in re: gardens and geology, that only humans can exhibit communicative signs).

The best part is that my comment just now will be inscrutable to said person, because I've called this thread a merry-go-round, which it clearly isn't, as there's no music or horses going up and down, and we're not at the fair grounds.

>101 nathanielcampbell: I can't believe I just wasted the time to catch up on more than 50 unread messages, most of which rode the merry-go-round of trying to please the one person here who can't seem to deal with the fact that language is polysemous

Sorry. I'll try to do better. (Completely serious.)

>98 quicksiva: Thanks for that list. It brings many fond memories. The Story About Ping — I probably haven't thought of that book for more than half a century, but I do remember it, even some of the illustrations, which shows why it earns its place on the list.

>93 rrp: I see a list has been posted, but books/series that come to my mind immediately include The Hobbit, The Little Prince, Fungus the Bogeyman (and other books by Raymond Briggs), Alice in Wonderland (and Through the Looking Glass) and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (and the rest of the Narnia series), all written for young children and clearly all susceptible to multiple layers of meaning.

Hilariously - given the current conversation - The Story About Ping has acquired new meanings in the 80-some years since it was published.

See, for example the first review at Amazon....

>90 rrp:
What possible benefit does anyone get from creating ambiguity? I would say that detecting an ambiguity is one thing that without fail gives me a headache. Resolving the ambiguity doesn't cause the headache but cures it. Working to resolve it gives hope of a cure.

=======
How would you compare Curious George to Sun Wu kong or Monkey from the Chinese novel Journey to the West? Or even to the Movie character King Kong. "Just monkeys" seems inadequate.

>105 AsYouKnow_Bob: See, for example the first review at Amazon....

A classic, in what might be a whole new genre of literature.

>105 AsYouKnow_Bob: That is one to cherish — absolutely wonderful!

Thanks.

>90 rrp: What possible benefit does anyone get from creating ambiguity?

Humour.

>105 AsYouKnow_Bob: That review made my day!

>100 prosfilaes:: "They're the only form of storytelling that promises true interactivity."

True prosfilaes, thank you for the good point. I grew up in the late 70's and we had an old-school D&D club which was definitely interactive storytelling. I just found the leap to online and electronic versions of such games to be not worth my time.

I would perhaps change 'only' to 'few' though, as acting is also interactive storytelling. My 9 year old grand-daughter loves when people join her in acting out make believe stories.

>111 sdawson: I would perhaps change 'only' to 'few' though, as acting is also interactive storytelling.

There's also group therapy.

>101 nathanielcampbell: trying to please the one person here who can't seem to deal with the fact that language is polysemous

I don't this is unique to one person, though. Consider all the people who read a religious text as if it were a historical document or, worse yet, a scientific one. Some of these people accept the religion, others reject it; but all of them adopt a monosemous way of looking at things.

>113 jburlinson: but all of them adopt a monosemous way of looking at things.

We do, perhaps, gravitate towards a sense that there is a right and a wrong way to understand things. Our understanding may accommodate multiple interpretations, but in the end we are inclined to think "I understand" is a singular state of existence, a yes/no option, because we apply it to ourselves, not to the text.

>113 jburlinson:

Exactly.

>114 southernbooklady:

We do, perhaps, gravitate towards a sense that there is a right and a wrong way to understand things.

Is it right or wrong to believe that there is a right and a wrong way to understand things?

>109 librorumamans:

OK. In humor, people gain a benefit from creating ambiguity. But in all the cases I can think of, it is generated by the tension between a primary litteral meaning and a distorted meaning. But I think those who believe ambiguity to be a good thing believe that it encompasses more than simple jokes.

>104 John5918:

Those books are not for the age group I was thinking of. I was thinking of Bedtime for Frances, The Very Hungry Caterpillar, Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel, Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle and maybe Winnie the Pooh. It's difficult to find multiple layers of meaning in those books.

But if you insist trying then maybe you should first read The Pooh Perplex or Postmodern Pooh, some great humor that makes fun at people who think they can find multiple layers of meaning in children's books.

But maybe a good example, to bring us back on topic, sort of, is The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Are there really multiple layers of meaning in that book or is there one meaning that C.S. Lewis meant to communicate to his readers? I think that given what we know of Lewis, there was only one.

>119 rrp: and is Aslan a talking lion, or a symbolic representation of the Trinity?

Are there really multiple layers of meaning in that book or is there one meaning the C.S. Lewis meant to communicate to his readers

There may be meanings communicated to his readers that Lewis did not intend. The reader is hardly a passive receptacle. Earlier you said of Curious George that given the context, the quote was comprised of words that had only one meaning. I agree that context is vital, but we can't forget that every reader brings their own sense of context to the text.

>114 southernbooklady: I really like your post. I'm going to have to think about it long and hard.

we are inclined to think "I understand" is a singular state of existence, a yes/no option, because we apply it to ourselves

My initial reaction to this is it's not so much a "yes/no option" as it is a "yes, so..." proposition. More and more, I tend to take "I understand" to mean, "I'm beginning to understand" or "I understand better" (or, perhaps better, "I think I'm beginning to understand" or "I believe I understand better"). Regardless, it does apply to myself, which may be troublesome, since, according to many, there is no self there. As for the text, it remains imperturbable to my understanding.

>120 southernbooklady:

and is Aslan a talking lion, or a symbolic representation of the Trinity?

A talking Lion.

There may be meanings communicated to his readers that Lewis did not intend.

I see this as analogous to people seeing the face of Jesus in a piece of toast. People tend to see accidental patterns all the time.

>122 rrp: A talking Lion.

And a metaphor.

I see this as analogous to people seeing the face of Jesus in a piece of toast.

Who's to say that the writer didn't accidentally write Jesus into the piece of toast?

>123 southernbooklady:

Who's to say that the writer didn't accidentally write Jesus into the piece of toast?

If the writer didn't intend to write Jesus into the piece, then you have misunderstood the meaning of the piece. For example, you have misunderstood C.S. Lewis's intention by seeing Aslan as a metaphor.

>124 rrp: you have misunderstood the meaning of the piece

Well, as long as were deciding what other people meant to say, to be strictly precise, you meant to say "I believe you have misunderstood the meaning of the piece."

I, however, don't believe that I have. :)

>124 rrp: you have misunderstood C.S. Lewis's intention by seeing Aslan as a metaphor.

A boy named Laurence was once worried about loving Aslan more than Jesus; so Laurence's mother wrote to C.S. Lewis asking for his advice, which was:

"Laurence can't really love Aslan more than Jesus, even if he feels that's what he is doing. For the things he loves Aslan for doing or saying are simply the things Jesus really did and said. So that when Laurence thinks he is loving Aslan, he is really loving Jesus: and perhaps loving Him more than he ever did before."

Of course, it's entirely possible that Lewis misunderstood his own intention and that you have got it right.

>122 rrp: "People tend to see accidental patterns all the time. "

Which is another way of saying, "People are story-telling animals."

>127 nathanielcampbell:

Or in other words they are delusional. The trick to life is working out, as best as one can, the difference between stories and the truth.

>125 southernbooklady:

OK, so long as we agree that there is one meaning and that at most one of us understands it.

>126 jburlinson:

Strange. I recall reading somewhere that Lewis said the story wasn't an allegory. I suspect he wrote the letter out of kindness to the boy and his mother not minding it didn't quite fit with what he meant in the book.

tLtWatW is NOT an allegory. Aslan symbolizes Jesus, and his death mirrors Jesus' death and resurrection, but it is not an allegory in the truest sense of the word. The Pevensies do not symbolize anything nor does the White Witch. Nor Father Christmas. (WHAT is HE doing in there?)

Two quotes from Wikipedia:

The Lion all began with a picture of a Faun carrying an umbrella and parcels in a snowy wood. This picture had been in my mind since I was about sixteen. Then one day, when I was about forty, I said to myself: 'Let's try to make a story about it.

At first I had very little idea how the story would go. But then suddenly Aslan came bounding into it. I think I had been having a good many dreams of lions about that time. Apart from that, I don't know where the Lion came from or why he came. But once he was there, he pulled the whole story together, and soon he pulled the six other Narnian stories in after him.

