Is Fiction Possible?

[Quintessence]

A narrative that's entirely made up.

Given I reject the notion of creation ex nihilo, I would say such a thing is impossible. There's no such thing as "made up." Then again, this is also coming from the person who would not describe anything with the words "not real" or "doesn't exist."

 

[Acim]

I recently read on RF the proposition that we might live in Matrix-like universe. But The Matrix was fiction.

Is fiction possible?

Read most of the thread (all 1.1 pages of it!) and would say it is possible. Also would say what another said - or as I tell anyone about a fiction tale, is that it is 'based on a true story.' When you in earlier post (after OP) said "entirely, made up" my internal red flag went up. Overwhelming majority of stories I'm familiar with, have gravity as part of the reality of the story, so did they (the writers of the fictional story) make that up too? Hence when you say possible, you I think are asking about specifics in the narrative? If not, then it's getting pretty philosophical. Cause I'm yet to see a "based on a true story" narrative that sticks to only actual events, as depicted elsewhere about that (so called) true story.

Story and screenwriting are using tools of dramatic narratives to present something in a way that is methodical. Understanding these methods is vital to the story. It's very possible to not fully understand them and (fully) enjoy the story, but even a joke is utilizing a method, and so people are likely familiar with it, even if they haven't formally studied or a well versed in the method.

In many ways, if fiction were not possible, I'm not sure if science as we know it would exist, or we'd understand it. Simple example is how we are first taught (or at least I was) what atoms look like, how they behave. Science relies on models that are not actual, but are (fictional) representations to promote understanding. More elaborate example is statements like, "smoking causes 480,000 deaths annually." I'm so familiar with that fiction, I'm fairly certain I have the number consistently used in the fiction correct. But the fiction is containing a few deceptions/manipulations, not the least of which is the fiction that epistemological school of thought uses for 'causation.' If you're doing further studies on a narrative dealing with half a million casualties each year, you can rest assured there will be funding if you support the fiction. Challenge the fiction, and you may find that there is no funding to be had. Hence why I say science as we know it possibly wouldn't exist were it not for fiction.

So yeah, fiction is possible.

 

[Willamena]

Possible? I guess. But that doesn't change the fact that in our world...our universe if you like...he's a work of fiction.

In what way could you say "yes" to that, then?

 

[Willamena]

Maybe if you are talking about other universes. Certain fictions may be possible unto themselves, provided they have a complete and consistent basis for existing; but would they be possible for us to reach? No, although we could have similar things in our universe. I think its analogous to mathematical rings. They are sets of numbers that are consistent under certain rules. We're like one ring, and the consistent fictional universe is like a different ring. One ring can have a different set of numbers than another ring, yet both rings are consistent in themselves. There can be some overlap in the numbers, however the operations define the ring not the numbers. This is analogous to similar universes that don't really touch. For example suppose there were a universe similar to ours where the rainbow was different, with red touching green and blue touching yellow. This would not be consistent with our universe. Our Physical laws would not support it, but that other universe might. So that fiction could be possible but not reachable by us.

I'm not willing to entertain other universes of that sort, so I was just talking about the good ole' universe.

I'm not even willing to entertain that another universe has laws different from ours.

I.e., it's not possible.

Are you asking whether there can be inconsistency in reality?

I don't think so. If you read through the thread, you'll see people willing to entertain the idea that something entirely made up could be possible. I'd like to know why.

 

[Willamena]

Given I reject the notion of creation ex nihilo, I would say such a thing is impossible. There's no such thing as "made up." Then again, this is also coming from the person who would not describe anything with the words "not real" or "doesn't exist."

I too avoid "not real" and "doesn't exist," but "made up" happens all the time.


(I mean, look at Trump...)

 

[Willamena]

Read most of the thread (all 1.1 pages of it!) and would say it is possible. Also would say what another said - or as I tell anyone about a fiction tale, is that it is 'based on a true story.' When you in earlier post (after OP) said "entirely, made up" my internal red flag went up. Overwhelming majority of stories I'm familiar with, have gravity as part of the reality of the story, so did they (the writers of the fictional story) make that up too? Hence when you say possible, you I think are asking about specifics in the narrative? If not, then it's getting pretty philosophical. Cause I'm yet to see a "based on a true story" narrative that sticks to only actual events, as depicted elsewhere about that (so called) true story.

