Quiet Boy, illusion, and authenticity · 1:41pm May 17th, 2016
I had meant to write a blog post that tortuously wound around to the tagged story, but while I was typing, I got a PM:
Illya Leonov has just posted a lovely reading of Quiet Boy and Moon Horse. Illya's smooth, deep voice is a beautiful complement to the fic, and I'm in awe that my story has now moved enough hearts to spawn two fantastic readings from top-tier audioreaders.
(The rest of this ends up relevant to QB&MH too, I promise.)
I just had the most amazing two-hour conversation with darf (in a way that might surprise people who are fans of his porn but not his poetry). We have both, it turns out, had a pretty eventful year — darf moreso than I — and in the course of catching up on that, our conversation ranged through identity and metaphysics in a way that I'm probably going to be unpacking for a while.
Take, for example, the question that was posed to me in the context of explaining some of my hallucinogen experiences: "Do you consider yourself a contrarian?" I don't. I really don't, but ... "I would say no," I responded, "except for the fact that just last night I put away the overcoat I wear to conventions, which has two buttons on its lapel ..."
"Professional Authority Questioner" is the best job title
I'm not a contrarian at heart, I tried to explain. I'm a trickster. Sort of? But I've never felt comfortable being pigeoned in that hole, because I've got too much empathy to wholeheartedly embrace the archetype. Regardless, there are a lot of aspects to that path that do resonate with me (*). I'm sure this is no surprise to anyone who has read my inaugural Pony Fiction Vault feature or my infamous Writeoff causality-breaking meta-entry, but I love subverting expectations and broadening people's horizons.
I should add, relatedly, that I'm a hobbyist Tarot reader ... but I'm much better at it drunk than I am sober. (That's not just my opinion, that's the assessment of pretty much everyone I've read for.) This is because when I'm sober, I take it seriously. Getting drunk allows me to set aside the inner editor that normally keeps a tight filter on what I communicate, and go into a state that is nominally stream-of-consciousness but more "maximum bullshit mode". It becomes a sort of interactive performance art, spinning a narrative out of the cards and the shreds of context I wheedle from my mark victim client, cuing off of weird associations just to keep the yarn spinning, freewheeling and twisting and dodging through the threads of fate until I've accidentally woven a tapestry behind me.
(And sometimes when I open myself up to fate For Entertainment Purposes Only™, the joke's on me, and that's amazing and hilarious.)
Anyhow: so it was, as darf and I wound down the conversation, I found myself slipping sideways into Maximum Bullshit Mode and proclaiming (with the mischievous certainty of someone painting himself into a corner to see how he'll escape this time):
"Illusion and authenticity are not necessarily incompatible."
"Whoah," darf said, and said he was looking forward to hearing me justify that, and I think I kind of am too. 
However, as I was thinking about what sort of argument I could make to back up that statement, I realized:
I've already written it.
Quiet Boy and Moon Horse (which, to close the temporal circle here, Present Perfect just reviewed and highly recommended) is a story that has received both praise for its raw power and confusion over its theme. As PP said: "Honestly, at the end, I'm not sure what this story is about — the power of imagination? Positive thinking and totems as a means to overcome hardship and mental illness?" Titanium Dragon's review disagreed: "At its heart, this is fundamentally the story of a young boy seeking solace in a fantasy, trying not to be unhealthy about it, but failing at that anyway, and the joys and struggles it brings him." For my own part, I was too busy arguing that it simultaneously is and isn't a pony story to address the question.
But if I can put on my Author Face for a moment, the core of this story isn't about whether Quiet Boy is wrong or right, healthy or unhealthy — it's about a deeper statement, one which most succinctly crystallized in one of the story's later conversations:
Her smile fell a notch, then stabilized and crept back upward. "Come on," she said. "We both put in an awful lot of work for [this to be] a fictional relationship, don't you think?"
"That's because …" He flailed for words. "You're important. Fictional but important."
He felt a phantom pressure at his side as she settled in against him. "Am I now?"
"Of course you are. Look at all the ways you've changed my life."
Moon Horse smirked. "I meant, do you really think I'm fictional, but I think your last sentence answered that."
Quiet Boy is making a distinction here that Moon Horse doesn't buy. However, I do — and I submit he's right to make it, and Moon Horse's sidestep is an example of her failing him. It's absolutely no coincidence that that is the scene in which their relationship fractures.
"Fictional but important" is such a crucial concept, not just to Quiet Boy and Moon Horse but to fiction in general and human life in general, that we have a word for it: Mythic. A myth is a fiction that matters. A myth is a fiction that changes lives, and thus, transcends mere fiction to become something that is real in effect if not necessarily origin.
You can't reach out and touch a myth. It's illusionary. But it reflects something inside of us, something important and true — and the stories that we turn into our personal myths are the ones that define us, and the ones that act through us to literally shape the world.
When a brony pauses before cussing out a customer after a long day at work, thinks "That's not what Fluttershy would do," and takes a deep breath before speaking with a smile, fiction has made the world a better place. When we weep at a story we read, because it has provoked a healing catharsis or pushed us out of our comfort zone or triggered some empathy that leaves us determined to help someone in similar straits, fiction has made the world a better place. (That, I think, is the highest possible goal of fiction.) That's not to say all myths are positive — "nobody cares about me" is a fiction that has ended a terrifying number of lives — but there, again, is an illusion (with no more basis in physical fact than Fluttershy or Moon Horse) that has become so real that it overwhelms facts, and changes the world more effectively than things we can point to or touch.
That's the kind of power our myths — our illusions — can have.
And when that intersects with identity ... I don't think it's a stretch to say that the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves are, in a fundamental and literal way, us. I call myself a dragon; you might call yourself an author or a student or a Republican or a husband or an atheist, but in the end all of those things tell us what we value in ourselves, and that's about story, not fact.
For example, a college friend of mine identified sincerely as Jewish, despite the fact that he made a point of celebrating Passover by eating a ham-and-cheese-on-matzo-bread sandwich, breaking as many Jewish dietary laws as possible: how is that identity anything but factually false and yet fundamentally correct?
(Contrast with something that is merely factually true: You and I are both biological machines that run by processing organic matter into poop, but I'm pretty sure nobody in the history of ever has built an identity as a poop-generating machine.)
That's the distinction I was getting at with illusionary and authentic. "Illusion" just measures factuality, and factuality is an awfully poor yardstick when it comes to authenticity. Often, the best way to be true to yourself is to be true to the stories about who you try to be.
I think that's an extremely important insight.
I refer to myself as a flying contradiction.
You could read this story as one trying to live there personal myth, and questioning their sanity of it at the same time.
It's a form of induced schizophrenia, or as has been stated before tulpamancy. Which also sounds like induced schizophrenia depending on what you do with it.
When one lives their personal myth, especially one that goes of the deep end into wtf!? territory you tend to question your sanity. Especially when you are hearing voices.
I'd like to begin by repeating an epigram that I stumbled upon a while ago that compliments your statement about illusion and authenticity:
"That which never happened (or existed) can still be important."
In response to your conclusion, however, I would posit that being true to one's values is not the entire story. It almost certainly is critical to valuing oneself and getting what one wants out of life—however, this belies the fact that illusion can be made to serve.
Consider Victorianism or some elements of Confucianism: both are approaches to living that incorporate self-denial and assumption of role (usually within a social context). Taking your cussing at a customer example, the 'role' of service provider would perforce be adequate above any personal considerations on the matter—it is simply not something a clerk (or cashier or hotline respondent or IT manager, &c.) does. In such cases, is illusion providing authenticity to the role at the expense of the individual? Else, is the illusion allowing the individual to remain authentic to themselves?
Stoicism as well could be considered, but as I recall it places the self-denial at a more pervasive level of modifying ones values. I defer any further discussion of Stoicism to anyone with more familiarity with it (or more time to research).
interesting premise. i would argue that the metanarrative of the fiction active in this scenario is second to the authenticity of the person--regardless of the source of their morals, the morals are themselves a 'real' thing, enacted in principle and concept thru the world. Fluttershy can't do anything for me unless i let her sway my sense and opinion--but she will never be 'real', no matter how active her presence in the world is within any individual or group.
consider the following; the sublime motivation that occurs in the mind, the separation of ego and id, the reaction thot thru and then considered and organized into a conscious decision. i don't understand how that contemplation is anything but truth--truth in a platonic nature, but truth in the only way i currently understand it anyway.
if i meet someone i've never met, and we hug, then part ways, what was the hug to them? to me? i have no way of verifying what that hug means to them, only its value as a gesture in my reality. to me, a hug is powerful--it's a sign of love, affection, a life-changing gesture that can improve your whole day. but what's a hug to someone else? if i hug you, and you let the hug dissipate, brought back into your own sphere of ego and identity, the hug becomes fiction--it has no truth to it even tho it was real.
also interesting to think about all this re: Buddhist sense of self and illusion. every sense of self is, in a way, an illusion--is that a bad thing? well, no, not necessarily, but holding onto an illusion requires work. it's a necessary exchange of desire and suffering. but to dissolve the self--more accurately, to become the self--that is the opposite of work. it is the definition of freedom. and freedom and truth are close to each other in my understanding of the world.
3950699
I think the answer is that you choose your paradigm. If you choose to define your life by one of those systems, then they are allowing you to remain authentic to yourself (since you choose to see your role as an extension of yourself in those systems.) Choosing a personal role for yourself (Fluttershy, a Jedi, etc.) is a different paradigm, but for the person who chooses it it's no less valid, and both probably carry about the same risks of emotional/social damage for being a poor life choice.
In situations where society enforces a paradigm, I think those risks are much greater, since one size rarely fits all. That's the price of conformity. (The benefit is predictability, efficiency, and less personal accountability.)
Edit: Also, speaking of paradigms... Horizon, this might sound like I'm being flakey, but I hope you'll see past that: have you ever read the Hollow Ones tradition book for the Mage: The Ascention RPG? Because it's basically what you're talking about here, and while I love it as a game book it's something I intend to keep around as one of the best magical/philosophical texts I've found. If you haven't read it, you should try to get your hands on it.
Oh, well written!
Actually, I wrote Hoofprints to toy with that idea a bit. The beginning when I told the story of the moon landings in explicitly mythic terms. There's also an absolutely amazing version of that here which, no joke, makes me cry when I read it.
And, besides, it is important to not fetishize truth or, heavens help you, Truth. Oh, sure, there is a hierarchy of wrongness (and rightness), but the category of Absolute Truth is largely empty and the only way to say useful things is to tell lies with great care. The bigger the truth you need to say, the more lies and the more care you need. Some mundane truths you can dispatch with only a few quick fibs—as I write this I sit in front of the hard, brown table[1]—and some require thousands of lies concatenated in just the right way. We call this eldritch practice 'writing.' Sometimes you need so many lies you have to write poetry and, well, just ask Plato. Nobody lies like the poets do.
Don't get me wrong: I am the first person in the room to go "Um, actually, I think if you check the literature you'll find that..." I'm not arguing for epistemological anarchy, but there's levels of rightness and for certain complex human things[2] we have to start asking less about truth and more about utility.
[1] None of these things exist outside of my brain. I have taken qualia I, and possibly only I, experience and put words which I believe based on prior experience, will cause others to experience something possibly like my qualia. Maybe. It's a very inexact process.
[2] Unlike hydrogen for which, as I understand it, close-to-truth-telling is comparatively easy. There's equations and everything.
You know, the latest chapters of the Austraoeh series deal with the interplay between truth and lies and how lies (fiction) can still go toward a better, greater Truth (myth). If I at all understood what you were talking about.
3950909
Shhhhh-shh-shh. No East Horse here. Let the smart people do their talking, while you and I sit and eat popcorn.
A fact is often just a lie that everyone agrees upon. Truth is an ideal, and fiction (of various degrees of believably) is what we have to deal with deal with in our lives. Reality may be out there somewhere, but the illusion based on it (more or less) is the universe we inhabit.
BTW, none of that is true.
Given how much I enjoy the concept of kidding on the square, I do agree with the idea, and sort of consider it to be self-evidently a thing.
Probably why I found the story so interesting, really. The real danger is when you start believing the lies you tell yourself.
Had to listen to the whole thing. Even better as an audiobook. Thanks.
I confess I skipped portions of this blog (haven't read Quiet Boy and Moon Horse yet ^.^), but this bit caught my attention. I realize it's out of context, but:
this raises the very interesting question, who gets to decide whether you belong to a group or not? You, the group, a third party member? I can think of plenty of argument that go one way or the other, but does all that fly out the window the moment someone claims to be my follow and has murdered someone in my name, justifying their action by my words?
3950795
:
If I could seek some clarification
To which category of truth (or hierarchy) dies this statement belong?
3951709
"Telling lies with great care."
Less facetiously[1], it is 'useful.' I'm yet to see arguing about absolute truth produce anything other than amusement.
[1] I'm not a trickster. Not sure which archetype I belong to. This one, presumably?
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/RWS_Tarot_00_Fool.jpg/220px-RWS_Tarot_00_Fool.jpg
3951741
Somebody's getting coal for Christmas
Useful is an interesting term. But come now, I want to know it straight, Ghost: do you believe absolute truth exists? I won't bite :3
You know, Moon Horse is a great example of a tulpa. Just thought of it.
3951877
Me and the Big Red have one of 'em, wossname, Understandings. With a capital letter and everything. He doesn't bring coal and I don't melt the polar ice-cap with my Moon-based death ray.
Do I believe in Absolute Truth? None has ever been pointed out to me. I don't see that it's relevant. My personal metaphysics admits three types of truth: the pragmatic, the personal, and the predictive. Yes, my personal metaphysics comes with alliteration. Pragmatic truths are the truths of the everyday. My wallet is on the dresser. Sure, somebody could have moved it, and I could be remembering wrong, but... it's on the dresser. Those are the things we accept as true for pragmatic reasons. Personal truths are internal beliefs whose truth is measured in their utility to us, internal mechanisms, creations, and thought-patterns that accomplish some useful thing in our mind. They are true for us. They needn't apply in the outside world except as through us. Lastly, predictive truths are, basically, science or rather things you get to using the scientific method. Their main importance is that they are predictive. They allow me to guess things about the world I perceive and test and refine them.
And that's it. I can't see any need for Absolute Truth there at all.
That actually makes a lot of sense, when you point out that conversation.
I AM TRYING
We, and all that we encounter are stories. It is how we relate to the world. To ourselves we are the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves and the world. But to others we are the stories they tell about us and the world. None of these stories are wholly false or true. We pick and choose the constructing elements (as do others) in order to make the puzzle fit into the worlds we carry in our heads. 7.125 billion people, 7.125 billion worlds. That's a lot of mixing and matching. We will pick as many truths as we need to make out stories consistent with our realities and as many untruths as well. And we will not often know which is which. We may as Horizon says think "Nopony cares about me" and kill ourselves, but a closer inspection might have revealed that we are quite aware that somepony cares... but it simply... is not sufficient to sustain us. That is the more frightening truth I think. And more often the correct one.
I lie to myself on a daily basis. And I tell my friends about the lies. Which makes them truths, does it not?
No, that's basically what I do here.
Are some things more worth believing in than others?
This is a blog that excellently and eloquently states the position I am coming around to as far as how I feel about some of the most important fiction in my life, MLP included. Like, yes, it's fictional, yes, it was created by a bunch of middle-aged Canadians and Americans as a glorified advertising campaign for a multinational toy corporation, yes it shouldn't matter...but it does, and the fact that it matters means that it's okay and right that it matters. The fiction creates its own value and truth by being accepted as truth. Which, off the top of my head, is actually how most things work. Like math!
You, good sir, apparently haven't spent enough time around babies
I think you're spot-on with respect to fiction. This makes me think of one of Dumbledore's final questions to Harry.
I want that on a shirt.
3951956
Thanks for humoring a brat like me (and I mean that)
Isn't that an absolute truth, Ghost? That there are three kinds? It applies to all situations, after all; if it didn't that would suggest a fourth kind of truth not mentioned here.
Ah, but do you have an Understanding? Italics trump capital letters you know. Unless you have an UNDERSTANDING. But I think only Mrs. Claus is privy to that one.
3952976
Of course it isn't an absolute truth. It's a personal one: i.e. it's one of the things that helps me think clearer. And before you ask, that is a predictive truth and, as such, subject to experiential revision. And so is that. And that. And that. &c
3953118
Okay :)
So "three kinds" is a personal truth which applies only to you then, yes? Meaning outside of you, where it doesn't apply, you allow for the possibility of two kinds, or one, or absolute truths? I worry you might think I'm playing games here, Ghost. But I'm being sincere. :3
3953172
No. It applies to me, including how I think. I don't think there are other truths. But I leave open the possibility of thinking otherwise. I make no strong claims on the outside world because I cannot test metaphysics nor epistemology directly. Though I can test the proposition that using this approach makes my thinking less muddled. I have tested it and it seems to bear out, though of course, the strength of the finding is small given that n=1 and there is no control.
And what you are doing is using maieutics on me. That much is clear.
3953172
How would it work exactly to have an absolute truth "outside of (him), where it doesn't apply"? Isn't the point of absolute truths that they're absolute, that they do apply to literally everyone?
I'm not 3953118 — though I do like his system; I've got similar lived experiences and it seems intuitively elegant and useful to me — but it seems pretty obvious to me that if an Absolute Truth™ were to exist it could be slotted pretty easily into one of his existing categories. If, say, it was an Absolute Truth™ that all gnorgles were sleem, then you could file it in the "predictive" box, and every time you saw a gnorgle, you could assume that it was sleem; and if the truth actually was absolute, then you would be right 100% of the time without exception. The difference between labeling "all gnorgles are sleem" an Absolute Truth™ vs. a Predictive truth is that Absolute Truth™ means that you're extrapolating from your experience into every single gnorgle that has ever, and could ever, possibly exist: you are projecting onto a very, very, very, very, very, very, very large universe. As a fellow with a mathematical background, my experience is that the universe is devilishly good at constructing counterexamples once you start hauling in absolutes and infinites. Predictive truths have all of the benefits of absolute truths plus the important addition of humility: we don't know everything about the universe, and so it's important to leave open the possibility that we might be wrong.
I sense this circling toward a moral and/or theological component, though, because something like (say) "be kind to others" is a big ball of truth that doesn't like boxes. (So, uh, I guess that "it seems pretty obvious to me" last paragraph was a pretty narrow statement.) To that I (again, not necessarily Ghost) would say that that needs some breaking down; "kindness makes the world better" is something amenable to prediction and testing, leaving us with "we should do things which make the world better". That still seems too big a chunk, but I'm happy to accept it as-is as a personal truth, and if you're wondering how to move that from the personal into the universal you could probably deconstruct it further into predictive truths about humans' eusociality and the fact that doing nice things for other people creates an environment in which nice things are spontaneously done to you. I don't know how to make the statement of values "the world should be a good place" anything but personal, but I don't want to share a world with the hypothetical individuals who disagree.
3952961
This is a design which calls out for Trixie.
3952561 3952021
POOP-OFF, GO
3952735
I think this is a big component of authenticity, yes. And I think that's a good thing.
3952566
Oooh. That's a big, and important, question. I kinda don't want to get this wrong.
My go-to answer borrows from Vonnegut: the most worthwhile things to believe in are the stories that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy. "I matter" may be simply a myth (in the same way that "nobody cares about me", discussed in the post above, is), but it's the core myth that gets us out of bed in the morning and flinging ourselves against the world. Not believing in it is, he said understatedly, a pretty big deal.
Beyond that, I don't know if I have any philosophical positions, but if you want to ground that in some specifics it might make it easier to talk around.
3952476
That seems like it might be aiming at the same point from a different direction, but yeah, it's an important and interesting thought which gets back to (as you put it) "stories are how we relate to the world". If you don't really think that you're a good person, but you live by the story that you're a good person, and because of that story you make an effort to do good things, at what point does it turn from myth into fact?
3951956
Yes! That was mentioned in story comments, and though I never specifically responded to it there, the characterization of QB&MH as "accidental tulpamancy" is pretty spot-on.
3951782
Pratchett? The smallcaps pretty much screams Death.
3951741
Speaking wrt the Fool card specifically … one of the things that tickles me most about the Major Arcana of the traditional Tarot deck is that they represent the stages of a journey toward enlightenment, starting numerically with the Fool card at 0 and ending with the World at 21. The Fool is the innocent one, the one just starting out on a journey who doesn't even know what he doesn't know.
Do you know what the very next card is?
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/RWS_Tarot_01_Magician.jpg
The dude who does the impossible. The dude with the infinity symbol over his head.
The Magician, the realized and actualized self, the mover of worlds, still has basically his entire journey in front of him.
That's a big and bold statement, and the deeper I get into magic the truer it gets.
"I always tell the truth, even when I lie."
these types of themes interest me! it's actually something close to what I wanted to try writing myself, recently. though I still have difficulty understanding identity.
3953870
3953926
You guys are awesome. I hope you are enjoying this as I am.
Perhaps I should make an assertion: it is impossible to escape absolutes on every level. It is fallacious to deny any absolute (you're free to test me here ^.^), for by doing so you posit an absolute. Say I assert "there are no absolutes"; this statement obviously applies absolutely. If it did not, then there could be absolutes, and you would need to edit the statement to "there are usually no absolutes" (a much safer statement, I think).
Conversely, if you apply it absolutely, then you're creating an absolute to deny all absolutes--the statement defeats itself. "Absolutes exist" avoids these issues--does it not? (Mind you, I'm not saying many absolutes must necessarily exists, but certainly a few, or least one).
None of us have yet seemed to deny the existence of any truth at all, so it seems we hold "truth exists" which is another absolute. If it wasn't, then we could logically posit some context or situation where no truth existed. Ghost, this is what I meant earlier when I said that dividing truth into three kinds did not escape an absolute. Truth, as a category, must exist. That it has subheadings matters not.
Predictions make assumptions, don't they? They assume reality is consistent and predictable, which must be true in order to make any predictions in the first place. No science could be accomplished if we assumed the universe was not both rationally intelligible and consistent. No physicist will tell you we know the law of gravity is true everywhere in the universe; she is not there to test it. And yet Dark Matter was theorized with the implicit assumption that the far off galaxies followed the same law of gravity. The entire issue dissolves without that.
In error analysis in experimentation, we say, "all measurements contain uncertainty". This is true. But could you imagine if we also said, "the statement 'all measurements contain uncertainty' also contains uncertainty"? You see how the ground evaporates beneath you? Now that is not a perfect illustration, but I think it helps. That all measurements contain uncertainty is an absolute we don't dare deny.
It was his personal truth that did not apply outside of him, by dint of being exclusively personal (as per Ghost's clarification, unless I misunderstood it). :) I was asking that if it applied only to him, what applied outside.
If it was wrong or dishonest of me to question you, then I apologize Ghost. I certainly don't seek to offend; I do, however, seek to learn what is true. I believe you do too. Anyway, feel free to question me back, or just ignore me :3
3954235
My statement isn't "There's no absolutes." It isn't even "There's usually no absolutes." It's "Of the thing people seem to term 'absolutes' I have found nothing I recognized as an example of it and I conduct my affairs under the assumption, easily reversed, that no such thing exists."
Language being language prevents me from saying the above succinctly, so occasionally I make absolute statements because, perversely, those are the most straightforward to make in our common language.
I make a lot of assumptions, sure. But they are just that. Assumptions. I use them because they seem to work. I don't hold them to be absolutely true. I just assume they hold and modify things as I hit my head on problems. I've no way of proving an outside universe exists. I have no way of proving there's such a thing as me. I have memories of thinking, acting, perceiving. But I've no proof that those memories are real. No proof that I am not a Boltzmann Brain popping into existence in a limitless cosmos for a brief instant with false memories of a consistent universe and a persona history.
But it seems to me that there is, and until something better comes along, I'm assuming a whole lot. This has naff all to do with absolute truth. Indeed, the ultimate tentative nature of everything I hold appears quite the opposite to my conception of an 'absolute truth.'
I am perfectly comfortable about saying I am uncertain about the 'all measurements contain uncertainty' statement. Indeed, I'd much rather say that I am uncertain about measurements which may or may not be uncertain in and of themselves. I am also uncertain about my uncertainty: its existence, extent, cause, and form.
If I make a prediction that things do have uncertainty, and that this uncertainty is distributed according to the Gaussian curve &c &c it seems to turn out true a whole lot enabling me to (seem to) accomplish my goals much easier. Are there actually errors or is there in each measurement a pre-determined Cosmic Fudge Factor calculated by the Prime Intellect which is so chosen every time that, to me, it seems to be a random process? No idea. Insufficient data. I am uncertain,.
So? Of course there are assumptions. How does this introduce absolutes? Assumptions aren't absolute. Dark Matter says "IF far-off galaxies obey the same laws of gravitation[1] THEN I predict that there is this dark matter stuff which I predict will gravitationally lens light like so." And, lo and behold, it did just that. Is it Dark Matter? The Cosmic Hedgehog? No clue, but the Dark Matter theory predicted is so point there.
Truth exists is an absolute? Is it now? What's this 'truth?' Can you show me some?
I used 'truth' because that's the language I speak, but I am as uncertain in my division as I am in the existence of truth itself. My mind seems to contain vivid impressions that the external universe conforms to some model I have. I call these vivid impressions, if they exist and aren't mirages, 'beliefs' or, if you wanna be all Ancient Greek about it 'doxa.' Those beliefs which, when I act according to them, seem to allow me to accomplish things, I call 'true' with things being more or less true depending on how much I can accomplish and how often. This could all be a false impression. I don't know. Maybe all 'true' things become false tomorrow and all false ones true. Maybe I come across a distinct position that's neither truth nor false, but a distinct and entirely different fact. Maybe this world is my solipsistic dream and truth and falsehood are psychological categories.
I don't know. I assume, guess, predict, extrapolate, revise. Or maybe I don't and my opinions are immutable and predestined and all changing of my mind is actually a false memory.
[1] The hypothesis that they don't has been seriously considered.
3954016
No, no specifics. It was a very general question that I wrestle with on occasion. I believe a number of things that are probably not demonstrably true but which make me a happier, better person who is of more value to the world and the people around me. I frequently wonder if this is the right thing to be doing. I keep coming back to a quote from Secondhand Lions, a largely forgettable movie which didn't make much of an impression except one line:
I've always wondered if that's true or not.
3954445
Thanks again for taking the time to respond, Ghost :)
If I did, would you deny the trustworthiness of your eyes?
Uncertainty seems to be a truth for you, Ghost.
Unending uncertainty, and uncertainty about your uncertainty. Does it extend backwards into infinity with no stopping, a sort of eternal uncertainty? Such a thing might sound absolute to me. At the risk of sounding facetious, which I'm not, you seem very certain about its universality. Where does this confidence come from: from the arguments of other men and women, from experimentation, from (uncertain) principles? Your confidence bespeaks, to me, an intimate familiarity.
And yet you know that you don't know, don't you? "No, I don't know that I don't know," you may say, and that's fine, Ghost. But you don't know anything and you don't not know anything either--so where exactly do you stand? A great wash of ever shifting color? Where all things are possible and yet nothing is?
And hey, perhaps this is so--who am I to say? I simply seek to find reason; maybe I have found it. Is this life--to deny everything? You are a careful man, Ghost, I can see that very clearly. I respect that too, you know. I suppose only you can judge if these philosophies have given the life they've promised.
As far as truth existing as a category, I simply maintain this in light of the fact that whenever someone tells me there is no truth, they seem to say that as if it were true. *shrugs* If I am displaying poor reasoning you're welcome to critique it.
It merely seemed to me you and horizon were positing 'predictive truths' as something immune to accepting a priori assumptions. I simply wanted to point out otherwise.
I am wondering if our conceptions of "absolute" are different here. Would you mind explaining how you define the term? Perhaps this might help us reach some common ground. :)
3954048
Yes. I was reminded of the quote when you were talking about fiction making the world a better place.
In hindsight, it wasn't as relevant as I felt at the time.
All this discussion and nobody has touched upon the interpretation I see in QB&MH:
She was real, and his unwillingness to accept that is what drove them apart. That to me, it's an I Believe in Fairies story - he had the opportunity to touch the magic, and insistence on trying to force her to prove herself again and again severed things beyond breaking.
It reminds me somewhat of 3955092 Skywriter here's most recent story which dwells on similar themes - coming down moreso on the Fairy end, but really you could argue 'He's nuts' at the end too. To me, QB&MH is a parable about the dangers of sinking too deeply into any-one paradigm at the expense of others.
Yes, Moon Horse may not be real. But she also may be as well - and sometimes when we demand that the things we love act a certain way, we lose them - either they leave us, or we kill that which made them special in the first place. Moon Horse is a creature of magic that needs that Magic to exist; to try to trap her in a world of science is to kill her, and her absence is in fact her death - literal or metaphorical, the same.
It's funny, really - I don't see myself as religious, but were I in that situation, though I would always yearn for more and probably never stop asking for reassurance, I wouldn't let it destroy what I have, because...there's a beauty there too, and to me this is a tragic story about the price of what we deem Adulthood in our society.
Really, after all, that's why so many of us are in the world of Pony - because it's about rediscovering that which we lost, knowingly or unknowingly - in telling our own personal Moon Horses that we don't need her to create a star precisely at Coordinates 24.3 by 55.5 or whatever - and instead that we simply want her to be a part of our lives, and to accept her as who she is meant to be, rather than who we insist she become.
3955525
When I say 'absolute' I mean that which both applies at all times, in all places, and which is such that things cannot be otherwise.
And my certainty isn't 'absolute.' It is tentative. I do not say that all things are uncertain. I say that I seem to experience a vivid quale of uncertainty regarding all things. You can try to make that into a generalized absolute all day wrong, it just isn't. As for 'not knowing' am I absolute about it? *shrug* I may know, but am incapable of articulating. I don't think I'm lying when I say, "I don't know," but for all I know I could be lying to myself particularly efficiently. I don't know. I find no certainty nor sure knowledge on any subject in the compasses of my intellect. It might be there, but I cannot recall finding it, ever.
My contention is that I don't seem to need this absolute truth. Assumptions and tentative acceptance serve me well. Do I know that 2+2 is four? Nope. But if I accept it as a part of a larger axiomatic system it certainly does help with paying the bills. Provided bills and, indeed, reality exist.
This sentence doesn't really seem to mean anything.
That depends entirely on how they deny truth. An absolute epistemological anarchist could deny it altogether and then make that statement because... well why not? But someone can deny absolute truth not as an absolute truth but as a limited one: e.g. "I seem to be unable to recall any instance where I experienced that which others seem to term 'absolute truth' nor can I seem to envision what such a thing might be, nor can I seem to recall anyone ever offering me an argument that such a thing might exist."
3955627
Apologies for the delay! It's been a long busy day. (hey that rhymed!)
I agree with the first half. The bolded half I want to be more careful with.
If I can rephrase this: you're saying you have never encountered any truth claim you could not question? Maybe put differently, any statement heard or spoken you can attach an "if" to ("if such and such is true, then -statement-"). Proceeding from my understanding of your definition (the bolded half), absolutes are statements you can't question or attach an "if" to. Since you can attach an "if" to everything, there are no absolutes.
Is that an accurate summary?
Me :)
Recall your Aristotle. That's what absolute truth (well, 'truth' back then) meant.
That's not a summary. It is longer than the thing it is summarizing. And it is not what I said. I was very precise. I mean what I said. I don't know what 'questioning' has to do with it. I never experienced, first or second hand, any absolute truth. Nor have I been offered an alternative definition, either.
And what is your argument? No, actually, what is your definition of absolute truth and then how do you propose to demonstrate such a thing exists?
3957957
Oh snap you replied, and here I was checking to make sure my comment really posted haha xD My neurosis actually helped for once! :D
That's all well and good for Aristotle, but my judge is (hopefully!) reason. I am a big fan of old white dead dudes though...seeing how I'll be one someday. :y (noting Aristotle may not have been white)
Ha, very true! A poor word choice on my part; probably not the first time during this discussion, and undoubtedly not the last either :P Though what I meant was more a summarizing of your entire viewpoint in terms that I seemed to grasp better. Because even though you say:
You have also said:
Misunderstandings abound (in my brain), so I want to be careful. After turning your previous comment over in my head for a few hours, particularly what "and which is such that things cannot be otherwise" might mean in application, my "summary" pieced itself together. Not very well, I'm sure. Furthermore, I was (and am) seeking to understand the source for your (seemingly) omnipresent uncertainty. It seems to present itself as self-evident, but I want to be careful with that, and see if maybe I could get inside the idea of "uncertainty" and explore it a little, see if it assumed anything. I thought, "does the ability to question everything mean everything is uncertain?" Does "which is such that cannot be otherwise" mean--to you in particular--that an absolute is unquestionable? Though that seems to imply self-evidence, so maybe it's better to say "cannot be questioned".
I imagine you saying "it is my inability to prove anything which gives uncertainty to all things", which makes me want to examine whether "uncertainty to all things" includes "my inability to prove". The inability seems to be a certainty in order to make the statement work, thus escaping itself.
This is all a lot of stuff. I guess it's late and I'm rambling :P
Anyway...
A few things, I guess:
1) An absolute (anything) is that which applies at all times and places.
2) If Truth as a category does not exist, I can say:
"There is no truth/truth does not exist"
But if this statement includes itself, then it isn't true (a contradiction); if it excludes itself, it uses a truth to deny any truth.
3) Thus, to avoid unreason, I can conclude truth does exist (in what capacity I know not yet, which is why I like to clarify it as the category of truth). Therefore: "There is truth/truth exists" is true. No contradictions.
4) There is no time or place in which the statement "there is no truth" does not result in contradiction
5) This means "there is truth" is true in all times and places
6) "truth exists" is both true and absolute. Again, as a category.
I guess this is sort of like saying "stuff exists" without getting into the specifics of what that stuff is (all stuff is stuff but not the same kind of stuff). "Truth exists" may also be the only absolute...though I seem to be smuggling in "reason" as another absolute. If reason did not apply on Mars, then neither would my argument. Thankfully reason doesn't seem to be spatially dependent...OR IS IT?!?!?
...I need my bed D:
Hope you had a good Friday, Ghost (and you too, mr. silent horizon :) )
3960641
Simply put: no, petitio principii.
Less simply put: Your argument assumes truth exists. Arguing by contradiction is predicated upon there being a truth and that truth being binary and exclusive. You've assumed what you want to prove. This, of course, in the terms of your own argument.
As for me, note the odd way I speak here with a a lot of 'appears to' and 'seems.' I can't do the argument you do because I don't accept the primacy of logic. I accept its usefulness in generating new ideas to test and evaluate (pragmatic/predictive truth) but since I see no absolute truth I cannot conceive of the legerdemain you do above.
3960680
Exactly. Because any assertion assumes itself to be true, which requires truth to exist--that's what I'm trying to (poorly, I'm sure) illustrate with the argument. It seems reasonable that if truth did not exist, I ought to be able to say that. But "there is no truth" presumes itself to be true. It assumes that which it denies. (I don't know how to make it not assume truth. Maybe there's a way?)
This is a rather uncomfortable position for me intellectually, so I have abandoned it and accepted that truth exists. I see nothing inherently threatening in this, it is more consistent, and provides a stable foundation on which I can lay uncertainties as high as I wish without fear of losing all points of reference.
I think arguing about truth is unique, because it's like proving words exist by using words, or numbers by using numbers.
Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't think to include it. Yes, I do believe truth is binary and exclusive. I can explain why, if you're interested.
I can hardly blame you. Like I said, you're a careful guy, Ghost, and I appreciate and respect that. Actually...I admire you quite a lot. And I really mean that. I don't mean to make things awkward here, but I want you to know that. This has been a very rewarding discussion for me.
As for the primacy of logic, I'm not formally educated in it, which is why you might have noticed I tend to say 'reason' instead, though perhaps in academia those terms are not separated. Either way, I like to maintain a healthy mistrust of the human intellect; I'm all too familiar with how easily I can deceive myself. However, is it my intellect which provides that mistrust? It's an interesting question. Personally, I can't seem to deny knowledge without relying on it (if I say "I don't know anything", I seem to know this--how else could I say it?). So I proceed with the belief I can know and attain truth, if perhaps only a little, and I go on from there to see what I can find. *shrugs*
Ahh, very late to this party. But screw it, let's be rebellious. Fight the man!
Yes. Anyway.
So the main character of the webcomic Unsounded (which is totes awesome, by the way, and also where my avatar comes from if you ever wondered [1] ) is a guy by the name of Duane, who also happens to be a zombie. Zombies are quite the commonality in the world of Unsounded, being the usual mindless shambly flesh-eating pop-culture icons, and used as cheap disposable slave labour. Duane's unique, though, because when he got zombified he kept his mind and faculties. He also happens to be a powerful spellcaster, and so he gets by by shrouding himself in illusions to appear like a normal generic human being.
Problem is, Duane's a terrible liar. He can't look anyone in the eye and be dishonest, and this handicap also applies to his spells: if anyone meets his gaze, his illusions immediately fail and they see him for the horrible monster he is.
But when his travelling companion realizes he's got this problem, she points out it's bullshit - because he's not a monster. He's decent and noble and in control of himself, and so his 'real' appearance, the appearance of being a brains-eating cadaver, is actually less honest than when tries to shroud himself.
With that in mind he makes an illusion of how he looked in life, and finally succeeds in maintaining it.
I can't think off-hand of any real-life examples where this train of logic would apply, but it's midnight and I'm tired and so I'll just leave off while I still seem profound :V
[1]I was semi-recently informed that it looks like a girl blowing snot from her nose. This is not what it is, nor did it ever occur to me that's what it looked like until it was pointed out to me and now I can't unsee it oh my GOD I've had this thing three years everyone must think I have a weird snot fetish or something
3950795
*click* =>
4250787
Oh, what, so you've never wept at the beauty of a database flashing in binary fire, and then guttering and fading away, like a dying star?
https://web.archive.org/web/20160425171426/https://blog.jaibot.com/500-million-but-not-a-single-one-more/
Go there and all will be revealed. I'd make a link, but FimFic doesn't like this type of URL.
4207107
Very belatedly, and analogously but not necessarily similarly: (social) gender dysphoria handled post-puberty.