>128 rrp: The trick to life is working out, as best as one can, the difference between stories and the truth.

Oh dear. Here we are back at bottom of the same old Escherian staircase with the same old tessellated pattern on the carpet. Isn't it becoming a bit threadbare by now?

>128 rrp: The trick to life is recognizing that so narrow a compartmentalization between stories and the truth is your own fanciful invention and has little bearing on the epistemology and narratology employed by most other humans.

>133 nathanielcampbell: narratology

I had to look that up! :)

One of the great things about literature is how much there is to discover in the good stuff. If the surface was all there was, it wouldn't be any fun to read.

>130 rrp: Lewis said the story wasn't an allegory.

That may be so, but Lewis was a renaissance scholar and when he used the term allegory, he meant something much more specific than as a synonym for metaphor, which is how many of us use the term. He was a specialist in allegory; cf. The Allegory of Love. He may not have considered the entirety of the Narnia series to have been a thoroughgoing, systematic allegorical exercise, but that does not mean he was not aware of the metaphorical aspects of his books. He wrote to a class of 5th graders in Maryland: "I did not say to myself 'Let us represent Jesus as He really is in our world by a Lion in Narnia'; I said, 'Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as he became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen.'"

>134 southernbooklady:

I had to look that up!

I am glad that I am not the only one.

One of the great things about literature is how much there is to discover in the good stuff. If the surface was all there was, it wouldn't be any fun to read.

I very much enjoy reading a good story, but the whole experience tends to get soured by people telling me I have missed all the good stuff who are then unable to explain how one gets at the good stuff.

>133 nathanielcampbell:

The trick to life is recognizing that so narrow a compartmentalization between stories and the truth is your own fanciful invention.

I am not so sure that it is my "own fanciful invention". In fact, to pull us back to the meta-topic here, (and to reference >113 jburlinson:), different people see the world in different ways. I neither accept nor reject religion, but I respect it and am a strong defender of tolerance. But I don't understand it. And one of the reasons I don't understand it is because it seems infused with "story" talk, and I don't understand "story" talk.

To distinguish stories from the truth, fact from fiction, is a key objective of the scientific worldview. Some from that worldview use that tool to reject the "story" talk of religion and once that shell has been hollowed out of "story", it seems to some of them that all that's left are the unpleasant parts. Is it any wonder that they then are hostile to religion? I have become convinced that understanding the "story" talk is one part of understanding religion. Yet it seems that everyone who tries to explain it is talking a foreign language.

>137 rrp: To distinguish stories from the truth, fact from fiction

Stories can be both fact and fiction. The story is the narration of events. The events may be imagined, or real. Think of your garden. You say that it does not tell a story, but that it does have history. "History" is a story of events that we think are true.

>138 southernbooklady:

History is a perfectly good word for a sequence of events that we think are true. Why burden it with that word "story"? The word "story" doesn't add anything to the thing you are trying to communicate does it?

The word comes to us already so burdened.

>139 rrp: From the Oxford English Dictionary, on the etymology of the word story:

< Anglo-Norman estorie (Old French estoire , later in semi-learned form histoire ) < Latin historia : see history n. Compare Italian storia, medieval Latin storia.

(That is to say: "story" is just a shortened form of the word "history". And since they cross-reference it, here's the etymology for history:

In Old English < classical Latin historia (in post-classical Latin also istoria (7th or 8th cent.)) (see below); subsequently reborrowed < Anglo-Norman and Old French istorie, estoire, historie, Anglo-Norman and Old French, Middle French estorie, Anglo-Norman and Middle French, French histoire, Old French, Middle French hystoire, Middle French histore account of the events of a person's life (beginning of the 12th cent.), chronicle, account of events as relevant to a group of people or people in general (1155), dramatic or pictorial representation of historical events (c1240), body of knowledge relative to human evolution, science (c1265), narrative of real or imaginary events, story (c1462) and its etymon classical Latin historia (in post-classical Latin also istoria (7th or 8th cent.)) investigation, inquiry, research, account, description, written account of past events, writing of history, historical narrative, recorded knowledge of past events, story, narrative, in post-classical Latin also narrative illustration (from 12th cent. in British sources) < ancient Greek ἱστορία inquiry, knowledge obtained by inquiry, account of such inquiries, narrative, in Hellenistic Greek also story, account < ἵστορ- , ἵστωρ or ἴστορ- , ἴστωρ (ancient Greek (Boeotian) ϝίστωρ ) (noun) judge, witness, (adjective) knowing, learned ( < an ablaut variant (zero-grade) of the stem of οἶδα to know (see wit v.1) + -τωρ , suffix forming agent nouns) + -ία -y suffix3.

Old French forms in e- arise as alterations of earlier forms in i- , which was unusual in this position in Old French; Middle French forms in h- show remodelling after classical Latin historia .

Compare Old Occitan estoria , Catalan història (14th cent.), Spanish historia (1220–50; also as †estoria ), Portuguese história (14th cent.), Italian storia (1690; a1374 as †istoria ). Compare story n.

Here's OED's very first definition for story, I.1.a:

a. A narrative, true or presumed to be true, relating to important events and celebrated persons of a more or less remote past; a historical relation or anecdote.

The rest of definitions I.1-I.4 continue in that vein; then we get to I.5:

a. A narrative of real or, more usually, fictitious events, designed for the entertainment of the hearer or reader; a series of traditional or imaginary incidents forming the matter of such a narrative; a tale.
b. In generalized sense: Traditional, poetic, or romantic legend or history.
c. Succession of incidents, ‘plot’ (of a novel, poem, or drama).
d. An incident, real or fictitious, related in conversation or in written discourse in order to amuse or interest, or to illustrate some remark made; an anecdote. good story n. often, an amusing anecdote.

I could continue, but I think you get the point.

ETA: Complaining that the messy complexity of language confuses you so we should just clean it up is equivalent to complaining that the force of gravity hinders your ability to jump high so we should change it.

>139 rrp: History is a perfectly good word for a sequence of events that we think are true.

No, history is not the sequence of events; it's the story of a sequence of events. Even a single event is so complex and multifaceted, that it cannot thoroughly be captured in words, images or any other contrivances that people use to communicate with each other. A sequence of events is even worse. Historiographers are keenly conscious of the story element in written history and spend a lot of time examining a given historian's methods of discovery, persuasive goals, explanatory models, rhetorical standards and interpretive assumptions, because all of these things determine the nature of the story being told.

Was the conception of Jesus (the alleged Christ) by the human Mary, wife of Joseph, being impregnated by the second part of the trinity - was that an historical event (a real event that actually took place in the Middle East 2,000 years ago) or was it just a metaphorical story?

Some people say "The former." Others say "Huh? What? Are you frigging kidding me?"

Can these two groups even begin to agree regarding reality/imagination wherein one apparently ends and the other apparently begins?

I think not.

Thus, there is no argument to be had. It is the ultimate "talk past one another" situation.

I believe William James pointed out this simple fact years ago. And yet none of us can accept it.

I for one will admit Professor James was right. And yet here we are. So there it is.

>141 nathanielcampbell:

Complaining that the messy complexity of language confuses you so we should just clean it up is equivalent to complaining that the force of gravity hinders your ability to jump high so we should change it.

I can use a step ladder to defeat gravity. What tools are there to defeat "messy complexity" in language?

It's simple really; keep it simple.

Make it clear, concise and unambiguous. Explain what you mean in terms others can understand and when they fail to understand you, clarify.

It still seems to me that everyone who tries to explain "story" talk is talking a foreign language.

We have "story is equal to history" (>141 nathanielcampbell:) and "story is not equal to history" (>142 jburlinson:).

I got lost at "The thing about a religion is that it lets each of us weave its story into our own story, or perhaps it's the other way around." (>27 jburlinson:)

>144 rrp: I can use a step ladder to defeat gravity

If a step ladder "defeated gravity" you'd have a hard time staying on each step. Step ladders make use of gravity to raise the elevation of the person using them.

>144 rrp: "story is not equal to history" (>142 jburlinson: jburlinson:).

I don't know how you came up with that when what I actually said is: "history is not the sequence of events; it's the story of a sequence of events."

>145 southernbooklady: I don't think he meant he could use a step ladder to defeat gravity the force, but rather to defeat gravity "a very serious quality or condition : the condition of being grave or serious".

>147 jburlinson: Nicely done!

>1 John5918:
Will religion ever disappear?
==========
Not as long as it has profits ;)

>146 jburlinson:

I am amazed that you could possibly be puzzled by this when we are continually being told that every text has multiple meanings and that the meaning the reader takes from a piece does not need to correspond to the meaning the author intended. Or have I got this all wrong?

>150 rrp: Irony is an absurd notion in a literal world.

>150 rrp: Do you mean to tell us that abolitionists who used passages from Scripture to oppose slavery were wrong, because they were interpreting the books of the Bible differently from their authors?

And Jesus, when he stood up in the temple and read a messianic passage from Isaiah, and declared it fulfilled in their midst--was he "wrong" in his interpretation, because the author(s) of Isaiah didn't intend to refer to him?

(For that matter: what meaning did Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the other prophets intend in their obscure and symbolic writings? And how can you tell us which of the manifold interpretations offered in the 2500 years since their composition is the correct one?)

There may be some small percentage of human writings that are univocal, but the vast majority are polysemous. You can't change that -- and I'd point out that you would violate your own rules of univocal authorial intention in insisting that polysemous literature be restricted to univocity, especially for those authors (like poets) who intentionally write polysemously.

>150 rrp: I am amazed that you could possibly be puzzled by this when we are continually being told that every text has multiple meanings and that the meaning the reader takes from a piece does not need to correspond to the meaning the author intended. Or have I got this all wrong?

No, you haven't got it wrong, or at least not all wrong. If you understood something I wrote in a different way from the one I intended, it's not surprising that I would be puzzled. More strictly, it's not surprising that I should be puzzled by your interpretation of what I said, but I should not be puzzled that you had a different interpretation. In some ways, it would be amazing if you gave my words the same meaning as I intended.

>153 jburlinson:

Just to be clear, should I understand that what you said had one intended meaning and that you were puzzled by my interpretation of that intended meaning because it wasn't what you intended?

>152 nathanielcampbell:

Of course, Isaiah isn't around so that we can ask him to clarify what he really meant, and so we have to take our best, educated guess. And people certainly come up with different educated guesses. That doesn't mean that Isaiah intended that what he wrote have more than one meaning.

When the author is alive and able to clarify, then it seems to me perfectly reasonable to ask him or her to clarify.

As to poets and others who deliberately obscure their meaning, is it any wonder that the majority finds what they wrote incomprehensible and therefore rejects their work in favor of authors who write more clearly.

>155 rrp: As to poets and others who deliberately obscure their meaning, is it any wonder that the majority finds what they wrote incomprehensible and therefore rejects their work in favor of authors who write more clearly

Is it really the case that "the majority" (which majority? of whom? how is this majority calculated?) rejects poetry and more speculative works? I wouldn't have thought so. I'd have thought such works remain very popular.

>156 John5918: Is it really the case that "the majority" (which majority? of whom? how is this majority calculated?) rejects poetry and more speculative works?

I expect it depends on whether you are considering what's on last week's New York Times bestseller list, or what's still in print even after a hundred and fifty years have gone by. I suspect that much of that supposedly obscure poetry has more staying power than anything by James Patterson's stable.

Although I find the direction that this thread has taken to be inane, and although I often find rrp's behaviour ill-mannered and domineering, nonetheless:

This discussion has led me to consider whether there is anything in the four-dimensional world of my experience, anything that I perceive, that I consider to be "clear, concise and unambiguous" ( >144 rrp: ). What do the rest of you find of that sort in your experience?

>158 librorumamans: "clear, concise and unambiguous"

That reminds me of that old adage for software programmers: Fast. Good. Cheap. Pick two.

>158 librorumamans:

The square root of 2 is irrational.

>156 John5918:

Doing some experimental digging on Amazon (US), it seems the best selling poetry book (which doesn't look like a poetry book to me) is listed as number 99 in the overall list of best selling books. Number 2 on the list of best selling poetry books is The Odessey by Homer, which is number 717 in the list of best selling books. Number 3 poetry is number 755 overall. Number 4 in poetry is 972 overall. Number 5 is 1001 overall.

So if you bought all 1000 of the top 1000 best selling books at Amazon, 4 would be books of poetry. 99.6% of the best selling books are not poetry. People voting with their hard earned cash?

>161 rrp: I agree with >158 librorumamans: that this is an inane discussion, but for what it's worth I don't think looking at who buys poetry books from Amazon in the USA is a measure of anything. I don't tend to buy poetry books - I read individual poems.

>161 rrp:

Poetry as such, at least in the Western world, it clearly not very popular. Mostly because much modern poetry as such is unreadable dreck (or perhaps more appropriately unsayable and unlistenable dreck).

But poetry more broadly considered, particularly in popular music such as rap, is very popular and culturally influential.

>162 John5918:

I think active consumption of poetry, whether by purchasing books, borrowing books, re-reading your own books or reading online, is a minority occupation. I have no data to back that assertion up apart from anecdotal evidence from my set of acquaintances who I have informally polled. The results may be different in different social circles. Maybe someone has some real data somewhere.

I don't find the discussion inane as I think it harks back to the OP. My question would be -- is a decline in religious belief correlated with a decline in poetry appreciation? The two seem connected to me. Both poetry and religion require a certain sensibility to ambiguity and a vagueness of meaning that some, maybe many, of us lack. It's a product of the modern world.

>163 hf22:

I am unfamiliar with rap music. Does is meet the criteria of having multiple intended meanings? If I follow them, I tend to find that lyrics in any music detract from its enjoyment, because most of the time they make no sense. As vocal sounds they sometimes add to the musical experience, but they might as well be nonsense as sense to me.

>164 rrp: I tend to find that lyrics in any music detract from its enjoyment

I've been reading John Eliot Gardiner's phenomenal Bach: Music in the Castle of Heaven, which has utterly changed the way I listen to Bach's cantatas (not to mention putting a dent in my music budget). It's a good example of how the music and the text can be in service to each other.

>164 rrp:

I am unfamiliar with rap music. Does is meet the criteria of having multiple intended meanings?

Sometimes.

>161 rrp: Doing some experimental digging on Amazon (US), it seems the best selling poetry book (which doesn't look like a poetry book to me) is listed as number 99 in the overall list of best selling books. .

Where are you digging? According to my reading of Amazon's list of best sellers, the #99 book is Monster Manual (D&D Core Rulebook). I'll admit, I haven't read this book, and there's no "look inside" feature for this item, but I doubt that Dungeon & Dragons rule books are written in verse.

BTW --The Odyssey is listed as #591 overall books, but that refers only to the Robert Fagles translation. The Robert Fitzgerald translation is #4,078, the Richmond Lattimore translation is #7,961, the Stanley Lombardo translation is #7,964, the E.V. Rieu translation is #31,743 (although the translation is in prose, so maybe that doesn't count), the Gareth Hinds graphic novel (the text is in verse) is #42,739, while the Alexander Pope translation is #173,098 in paid Kindle downloads. On top of that, the Fagles is #11,229 Paid in Kindle Store, in addition to what it was in paper. Oh, also the number given above for Fagles was the paperpback with the deckle edge. The regular Penguin paperback of Fagles was #9,705, while the hardcover was #97,425 and the paperback box-set with The Iliad included was #107,873. What we really need to do is search out all available translations, as well as editions of the original Greek, and then add their sales numbers together in order a more accurate idea of Homer's bottom line.

Then, I suggest we do the same with William Shakespeare, Dr. Seuss and others who wrote predominantly in verse.

Poetry as such, at least in the Western world, it clearly not very popular.

How about Chicka Chicka Boom Boom #1 in Amazon's Books > Children's Books > Early Learning > Beginner Readers

A told B
and B told C
I'll meet you at the top
of the coconut tree.

>167 jburlinson:

Yeah, however you want to cut it, English books in verse are not popular.

We get our poetry through songs nowadays don't we?