The elements of a story (fiction) are necessarily drawn from actuality: it's not possible to "make up" from things that you've never encountered or experienced, directly or remotely.

Story and screenwriting are using tools of dramatic narratives to present something in a way that is methodical. Understanding these methods is vital to the story. It's very possible to not fully understand them and (fully) enjoy the story, but even a joke is utilizing a method, and so people are likely familiar with it, even if they haven't formally studied or a well versed in the method.

In many ways, if fiction were not possible, I'm not sure if science as we know it would exist, or we'd understand it. Simple example is how we are first taught (or at least I was) what atoms look like, how they behave. Science relies on models that are not actual, but are (fictional) representations to promote understanding. More elaborate example is statements like, "smoking causes 480,000 deaths annually." I'm so familiar with that fiction, I'm fairly certain I have the number consistently used in the fiction correct. But the fiction is containing a few deceptions/manipulations, not the least of which is the fiction that epistemological school of thought uses for 'causation.' If you're doing further studies on a narrative dealing with half a million casualties each year, you can rest assured there will be funding if you support the fiction. Challenge the fiction, and you may find that there is no funding to be had. Hence why I say science as we know it possibly wouldn't exist were it not for fiction.

So yeah, fiction is possible.

Possibility is what is or what may be (potential). It refers to actuality, which speaks to the truth value of the proposition. If something is or is not, it truly is or is not, else it's not actual.

For example, what you have pointed to as possibility here in your post points to actuality, rather than something made up: the possibility of "not understanding" is a real potential. But if I suggest that I am sitting in London right now, or on Mars, that's a proposition with no reality and no real potential. So it's fiction.

I like your examples, but I would say science relies on models that are actual representations, else they couldn't be useful. Sure, a molecule doesn't look like a tinker-toy, but "representation" already denotes that it's not to be taken literally. But it's meant to represent something of the real world; molecules, as the science makes use of them, are actual. The second example, of a rhetorical fiction, doesn't refer to anything actual, as you've indicated. "If it were not for the fiction, there would be no funding," points to media, rather than the content.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In what way could you say "yes" to that, then?

You've lost me. We seem to talk past each other a lot.
But if I'm understanding you right, I don't think the hypothetical 'real' Darth Vader has impacted on this universe. So here, he's a work of fiction. And to be honest, the concept of an infinite multiverse isn't something my brain accepts.

 

[psychoslice]

What about the fiction known as a lie? Are lies possible?

Of course, we all lie sometimes, so there its possible.

 

[Willamena]

Of course, we all lie sometimes, so there its possible.

The act of lying isn't what I was asking about.

 

[Acim]

The elements of a story (fiction) are necessarily drawn from actuality: it's not possible to "make up" from things that you've never encountered or experienced, directly or remotely.

I think night dreams would suggest otherwise, and also think some of what is in stories comes from such experiences. So kind of confers with your point, but also disputes it. Imagination and/or inspiration would be experiences (for lack of a better word) that are invoking ideas into stories that are arguably not (actually) experienced. Though there's a debate to be had in that claim.

Possibility is what is or what may be (potential). It refers to actuality, which speaks to the truth value of the proposition. If something is or is not, it truly is or is not, else it's not actual.

For example, what you have pointed to as possibility here in your post points to actuality, rather than something made up: the possibility of "not understanding" is a real potential. But if I suggest that I am sitting in London right now, or on Mars, that's a proposition with no reality and no real potential. So it's fiction.

Ironically, I'm not understanding what your counterpoint is here. Are you saying you sitting in London is possibility that is not actual, and therefore fiction; while also saying you sitting on Mars has no real potential and is also (therefore) fiction?

I like your examples, but I would say science relies on models that are actual representations, else they couldn't be useful. Sure, a molecule doesn't look like a tinker-toy, but "representation" already denotes that it's not to be taken literally. But it's meant to represent something of the real world; molecules, as the science makes use of them, are actual. The second example, of a rhetorical fiction, doesn't refer to anything actual, as you've indicated. "If it were not for the fiction, there would be no funding," points to media, rather than the content.

"Actual representations that are not literal" seems to be the crux of the issue when it comes to fiction. With science fiction (i.e. story like Star Wars), I think most realize it is not meant to be taken as literal history, and yet what the narrative is conveying is actual representation of issues that, according to the writer (and probably producer, director) are actually representative of humanity's current or recent situation. IOW, there is something that is actual that can be taken from the story and applied to own life from within the story being told, even if such things aren't actually, or fully realized in our world - i.e. The Force is a possible takeaway from SW that can be applied to own life/experience and/or understanding.

