It is a matter of belief. I believe that Newman was who he was and I believe Snow White is what it is. I contextualize the two ideas differently. But I still construct the ideas.
In my contextualization of Newman, which is my fictionalizing, I find far more evidence that he was a real person who, as you say, had attributes like independent intentionality, than I do to support the contextualization that he was a cartoon. However, I never saw this Newman except as a screen image, and that's how I also saw Snow White. Thus my personal experience and personal evidence would better support the otion that both are cartoons. But, again, the evidence is so abundant that Newman was a person like you and me, and that Snow White was a cartoon image, that my fictionalizing one as a person and the other as a cartoon, is more believable (and pragmatically workable) than some other fictionalizing. Remember, for me fictionalizing is a (partial and faulty) reconstruction of the stream of experience in consciousness based on evidence. Because my use of the term fiction here differs from everyday usage, it only reveals the inexactness of everyday language. For instance fiction as equivalent to falsity and falsity as equivalent to lie is an easily disproved line of logic. We can't have a serious discussion of ideas if we restrict ourselves to common everyday uses of language -- often bordering on slang and colloquialism. Of course, we do need to define our terms in philosophical discussion and I have done that with my term "fiction" over and over here. 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, 2:41 PM > William: For those persons who distinguish between > non-fiction and fiction > (as book lists do), your use of the term may be confusing. > Your system has one word for events wholly imagined as well > earnest reports > of disciplined observation. You succeed at maintaining an > extreme position > regarding our (acknowledged) perceptual construction and > obscure significant > differences in what are accepted "facts": Paul > Newman's existence (noumenal > or otherwise) and Snow White's presented existence. > Geoff C > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Conger" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 12:37 PM > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > > > >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:
