Is that in reference to participating in "told for true" stories themselves, or to taking an ethnomethodologically emic stance toward said "told for true" items.
The former seems non-nihilistic. The latter maybe non-nihilistic at a meta-level, and mostly pragmatic at story level
Conversation
I could answer that better if I felt like it was an available option to not participate in them!
1
Sure it is. When foreigners intrude on a local told-for-true culture, they easily switch to explaining it in more explicitly symbolic/fictional terms. The suspension of disbelief is shallow and kinda instrumental. Like Huizenga’s play.
2
2
so the goal is to become a universal foreigner
2
2
like “anthropologist from mars”
1
Or alternatively universal believer who can become true insider of anything. Like Electric monk google.com/amp/s/www.urba
“Go believe in Christianity for me”
1
4
I feel like I keep having to be reminded that emic exists even for my own self
1
2
I think it kinda doesn’t for anyone born after world war 2. Post modernity kills the Emic experience unless you live under a rock. Hence baudrillard simulation
3
2
One exception. Any role to which idea of a “killer instinct” applies is emic. Lawyers, soldiers, sports pros. If you die or kill in simulation you die or kill in real life. Even if it’s only social death. 100% skin in the game =100% emic. Hence taleb vibes for “told for true”
Show replies