From my spiritual understandings, the same holds for religious stories, like crucifixion of Jesus. Not meant to be taken literally, but as something that has clear application to own life and contributes to greater understanding of trials I may face and how I may overcome them. Thus dismissing it as not actually happening, is plausibly ignoring the take away, or the relevant understanding. Or studying it in way science may is filtering it through prism of it must be literal and once that is established, then we may discover/study the 'proper' lesson/conclusion. All of which strikes me as ineffective or debatable, even on the items where science thinks it has firm grasp on the 'actuality of the event.'

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't understand the question, so yes.

 

[Willamena]

I think night dreams would suggest otherwise, and also think some of what is in stories comes from such experiences. So kind of confers with your point, but also disputes it. Imagination and/or inspiration would be experiences (for lack of a better word) that are invoking ideas into stories that are arguably not (actually) experienced. Though there's a debate to be had in that claim.

I'm an idealist of sorts, and so I see imagination being only a replica of experience, drawn from memories. However, it is necessarily drawn from experience, as the memories of experience provide us with the substance of all images.

Ironically, I'm not understanding what your counterpoint is here. Are you saying you sitting in London is possibility that is not actual, and therefore fiction; while also saying you sitting on Mars has no real potential and is also (therefore) fiction?

No. I'm arguing against that fiction is possible.

Perhaps that's the irony, that you suggest that possibility is fiction.

I'd like to dissect the next response, if that's okay:

"Actual representations that are not literal" seems to be the crux of the issue when it comes to fiction.

I don't think it's the crux; no. I think actual representations would be crucial. Fictions cannot be actual.

With science fiction (i.e. story like Star Wars), I think most realize it is not meant to be taken as literal history, and yet what the narrative is conveying is actual representation of issues that, according to the writer (and probably producer, director) are actually representative of humanity's current or recent situation. IOW, there is something that is actual that can be taken from the story and applied to own life from within the story being told, even if such things aren't actually, or fully realized in our world - i.e. The Force is a possible takeaway from SW that can be applied to own life/experience and/or understanding.

That's a non-literal interpretation of fiction, and well done. But the association between the fiction and current affairs is incidental. It being fiction is the issue, not the non-literal association.

Some people would actually say that Darth Vader is possible: in some future time, in some past civilization, in some other universe, far, far away... or because of their own ignorance... they nevertheless will allow for the possibility. That also allows for it to be true.

So I say no.

From my spiritual understandings, the same holds for religious stories, like crucifixion of Jesus. Not meant to be taken literally, but as something that has clear application to own life and contributes to greater understanding of trials I may face and how I may overcome them. Thus dismissing it as not actually happening, is plausibly ignoring the take away, or the relevant understanding. Or studying it in way science may is filtering it through prism of it must be literal and once that is established, then we may discover/study the 'proper' lesson/conclusion. All of which strikes me as ineffective or debatable, even on the items where science thinks it has firm grasp on the 'actuality of the event.'

The non-literal interpretation allows for far more than possibility.

Power to the poet.

 

[Acim]

I'm an idealist of sorts, and so I see imagination being only a replica of experience, drawn from memories. However, it is necessarily drawn from experience, as the memories of experience provide us with the substance of all images.

When it comes to night dreams, I disagree. These are not always from experience, or at least none that we are consciously aware of. Same goes with imagination. If someone imagines a dragon, would you say that is drawn from memory? Perhaps not a great example because almost anything I'd say that is relatable, would likely have benefit of one (or both) of us having some memory of it (even while it may not be actual). But I know when I used to write dreams down, there would be things I've not experienced, except in that way. Yet, when I would revisit those writings (sometimes years later), the memory was as vivid as any waking experience I've had.

No. I'm arguing against that fiction is possible.

Given what follows, I'm not clear on what you're arguing, but seems there is room for debate.

Perhaps that's the irony, that you suggest that possibility is fiction.

I'd like to dissect the next response, if that's okay:

No it's not okay. Stop. Don't!

Okay, I'll allow it. Continue.

I don't think it's the crux; no. I think actual representations would be crucial. Fictions cannot be actual.

