I think "fiction" is an excellent word for what I mean by the reinvented experience we call consciousness. It is a make-believe narrative. It may origniate in truth (the unprocessed actuality of experience) but our brains make up the story of that and then we becomes conscious of it. A marvelous fiction that if verified by evidence is truthful fiction. WC
--- On Thu, 1/1/09, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Geoff <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 11:11 AM > William: For what it's worth, we're approaching > convergence on "fictions". I > would say that our reality is "constructed" (not > fictional) and that we > "construct" based on both observations which we > know are 'fictional" and > "factual". > I agree that my communications on the list is impaired by > my lack of > background in philosophy and creative activity. I am little > able to perceive > your position purely in philosophical terms. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Conger" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 4:29 PM > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > > > >I never said that one truth is as good as another. > There is such a state > >as true fiction and false fiction. Again, by fiction I > mean the necessity > >of our reinventing the stream of experience not only as > we experience it > >but as we recall it, too. That reinvention is always > partial and biased, > >and thus it is fictional. There is, in my view, no > alternative to this. > >That's why in court several witnesses are better > than one, or why 12 jurors > >are better than one, or why cross examination is aimed > at teasing out the > >correspondences among overlapping reinventions of past > events. Several > >reinventions of the same event can produce more likely > evidence than one. > > > > I think you are simplifying my view by testing it in > everyday terms > > instead of philosophically. I admit my terms may not > be everyday usage, > > such as "fiction versus actuality" but I > have tried to be clear in stating > > my more complex way of using such terms because this > is that sort of > > dialogue, not everyday conversation. > > WC > > > > > > --- On Wed, 12/31/08, GEOFF CREALOCK > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> From: GEOFF CREALOCK > <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 2:57 PM > >> William: Given your statement, cited by Cheerskep, > "All > >> stories are based on > >> memory. All memories are fiction" I wonder if > you > >> would feel constrained if > >> you were required to "tell the truth, the > whole truth, > >> and nothing but the > >> truth". Presumably one fiction is as good, or > better > >> than another. > >> Geoff C > >> > >> > >> >From: [email protected] > >> >Reply-To: [email protected] > >> >To: [email protected] > >> >Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > >> >Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:19:15 EST > >> > > >> >Here is what you "actually say", > William: > >> > > >> > > "there are numerous factual > histories of the > >> American Revolution". . . > >> >each > >> > > one is fictional to some degree" > >> > > > >> >Please tell us what your word is for those > portions > >> that are NOT fictional > >> >to > >> >any degree. > >> > > >> >This is also what you "actually > said": > >> > > >> >"All stories are based on memory. All > memories are > >> fiction." > >> > > >> >It is that universal that caught my interest. > Do you > >> now want to modify it > >> >to > >> >put it this way?: "All stories are based > on memory > >> to some degree. All > >> >memories are fiction to some degree." > >> > > >> > > >> >************** > >> >New year...new news. Be the > >> >first to know what is making headlines. > >> > >(http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
