The Tyranny of Coherence

A Philosophical Mandate for Narrative Pluralism in Anamnesis: The Eidolon Tapestries

The design of Anamnesis: The Eidolon Tapestries is predicated on the ambition to move beyond the creation of a marketable game and into the realm of a true work of art, a Philosophical Playground where players can explore the dialectic between grounded reality and metaphysical truth. At the heart of this playground lies one of the most powerful and pervasive ideas in modern psychology: Narrative Self. This theory posits that human identity is not a static entity but an internalized and evolving story that individuals construct to achieve a sense of unity and purpose. 1

ATET embraces and mechanizes this concept at its most fundamental level. The player’s journey through a constructed reality, a Tapestry, is memorialized as a Thread; the narrative trace of a life lived, which in turn generates Eidos, the raw material of meaning itself.

The Narrative Imperative and Its Discontents

Yet, within this elegant loop of living, remembering, and creating, lies a subtle and formidable danger. The very act of constructing a story carries with it an implicit set of rules about what constitutes a “good” one. The psychological consensus often correlates narrative coherence with well-being, suggesting that stories featuring redemption and personal agency are markers of maturity and mental health. 1 This creates a powerful gravitational pull towards a specific kind of narrative, a “redemptive self” that overcomes adversity to achieve a better future. While this is a valid and powerful human story, the unquestioned elevation of this single narrative form above all others gives rise to a subtle but pervasive form of ideological pressure. For the purposes of precise quantification, this pressure may be referred to within the design documents as The Tyranny of Coherence.

This essay will argue that the most profound artistic and philosophical challenge facing ATET is the conscious, systemic resistance to this tyranny. The design documents attempt to encode an acute awareness of this pitfall, warning that the Director AI must be carefully engineered to avoid rewarding only “certain culturally-specific ‘healthy’ narratives (e.g., redemption arcs),” an act that would devalue “other valid human experiences like tragedy or absurdism.” ⌂ The Tyranny of Coherence is not merely a philosophical concern; it is a systemic bias that can emerge naturally from the very logic of procedural storytelling. Narrative systems, by their nature, gravitate towards established patterns, and the redemptive arc is one of the most well-defined and culturally dominant patterns available. Resisting this is not a matter of simply adding more “story flavors”; it requires a deliberate and deeply-theorized act of design rebellion.

We will first define the Tyranny of Coherence, tracing its evolution from a psychological virtue into an oppressive cultural master narrative. The essay will then ground its critique in the rigorous philosophical work of Galen Strawson, whose concept of the non-narrative “Episodic” self provides a powerful academic justification for narrative pluralism. 2 Finally, it will demonstrate how the core mechanics of ATET; from the value-agnostic metaphysics of the Eidos system to the playable fragmentation of the Subjective Interface; are being engineered to serve as a bulwark against this tyranny. The goal is to fulfill the game’s foundational promise: to create a space where the full spectrum of human (and non-human) experience can be explored, not as a deviation from a “proper” story, but as a valid and meaningful end in itself.

Defining the Tyranny

The concept of narrative coherence is not in itself malicious. On the contrary, it is a cornerstone of how we understand both stories and ourselves. Within communication theory, a story’s internal consistency and logical flow (its narrative coherence) is a key principle of its rationality and persuasive power. ⌂ In psychology, the ability to weave the disparate events of one’s life into a coherent narrative is consistently linked to positive outcomes, including greater psychological well-being and more nuanced meaning-making. 1 A coherent story provides a sense of order, purpose, and predictability in a world that is often chaotic and uncertain. It is this deep-seated human need for a comprehensible life-story that gives coherence its power.

The tyranny arises when this descriptive virtue becomes a prescriptive mandate. The problem begins when a specific type of coherent story is elevated to the status of a universal ideal. This is where the psychological concept of narrative coherence intersects with the sociological concept of a master narrative. Master narratives are the dominant, culturally-sanctioned stories that a society tells itself to explain “why things are the way they are”. 4 They are constructed and maintained through a complex interplay of power and identity, often shaped by those with influence to serve their interests and legitimize existing social structures. 5 These narratives function as the “cultural scripts or dominant discourse by which we live,” defining what is considered normal, good, and successful. 6

Within many Western cultures, one of the most powerful master narratives concerning identity is that of the “redemptive self”. ⌂ This is the story of overcoming suffering, of personal growth, and of achieving a better, more enlightened future through struggle. It is the narrative of the heroic journey, the recovery from addiction, the rise from poverty to wealth. While deeply inspiring, the dominance of this script creates an implicit hierarchy of life stories. The Tyranny of Coherence, then, can be formally defined as the systemic and cultural pressure to author one’s personal identity in accordance with this master narrative of redemption and linear progress. It is the tyranny of the “good story,” where “good” is narrowly defined by a specific, culturally-biased formula.

This form of control is particularly insidious because it operates not through overt force, but through the internalization of a standard. It pressures individuals to perform a specific version of a “good life,” and systems that reward this narrative structure; be they therapeutic, educational, or ludic; become participants in this ideological project. A story that ends in tragedy, ambiguity, or quiet resignation is framed not as a different kind of story, but as a failed one. The individual who cannot or will not fit their life into a redemptive arc is seen as deficient, their story incomplete or incoherent. This devalues a vast range of authentic human experiences, from the quiet dignity of a life of stasis to the philosophical weight of an absurdist struggle. Resisting this tyranny is therefore not just an aesthetic choice for a story generator like ATET; it is a political and ethical one. It requires the creation of systems that recognize the master narrative of redemption as just one story among many, and that actively empower the creation of counter-narratives; stories that challenge, reframe, and rupture the dominant script by centering the experiences of those who live outside of it. 3

The Episodic Rebellion

The most definitive philosophical challenge to the Tyranny of Coherence comes from the British philosopher Galen Strawson. In his seminal 2004 essay, “Against Narrativity,” Strawson launches a direct and powerful assault on the two foundational premises that underpin the narrative imperative. 2 The first, which he calls the psychological Narrativity thesis, is the descriptive claim that human beings universally and naturally experience their lives as a story. The second, the ethical Narrativity thesis, is the normative claim that living one’s life as a coherent narrative is a necessary condition for a good life or for developing fully as a person. 2 Strawson argues that both of these widely-held beliefs are empirically false and ethically misguided.

Strawson’s central argument rests on a crucial distinction between two different modes of self-experience, which he terms “Diachronic” and “Episodic”. 2

A Diachronic individual is one who “naturally figures oneself, considered as a self, as something that was there in the (further) past and will be there in the (further) future”. 2 These individuals experience their identity as a continuous entity persisting through time and are therefore inclined to see their lives in narrative terms, as an unfolding story with a beginning, middle, and end. This aligns with the traditional model of the narrative self.
An Episodic individual, in stark contrast, “does not figure oneself, considered as a self, as something that was there in the (further) past and will be there in the (further) future”. 2 An Episodic person experiences their “self” primarily in the present moment. While they are perfectly aware that they are the same whole human being who existed in the past and will exist in the future, their inner, experiential self is not felt to have this same continuity. For them, life is a series of discrete moments or episodes, not a single, overarching plot.

Crucially, Strawson insists that the Episodic life is a “normal, non-pathological form of life for human beings”. 2 He argues that the proponents of the Narrativity theses are often Diachronic individuals who mistakenly “generalize from their own case with that special, fabulously misplaced confidence”. 7 By doing so, they create a normative standard that pathologizes a valid and potentially rich mode of human existence. He contends that the ethical Narrativity thesis can be actively harmful, as it may “needlessly and wrongly distress those who do not fit their model” and can be a “gross hindrance to self-understanding” by encouraging a form of self-falsification in the service of crafting a neat story. 7

Table 1: The Diachronic vs. The Episodic Self (After Strawson) 2 ✨

Feature	Diachronic Self-Experience	Episodic Self-Experience
Perception of Self	A single, continuous entity persisting through past, present, and future.	A series of discrete “selves” experienced in the present moment.
Relationship to Time	Strong identification with one’s past and future selves.	Weak or no identification with past/future selves, though aware of being the same human.
Narrative Tendency	High. Inclined to see life as an unfolding story with a coherent plot.	Low. No particular tendency to see life in narrative terms.
Philosophical Stance	The self is a story being written.	The self is the subject of experience in the “now.”
Cultural Framing	Often seen as the “default” or “healthy” model of identity in Western thought.	Often misunderstood or pathologized, but argued by Strawson to be a valid way of being.

Strawson’s work provides a robust philosophical mandate for the design of ATET. The game’s stated goal is to support other valid human experiences like tragedy or absurdism. ⌂ Strawson’s defense of the Episodic self transforms this from a simple matter of genre variety into a question of existential inclusivity. If a game system only recognizes and rewards the creation of a coherent, Diachronic Thread, it is implicitly making a normative claim. It is telling players who may experience the world in an Episodic fashion that their mode of being is incorrect or a failure state. For a game that aims to be a “philosophical playground,” there is an ethical imperative to create systems that do not just allow for non-narrative or fragmented play, but which actively validate it as a meaningful way to engage with the world. Strawson’s rebellion against the academic tyranny of narrativity provides the intellectual justification for ATET’s rebellion against the designed tyranny of coherence.

Mechanizing Pluralism

ATET’s design defends the unconventional story.

A philosophical commitment to narrative pluralism is meaningless if it is not instantiated in the game’s core systems. The resistance to the Tyranny of Coherence must be a functional, mechanical reality, not merely a thematic aspiration. The design of Anamnesis: The Eidolon Tapestries contains several key architectural choices that serve as a direct, systemic defense of the unconventional story. These systems work in concert to create a space where dissonance, tragedy, and fragmentation are not bugs to be fixed, but are potent and valid narrative forces.

The Director AI

The Director AI is the most critical component in this defense, as it is also the system most at risk of becoming an enforcer of coherence. A naive implementation of a story-generating AI will almost inevitably default to recognizable, linear plot structures because they are the easiest to model and execute. The design of ATET’s Director must therefore be a conscious act of subversion. It is described not as an author, but as a “resonance-oriented meta-agent” whose goal is “narrative vitality” and “symbolic response,” not “authorial control”. ⌂

This means the Director’s primary function is to observe the existing symbolic state of the Tapestry and introduce events that resonate with, challenge, or provide a thematic contrast to it. It is designed to recognize and react to “symbolic dissonance or stagnation”. ⌂ A world that is too stable, too coherent, is seen as lacking “narrative vitality.” In such a state, the Director may be more inclined to introduce a chaotic event or a contradictory Faith to create tension. This is a crucial inversion of the typical AI storyteller’s role. Instead of working to resolve all tensions into a satisfying conclusion, the Director AI is tasked with cultivating and managing tension as a vital resource.

A Value-Agnostic Metaphysics

The Eidos system serves as the game’s fundamental moral and narrative economy. For the design to successfully resist the Tyranny of Coherence, this economy must be value-agnostic. The “meaning” distilled from a life must be judged on its potency and complexity, not on its adherence to a particular moral or narrative archetype. The design documents provide the perfect test cases for this principle in the contrast between the Benevolent Leader and the Rotten Thread scenarios.

The story of Anya, the Benevolent Leader, is a classic redemptive arc, culminating in a heroic sacrifice that saves her community. The Eidos she generates is one of [sacrifice], [hope], and [leadership]. Conversely, the story of the Rotten Thread is one of nihilistic exploitation, a life spent deliberately causing suffering to generate high-purity Eidos from the despair of others. The resulting Eidos is one of [grief], [betrayal], and [despair].

The Tyranny of Coherence would demand that the “good” Eidos from Anya’s life be mechanically superior; a more powerful or useful tool for the Eidolon in the creation of the next Tapestry. ATET’s design philosophy must reject this. The Eidos of profound tragedy must be just as potent a creative material as the Eidos of heroic redemption.

This choice has a powerful meta-narrative implication. The master narrative of most game design is “winning,” and a redemptive story is a clear form of narrative victory. A tragic story is often framed as a “loss” or a “bad ending.” By making the metaphysical currency harvested from a tragic arc equally valuable, the Eidos system mechanically validates a counter-narrative to the very concept of winning. A player who chooses to weave a dark or tragic Thread is not failing; they are engaging in a different, equally valid mode of play. They are performing a diegetic act of resistance against the master narrative of “good stories” and “happy endings,” and the Eidos system is the mechanism that gives this resistance tangible, creative power in the game’s meta-loop.

The Subjective Interface

If the Episodic or fractured self is to be treated as a valid mode of being, the game must have a language to represent it. The Subjective Interface is that language. It is the primary tool for staging non-coherent states of consciousness not as temporary debuffs to be cured, but as the central, explorable reality of an Incarnation.

The premier example of this is the character “Echo” from the Glitch in the Weave scenario. Echo’s experience is a direct, playable representation of a fractured, non-Diachronic self. Her UI is a “warzone” where the ghosts of past lives manifest as flickering health bars and corrupted names. Her personal story is not about achieving a grand external goal, but about navigating the “integrity of your Thread”. The climax of her story is a choice about coherence itself: to mend the Tapestry and become a single, stable self, or to shatter it and embrace the chaos of multiplicity. By making this internal struggle the core gameplay, the design elevates the fractured self from a flaw to a profound philosophical starting point.

This principle extends beyond the individual to the collective. The Parliament of Shards is an artifact that contains a “dissonant chorus of competing wills,” the remnants of a gestalt consciousness that shattered during a civil war. To interact with it is to be flooded with contradictory arguments and goals. It is a playable representation of a fractured society, a failed narrative. In both cases, the Subjective Interface serves as an empathy engine, allowing the player to experience a form of consciousness that defies the simple, unified model, thereby validating it as a complex and meaningful state of being.

Authoring Dissonance

Finally, the game’s resistance to the Tyranny of Coherence is enshrined in its meta-loop, in the player’s transition from Actor to Author. As an Eidolon, the player is empowered to become the ultimate arbiter of the next world’s narrative logic. The interface for this creation, The Loom, is designed to facilitate the intentional authoring of dissonance.

When a player weaves the foundational rules of a new Tapestry, The Loom provides real-time, symbolic feedback. Weaving together thematically compatible threads of Eidos produces harmonious chords and stable, glowing light, indicating narrative resonance. Crucially, weaving together contradictory threads; such as a Fact that “magic is not real” and a Fiction of a “sorcerer king”; produces “dissonant chords” and creates a visible “scar” of dark energy in the weave. This feedback is not a failure state or a warning to be heeded. It is an informational tool. It signals to the player that they are creating a world with high Narrative Tension. The player is free, and even encouraged, to design a world built upon a fundamental contradiction.

This creative choice is the ultimate expression of the game’s core philosophical loop: “The meaning of being is to inform creation, and the meaning of creation is to enable a richer being”. ⌂ A “richer” being is not necessarily a happier, more successful, or more coherent one. A richer experience can be one that is more complex, more tragic, or more philosophically challenging. By giving the player the explicit power to author worlds of conflict and dissonance, the design grants them the freedom to choose their own philosophical problems, ensuring that the cycle of play is one of genuine exploration, not a repetitive performance of a single, pre-approved “good story.”

Beyond “Good” Stories and The Promise of a Philosophical Playground

The Tyranny of Coherence is a subtle but formidable ideological force. It operates culturally, through the master narratives that define a “good life,” and systemically, through the tendency of creative systems to default to simple, recognizable patterns. It promotes a narrow, prescriptive vision of human experience, one that champions the redemptive arc while implicitly marginalizing stories of tragedy, ambiguity, and quiet stasis. For a project as ambitious as Anamnesis: The Eidolon Tapestries, which seeks to be a true philosophical playground, confronting this tyranny is not an optional aesthetic choice; it is a central design imperative.

A robust defense against this tyranny requires a deep and principled foundation. By grounding its design in the philosophical critique of narrativity, ATET can justify its support for a plurality of life-stories. The validation of the non-narrative, “Episodic” self provides an ethical mandate to create systems that do not pathologize or punish those who exist outside the dominant Diachronic model. This philosophical commitment is then made manifest through a series of deliberate mechanical choices. The Director AI is tuned for narrative vitality, not prescriptive plotting. The Eidos system is designed as a value-agnostic economy where the metaphysical residue of tragedy is as potent as that of triumph. The Subjective Interface provides a stage for fractured and dissonant states of being, framing them as valid experiences to be explored. And finally, the Eidolon’s meta-loop empowers the player to become the author of their own philosophical questions, intentionally weaving worlds of conflict and contradiction.

The ultimate promise of ATET is not to tell a single, perfect story, but to provide a space where a multitude of stories can be lived and found meaningful. It is a rejection of the idea that there is one correct way to weave a Thread, one “healthy” narrative to which all lives must aspire. By consciously designing systems that embrace philosophical complexity, champion narrative pluralism, and empower the player to explore the full spectrum of being, the game can fulfill its highest ambition: to become a space where coherence and dissonance, redemption and tragedy, the Diachronic and the Episodic, are not opposing values in a hierarchy, but are all recognized as essential, powerful, and valid notes in the grand, unending symphony of existence.

noxabellus'

Anamnesis:

The Eidolon Tapestries

Explorer