This doesn't make sense within the context of what came before it. I spoke about models of atoms which are fictitious representations. You say they are 'actual representations.' In this way, then what fictional narratives are actually about are actual representations. Yet, in both cases (model of the atom, plot narratives) it is matter of interpretation in what is it actually about. Most SW fans I'm familiar with think of SW as being about characters set in a galaxy far far away, where droids, and wookies and little green jedi masters are found. They are caught up in the appearance of the plot characters and events. Then there's the thematic story being told, which is what it is actually about. For the original 6, it's a tragedy that has sense of overcoming (realized in last 10 minutes of Ep. 6). I see the tale as being about embracing the dark side, in order to (truly) overcome it and to bring balance to Life (aka The Force). The dark side, as it pertains to our shared reality could just as easily be reinterpreted as 'immorality' or really anything deemed negative. I could ramble on this a bit more, but would prefer you weigh in cause all this does relate to 'actual representation.' There are obviously going to be creative instances of representations. Heck, using a round colorful ball to represent an atom is pretty creative. Mundane when compared to entire plot of SW, but considering the source material, creative nonetheless.

If somehow you are seeing strong disagreement, I'm likely going to want you to define:
- fiction (as you are using it)
- actual
- and representation (along with what you mean precisely by 'actual representation')

That's a non-literal interpretation of fiction, and well done. But the association between the fiction and current affairs is incidental.

From writer/writing perspective, I would say intentional.

It being fiction is the issue, not the non-literal association.

Here's another spot where I need to understand how you are defining fiction.

Some people would actually say that Darth Vader is possible: in some future time, in some past civilization, in some other universe, far, far away... or because of their own ignorance... they nevertheless will allow for the possibility. That also allows for it to be true.

The essence of Anakin/Vader is not only possible, but I would argue inescapable. It's a bit of Jeckyl/Hyde, or id/ego.

The non-literal interpretation allows for far more than possibility.

Power to the poet.

I'm a bit confused with what you're getting at, and I'm a poet. LOL.

I'm trying to understand how you are using non-literal interpretation and how that compares (or contrasts) with 'actual representation.' To me, SW is literally about embracing and overcoming the dark side within everyone, while it is possible to interpret it as only about the character on the screen. The poet side of me has a tough time relating to the literal definition / understanding of anything. It all strikes me as imagination and made up. Without exception. So, I'll ask for your definitions (which will likely appear made up to me) but will help in whatever it is you are arguing against in this thread.

 

[Curious George]

I recently read on RF the proposition that we might live in Matrix-like universe. But The Matrix was fiction.

Is fiction possible?

Well done.

 

[Willamena]

But I know when I used to write dreams down, there would be things I've not experienced, except in that way. Yet, when I would revisit those writings (sometimes years later), the memory was as vivid as any waking experience I've had.

If you could write them down--that is, if you had the words--then you've encountered them in some way. You may not have encountered the dragon before, in literature or reference, but you've encountered monsters, wings, and fire, and the imagination assembles the parts.

Given what follows, I'm not clear on what you're arguing, but seems there is room for debate.

No it's not okay. Stop. Don't!

Okay, I'll allow it. Continue.

This doesn't make sense within the context of what came before it. I spoke about models of atoms which are fictitious representations. You say they are 'actual representations.' In this way, then what fictional narratives are actually about are actual representations.

Not all representations are of something actual, but molecule models are.

Yet, in both cases (model of the atom, plot narratives) it is matter of interpretation in what is it actually about. Most SW fans I'm familiar with think of SW as being about characters set in a galaxy far far away, where droids, and wookies and little green jedi masters are found. They are caught up in the appearance of the plot characters and events. Then there's the thematic story being told, which is what it is actually about. For the original 6, it's a tragedy that has sense of overcoming (realized in last 10 minutes of Ep. 6). I see the tale as being about embracing the dark side, in order to (truly) overcome it and to bring balance to Life (aka The Force). The dark side, as it pertains to our shared reality could just as easily be reinterpreted as 'immorality' or really anything deemed negative. I could ramble on this a bit more, but would prefer you weigh in cause all this does relate to 'actual representation.' There are obviously going to be creative instances of representations. Heck, using a round colorful ball to represent an atom is pretty creative. Mundane when compared to entire plot of SW, but considering the source material, creative nonetheless.

If somehow you are seeing strong disagreement, I'm likely going to want you to define:
- fiction (as you are using it)
- actual
- and representation (along with what you mean precisely by 'actual representation')

I'm not in disagreement, but I think it's getting away from the question I intended in the OP. The metaphor (the interpretation that associates images or symbols with something concrete and meaningful, non-literally) doesn't represent to me a possibility (actuality) of fiction.

