Posted by: Sk | February 18, 2009

Chapter 17: Beyond fiction

Halil wasn’t there today. I don’t know if anything has happened. There was some tense, almost acid atmosphere all around I didn’t want to get too much aware of. Even Maya looked a little bit depressed, perhaps because she is accusing herself of being a counter spy. She did not even to visit the guards. Seen the situation, I will try answering to the third question. Although I feel tired, from a certain point of view. From another, I feel more relaxed. It’s strange. In any case I feel more serious – have lost parts of my bitter humour. Hope it is just for today.

The third question was related to fiction and reality and madness. It’s the whole thing, actually, but difficult to answer to.

Question 3 – Fiction, reality and madness

(Must think I’m an expert if you want to get an answer to this question).

1. You have to ask yourself first what reality is, because it is a word like coming and going oceans, and if you ever get an answer to this question, how do you say it? As the question is so vast that it has almost no answer I tended to approach it through one single differentiation. To start with. We perceive many things we order in patterns that are more or less general. Out of these we choose a certain number we deal with consciously and say them in a determined way which depends on national, cultural, familiar environments. Also on political situations and many others. Which means, that we often use symbolic expressions or gestures in silence whenever we think it is not appropriate to say something. We may even change levels of language depending on the surroundings. I think this is the normal, which is very wide in ranges.  Consequently I would think the ’say all the truth’ some kind of illness. As the person in question does not make the difference between a social and a private or personal space. But there is a worse illness still, which is to make up the way you mask things. To say what. Even the pattern through which we transform reality in order to present it properly, are more or less determined by environments. If a person does not use common patterns in his, what I said ‘official version’ but starts making up or inventing things, he’s ill, to my understanding. To give an example: Law allows I hide away a certain number of data that could be understood in such way that they may turn against my interests. I may present things as I want, as long as proofs do not oblige me to do otherwise. Law is my common pattern. If though I start insisting in lies whose justification is taken from other sources than law, it may be said that either I’m a criminal, either, I’m ill.

2. Usually patterns are more or less general. But that is not the case if you are dealing for example with metaphysics (reason why it is dangerous job). You state quickly that the very vision of reality is altered depending on the formal patterns you’re using. If you forget that many other people are using other patterns, you get mad (which is very often the case.) But altered formal pattern may have as side effect that you perceive things others don’t. You’re somehow put in front of a very difficult ethical question: can you go beyond the understanding of social rules in order to say things that are not said? But if you don’t say them, are problems whose awareness becomes immediate, ever going to be solved?  My solution to this problem, which is quite heavy, was to make up a novel. In fact, the exageration of facts may make think you don’t say what there is. It’s fiction. On the other hand, the pointing at detailed facts may awake the interest of someone, who having a corresponding social responsibility, may take on him to divulgate some things in a more proper language. You can’t say, things are like that, it’s true, because truth depends on which formal patterns we use in order to seize it – these changed, truth for me is a puzzle for another. If another is though intelligent enough so as to recognize random observations without theoretical backing inside of some ’story’ he may integrate new data into the former frame without provoking too much of a fuzz. And eventually lead to some fundamental change in frames.

I wouldn’t call that madness, but ’stressing’.

3. Madness for me derives of the rejection of the principle of identity in its variable forms and logics in order to finish living in an imaginary world (some type of schziophrenia). The person is not able anymore to name things – the word and the thing are not related through some operation that assures the link between both. The fact that some cultures do not deal with a certain number of subjects does not imply you may not know about these realities, which as such, may be corresponding to something. Ghosts for example. Or life beyond death. The problem appears when a world or culture does not leave the possibility open, people may get aware of different things in different ways. Because either it will not close in someone who is misleading people with false teachings, either it will close in both the one who is making up and the one who is just pointing at some given reality. To give another example: it is possible to deal with psychopathia as the attachment of consciousness to some lower levels of sould that may be compared with a realm of death. If you accept this fact, you may make a difference between a structural illness and a wicked illness, because you see how someone has landed inside of these realms with some intentionality and others just by mistake. Although both see the same, one is morally ill and the other is not. The studies on structures allow on top to find ways back that are impossible if you just say ’shows this and this feature’ = illness. A structural illness is relatively easy to heal, moral wickedness, if ever, needs of some kind of treatment that does not allow talking about ‘healing’ anymore but of ‘correcting’. If these concepts are not correctly defined, it is impossible to deal with a certain number of problems.

4. I think fiction does always say something about reality, were it about the inner world of one or some, were it a symbolic representation of events in outer reality. The problem is not that much what reality is, but how much we’re able of taking distances to a text or other creation in order to obtain some personal, subjective position that does not allow the imposition of pretended truths. I mean that that is a healthy human being. You can’t say “It’s not like that”, you can just say “I don’t see things this way.” But what is the other talking about? What does the difference in the way of seeing things say to me about the other’s internal world? That tolerance, for me, which I wouldn’t impose either. As long as it is possible to find a ’something’ words are refered to in common with another, conversation is possible. Whenever it is impossible, you may understand words only as giving some light on someone elses inner world – but that means already the one is thus talking if affected of some kind of illness. I don’t think we have to be tolerant. Most of the time we have to be intolerant because the constant absorption of new data is tiring and confusing. Which does not mean we may not be, perhaps only sometimes. I mean you can’t oblige people to develop skills like jumping from a helicopter or climbing up a mountain. We keep ourselves inside of relatively closed walls that assure our survival. Some may learn to jump from a helicopter, others may understand a silent other. Both are beautiful, don’t say.

Approaches general or particular on levels of organization of reality ruling on levels of language and understanding.

texts left in the computer


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: