>>> Item number 35737 from WRITERS LOG9408D --- (199 records) ---- <<< Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 18:35:02 JST Reply-To: WRITERS Sender: WRITERS From: Mike Barker Subject: PONDER: The Real World of Fiction [rather a long rant, trying to explain why references to "the real world" make me chuckle...] Let me suggest another fault line in the thin skin that divides "the real world" from whatever other worlds may be... The Great Equalizer Start with Occam's Razor--the premise that the simplest explanation is best. Two Persons Now consider a writer (a person sitting before you talking to you also will do). This writer tells you about two people--Bill and Nancy. S/he describes their hair, posture, clothing, background, gestures, etc. Then s/he says "One person is real, one is fictional." Is there any way you can tell which description is which? What question(s) can you ask which will reveal which person actually exists "out there" somewhere and which one is a figment of the writer's mind? Asking about details may only reveal the limits of the writer's knowledge of the real person--or their imagination if they are talking about the fictitious person. Suppose s/he puts an end to the problem, saying "Bill is real. Nancy is just someone I dreamed up." What about the real person, Bill, whom you never meet? How is he different from the figment? Suppose that as you walk away from the meeting, you bump into a young lady. You talk to this innocent, learning that her name is Nancy, and notice that in every particular she fits the description. Has the figment become real? Suppose you talk to several people who claim to have met Bill. Suppose, as is quite common, that their descriptions don't quite jibe... Which of the descriptions is "the real person?" Pointing? One of the common attempts to escape this problem is to say that none of the descriptions is real--only the experience which can be pointed to is "real." Of course, there is a very limited amount of life that each of us has access to in this restricted sense of reality... and even that has a few problems. For example, suppose that you yourself are the "writer"--dredging from memory details of "John" experience. But when you meet John today, he isn't quite the same. Close enough that you can easily bridge the gap, and certainly you would normally accept that this is John without any major quiver, but he is never the same. Even you yourself are never quite the same from moment to moment--what you see in memory is not quite what you are now... merely a description, faded and unreal. Solipsism--The Catatonic Answer Followed to logical extremes, such considerations can lead easily to the notion that only the current experience of self is in any sense "real." Cogito ergo summa. Thinking, thus existence. Poor Kant--his willing suspension of disbelief fell through, and he ended up not accepting any of it. Pluralism--My Answer However, I think it is almost as easy to go the other way. To declare that there may be some truth, some meaning, in every description. Unfortunately, I can see no logical way to separate descriptions of the "real" world from those of other worlds, and don't really see the necessity of giving such descriptions a priviledged position... The simplest explanation I can see is to declare that the illusion of there being something fundamentally different about descriptions of "the real world" is just that--possibly a useful illusion, but not particularly an important one. Pragmatically, of course, I pay attention to my food and drink and so forth--but I don't consider descriptions of these experiences necessarily better than those of the fictional worlds of myself and others. I can't prove in any meaningful way that what you perceive and experience is at all similar to what I do--although I may see correspondences. One of my friends was fully color-blind. He freely admitted that the rest of us were quite consistent in our delusions, but thought we spent an inordinate amount of time and energy fussing about our fiction of "colors." And he was correct--it is a fiction, not real--from where he lives. And That Means... Don Quixote charging at windmills and all the rest then are part of the worlds of humanity, each as live and real as poor old Bill or Nancy. And as avatars of humanity, as myths formulating underlying patterns of our living, they may be quite a bit more vital and important--more meaningful (filled with meaning!) than bits and pieces which are tarred with that "real" label... Clock faces melting across the landscapes, servants perpetually climbing unending stairways, ruby slippers' heels tapping--there's no place like home, you know? There is something quite strange in rejecting these bits of meaning simply because they are dressed in wonder, while clinging to meaningless trash since it lays claim to a spurious "realism." Those other worlds do require imagination, thought, and spur us to be and do more than take the easy way out--they are hard to live with. Perhaps that is the reason some people prefer to proclaim their faith and belief in such a strangely limited world. Most of the people, most of the world, most of history, and so on--almost all of the world that we live in, in our role as a social being--is purest fiction. It is reported, described, depicted, and so forth--not directly experienced. What is the difference between Abraham Lincoln and Gunga Din? The degree of my belief that if I had lived in the right place and time, I might have encountered a person corresponding to the description? But if I happened to live in Oz, I might very well encounter those fantastic characters! Having assumed the right to make hypothetical premises, any kind of wonderful possibility becomes equally probable. And frankly, many of the less "realistic" scenarios provide much more enjoyable and understandable encounters. Perhaps pool balls do change into pocket watches... Knight Errant! I'm not sure if I can say this any more clearly. Out of all the possible worlds of imagination, chance, and folly, supposing that there is something special about descriptions of the one I currently appear to be experiencing is the height of egotistical hubris. I would rather take a peek at as many of the worlds as I can, through as many different peepholes, vantages, and perceptual filters as I can, and see some of the rich variety of those worlds. Claiming some particular virtue for my point-of-view simply because it is my point-of-view seems like a waste of time and energy. Should I claim that the view from my right eye is more "real", accurate, better, etc. than the view from my left eye? No, I take both of them as useful, and pretend to have stereoscopic sight, depth-of-field, and all the other benefits. Why not look for what is useful about multiple points-of-view in life, thinking, etc. and see how much more perspective can be gained? There may be "one real world" out there. However, since the closest experience we have of whatever is "out there" is already abstracted, relatively obviously inaccurate, incomplete, and frequently wrong, why get hung up on it? Admit that there can be important truths embodied in quite fantastic forms and enjoy them all... Math? Mathematics some time ago ran into the difficulty of trying to prove some relationship between their models and the "real" world--and gave up. To be specific, Euclidean geometry takes several premises and develops a large, consistent geometry based on those premises. Take a different set of premises (e.g. "Two parallel lines will meet in a point.") and you can develop another geometry--fully internally consistent, and somewhat "strange" to our notions, but equally valid. Mathematicians take the stance (when they are being careful) that they are developing internally consistent models whose relationship to the "real" world is unknown. The relationship to the "real" world is not even (properly) their problem any more. In fact, in certain aspects of physics some of the non-Euclidean geometries have proven more useful than the straightforward Euclidean one... I think this is the best approach to take to descriptions (mapping!) in every field. We are developing internally consistent models or maps. But the map is never the territory--and some quite colorful and gaudy maps are quite useful in dealing with that terra incognito, for "here there be monsters." An agnostic at heart Perhaps the simplest way to consider it is that I am agnostic (in the broadest sense, as I am equally willing or unwilling to believe in the existence of most spiritual or material things). E.g., although I personally may not have encountered elves, earth spirits, or other excitement, I can not thereby rule them out. Ghosts, zombies, and other mysteries may seem unlikely to me, but again, I cannot rule them out. Even other people all too often seem unlikely and fantastic to me, but I cannot rule them out... All I can say is that there are some experiences which I have personally encountered--outside that small set, there are an enormous number of grey areas which I have seen or heard various reports about...and I try to keep an open mind towards. That does not mean I am easily convinced either way on these items, but I am willing to listen. Even if I do laugh at sacred cows and other maculate devotions. Why not?