One example might suffice to demonstrate what I mean by both fiction and actual:

When I speak of fiction, I think of truth value (true/false). When someone who approaches you tells you that there's a car crash around the corner, it can have no truth value until and unless it's verified by you in some way. You may immediately verify it, for instance, if you heard a loud boom from that direction, or if you know the person speaking to be crying wolf, then the 'value of truth' gets assigned to the statement (true or false). Before it has that value, though, it's a statement without that value. 'Fiction' is a word made to contrast with the circumstance of a statement that is actually (and incidentally) true--'fact'.

On one hand there is a fact about whether there's a car crash around the corner, and on the other hand you are presented with a statement. One hand ontology, the other epistemology. The one hand carries the burden of an actual truth, and on the other hand a 'truth value' will be assigned by you. If that value is 'true,' the statement will be held as equivalent to a fact, both hands equal--but if that value is 'false,' the statement will be dismissed as a fiction. Fiction lacks truth.

My question in the OP addresses those people claiming that anything is possible. To me, that says that everything is true, 'true' of the actual sort, because possibility speaks to what is actual (here and now) or might actually be (how we generally use the word 'possible'). Some things decidedly cannot be actual: lies (untruths), predictions (which paint the world that hasn't happened yet), estimates (which are meant to be vague), and fiction, which contrasts with fact.

Not everything is possible.

The essence of Anakin/Vader is not only possible, but I would argue inescapable. It's a bit of Jeckyl/Hyde, or id/ego.

It's a very real symbol, actualized in meaningful non-literal association.

While the symbol (representation) is possible, Darth Vader isn't.

I'm a bit confused with what you're getting at, and I'm a poet. LOL.

Well, thanks for helping me analyze it, makes my arguments more clear than they usually can be.

I'm trying to understand how you are using non-literal interpretation and how that compares (or contrasts) with 'actual representation.' To me, SW is literally about embracing and overcoming the dark side within everyone, while it is possible to interpret it as only about the character on the screen. The poet side of me has a tough time relating to the literal definition / understanding of anything. It all strikes me as imagination and made up. Without exception. So, I'll ask for your definitions (which will likely appear made up to me) but will help in whatever it is you are arguing against in this thread.

When you say "literally" there, I look at the symbolism, not at the movie as some narrative of fact.

 

[Acim]

If you could write them down--that is, if you had the words--then you've encountered them in some way. You may not have encountered the dragon before, in literature or reference, but you've encountered monsters, wings, and fire, and the imagination assembles the parts.

I hear what you're saying, but feel you are overlooking the fictional portion and thus negating it as fiction.

You saying I've encountered them in some way, tells me you think what I dream about is possible, or possibly actual. If you disagree, then let me know why, cause it's the part where I feel you are overlook the crux of what you are conveying. But I write this paragraph after completing the entire response to this post, and would say that Darth Vader is possible because the character represents (or even is) parts of things that already exist (man and machine, or machine being used to supplement the physical parts of non-working physical human). And that's just the superficial literary portion of that character. Like saying the portion of the people you know as friends and loved ones is due to their physical makeup only. Nothing about their character, their non-physical traits that have you know/appreciate them, only the superficial. The cover of the book. Whereas I see Darth Vader as literally about the dark side coming to the surface, apparently taking over the being, while the good is clearly still within, awaiting its moment to overcome the dark, and bring peace not only to the individual, but to 'the entire galaxy.'

Not all representations are of something actual, but molecule models are.

I would dispute the molecules are actual. Perhaps a losing dispute (not sure), but would likely be similar to the debate on things perceived as 'not actually something.'

I'm not in disagreement, but I think it's getting away from the question I intended in the OP. The metaphor (the interpretation that associates images or symbols with something concrete and meaningful, non-literally) doesn't represent to me a possibility (actuality) of fiction.

One example might suffice to demonstrate what I mean by both fiction and actual:

When I speak of fiction, I think of truth value (true/false). When someone who approaches you tells you that there's a car crash around the corner, it can have no truth value until and unless it's verified by you in some way. You may immediately verify it, for instance, if you heard a loud boom from that direction, or if you know the person speaking to be crying wolf, then the 'value of truth' gets assigned to the statement (true or false). Before it has that value, though, it's a statement without that value. 'Fiction' is a word made to contrast with the circumstance of a statement that is actually (and incidentally) true--'fact'.

On one hand there is a fact about whether there's a car crash around the corner, and on the other hand you are presented with a statement. One hand ontology, the other epistemology. The one hand carries the burden of an actual truth, and on the other hand a 'truth value' will be assigned by you. If that value is 'true,' the statement will be held as equivalent to a fact, both hands equal--but if that value is 'false,' the statement will be dismissed as a fiction. Fiction lacks truth.

My question in the OP addresses those people claiming that anything is possible. To me, that says that everything is true, 'true' of the actual sort, because possibility speaks to what is actual (here and now) or might actually be (how we generally use the word 'possible'). Some things decidedly cannot be actual: lies (untruths), predictions (which paint the world that hasn't happened yet), estimates (which are meant to be vague), and fiction, which contrasts with fact.

Not everything is possible.

I feel this overlooks context. Perhaps intentionally, and likely without much need for further (philosophical, or spiritual) examination. And by context, I think of it as working on a few levels. Such that if someone in a night dream does all the things you have above, and I verify that that there was a car accident around the corner, does that mean the car crash is not fiction, not imagined? Likewise, if someone tells me the Death Star is blown up in Star Wars movie, and I verify that that as accurate, does this mean the Death Star is actual? I say these items, because you are asserting "fiction lacks truth" and yet, I'm pretty sure you are using truth in way that amounts to verification only.

Me, I wonder if we (or I) actually exist in a physical world. I perceive that I do, just like in night dreams. Those, upon waking, I take as unreal. The experiences still exist in memory, but I process them as unreal. Via spiritual exploration, understanding, and experience of (God's) Grace, I process the existence of physical world in much the same way, when contemplating or meditating. When caught up in the events and less than fully conscious, I process it as if this is 'really me' and this is 'really happening.' Which I do in night dreams as well. In many ways, I see no difference between the two, and how both are ultimately governed by a decision to accept Love (as myself and Reality all around me) or allow fear to be a 'reasonable' guide through life. I'd offer expression of my experience with Grace, which I (then) found put all things in proper perspective and which on hindsight I still think puts everything in 'physical' experience in proper perspective, but must also concede that I do not currently feel as filled with Grace as I did years ago. Yet, one key realization during that period was that Grace is always occurring and I do know that (and everyone does).

So, when you say not everything is possible, my tendency is to agree. But with 'existence' of illusions at work, it then becomes challenging to understand a bit, I think. Such that separation from God I understand to be impossible. Yet, we exist in a world where it is believe that not only are we possibly separated from God (who's over yonder for many) but that such a God doesn't even exist. Thus the inversion of truth has seemingly been made possible, but the question remains, has it? Has it really? Are we actually right now separate from God? Being the Gnostic Theist, I would say no, we are not and the truth is not actually inverse or undone. It is impossible to be separate from God, and there has not been any instance in human experience where separation has occurred. Perhaps imagined, but not actual.

It's a very real symbol, actualized in meaningful non-literal association.

While the symbol (representation) is possible, Darth Vader isn't.

This is word play, and where the earlier point comes into play: molecular models are a very real symbol, actualized in a meaningful non-literal association. While the symbol is possible, molecules are not.

No need (apparently) for further explanation for I just provided 'truth-value' with my positive claims, as have you.

When you say "literally" there, I look at the symbolism, not at the movie as some narrative of fact.

I see SW as a narrative of fact in much the same way I see atom models as representation of fact. Gotta bastardize the meaning of 'fact' in order for the rest to fall into place.

 

[Milton Platt]

I recently read on RF the proposition that we might live in Matrix-like universe. But The Matrix was fiction.

Is fiction possible?

No idea.....but a more interesting question to me is whether truth is possible (in the absolute sense)

 

[Willamena]

I hear what you're saying, but feel you are overlooking the fictional portion and thus negating it as fiction.

You saying I've encountered them in some way, tells me you think what I dream about is possible, or possibly actual. If you disagree, then let me know why, cause it's the part where I feel you are overlook the crux of what you are conveying. But I write this paragraph after completing the entire response to this post, and would say that Darth Vader is possible because the character represents (or even is) parts of things that already exist (man and machine, or machine being used to supplement the physical parts of non-working physical human). And that's just the superficial literary portion of that character. Like saying the portion of the people you know as friends and loved ones is due to their physical makeup only. Nothing about their character, their non-physical traits that have you know/appreciate them, only the superficial. The cover of the book. Whereas I see Darth Vader as literally about the dark side coming to the surface, apparently taking over the being, while the good is clearly still within, awaiting its moment to overcome the dark, and bring peace not only to the individual, but to 'the entire galaxy.'



I would dispute the molecules are actual. Perhaps a losing dispute (not sure), but would likely be similar to the debate on things perceived as 'not actually something.'

If molecules were not actual there would be no discipline of chemistry, and a lot of people over the centuries would have wasted their time devising formulations.

I feel this overlooks context. Perhaps intentionally, and likely without much need for further (philosophical, or spiritual) examination. And by context, I think of it as working on a few levels. Such that if someone in a night dream does all the things you have above, and I verify that that there was a car accident around the corner, does that mean the car crash is not fiction, not imagined? Likewise, if someone tells me the Death Star is blown up in Star Wars movie, and I verify that that as accurate, does this mean the Death Star is actual? I say these items, because you are asserting "fiction lacks truth" and yet, I'm pretty sure you are using truth in way that amounts to verification only.

I thought I made the distinction between truth and the truth value clear, but perhaps I didn't.

Me, I wonder if we (or I) actually exist in a physical world. I perceive that I do, just like in night dreams. Those, upon waking, I take as unreal. The experiences still exist in memory, but I process them as unreal. Via spiritual exploration, understanding, and experience of (God's) Grace, I process the existence of physical world in much the same way, when contemplating or meditating. When caught up in the events and less than fully conscious, I process it as if this is 'really me' and this is 'really happening.' Which I do in night dreams as well. In many ways, I see no difference between the two, and how both are ultimately governed by a decision to accept Love (as myself and Reality all around me) or allow fear to be a 'reasonable' guide through life. I'd offer expression of my experience with Grace, which I (then) found put all things in proper perspective and which on hindsight I still think puts everything in 'physical' experience in proper perspective, but must also concede that I do not currently feel as filled with Grace as I did years ago. Yet, one key realization during that period was that Grace is always occurring and I do know that (and everyone does).

So, when you say not everything is possible, my tendency is to agree. But with 'existence' of illusions at work, it then becomes challenging to understand a bit, I think. Such that separation from God I understand to be impossible. Yet, we exist in a world where it is believe that not only are we possibly separated from God (who's over yonder for many) but that such a God doesn't even exist. Thus the inversion of truth has seemingly been made possible, but the question remains, has it? Has it really? Are we actually right now separate from God? Being the Gnostic Theist, I would say no, we are not and the truth is not actually inverse or undone. It is impossible to be separate from God, and there has not been any instance in human experience where separation has occurred. Perhaps imagined, but not actual.

This is word play, and where the earlier point comes into play: molecular models are a very real symbol, actualized in a meaningful non-literal association. While the symbol is possible, molecules are not.

No need (apparently) for further explanation for I just provided 'truth-value' with my positive claims, as have you.

I disagree that the molecule model is non-literal, though. It's a literal representation. Each knob is made to represent an atom, and each connector is made to represent a relation between the atoms. It's meaning is fixed.

But in non-literal representation, we (the author, the poet, the audience) draw relations that are meaningful. They are in addition to the story. One person will draw it between the story and id/ego, and another between the story and some personal experience. It's meaning is mutable.

I see SW as a narrative of fact in much the same way I see atom models as representation of fact. Gotta bastardize the meaning of 'fact' in order for the rest to fall into place.

I see it as fiction.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm not willing to entertain other universes of that sort, so I was just talking about the good ole' universe.

I'm not even willing to entertain that another universe has laws different from ours.

I.e., it's not possible.

Oh...OK.

I don't think so. If you read through the thread, you'll see people willing to entertain the idea that something entirely made up could be possible. I'd like to know why.

There is also the Matrix concept, which while it seems unlikely it would explain the occasional weird things people experience like precognition and long distance sensations. It would explain partially how black holes can be so ridiculously sucky. The idea of us being in a Matrix doesn't scare me, but it does make me ponder. Why would anyone want to simulate lewisnotmiller?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I recently read on RF the proposition that we might live in Matrix-like universe. But The Matrix was fiction.

Is fiction possible?

George Orwell seems to be on the right track. ;0)