Some Thoughts are More Fun than Others

By Carl Nelson

“The 5 C’s of creative writing are content, craft, creativity, clarity, and coherence,” says Google, and mentions “marketability” not at all.” – me

After reading the substack posting of a fellow writer, “Appealing to the Stone” by Daniel Jupp,  I liked it. But I had an alternate thought I broached in a comment.

Daniel was discussing the seemingly immortal argument regarding “the non-existence of matter, and that everything in the universe is merely ideal”, a notion which the notable critic and writer of the 18^th century, Dr. Samuel Johnson had endeavored to dispel by kicking a rock with his toe. “I refute it thus.”

“Philosophers assert that Johnson’s response is merely a gesture, and not an argument. It doesn’t deal with any of the points raised by Berkeley and merely suggests they are absurd without proving how they are absurd. Thus the moment becomes the logical fallacy of the appeal to the stone, argumentum ad lapidem, which “dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd without providing further argumentation”, Daniel noted.

This argument reminded me very much of Climate alarmists who would say that I had not refuted the accuracy of the multitude of scientific studies they had pulled up to support their view, by simply noting that their predictions had been wrong for over 40 years. In other words, their view is that I must argue the point as they’ve framed it – or I’ve done nothing. And it doesn’t matter a whit, whether they’ve stubbed their toe on the rock also.

Daniel discusses this “Simulation Hypothesis” throughout its many forms in religious traditions, in his essay, up to the current discussions of our possible existence within a computer simulation, such as detailed in films such as the Matrix. “Whether the world is a fake or artificial construct”, is a problem currently foisted on us by current world political/financial/media convergence – a situation first brought to the public’s attention in the works of Phillip K. Dick and H.P Lovecraft. …”for both of these writers the entire imaginative process begins in case after case with the understanding that this world is a false one.” (quotes are by Daniel Jupp). Their reality is all propaganda, leading to…

“What we witness is directed paranoia, interpretations of reality that bypass direct engagement with reality and leap straight to direct engagement with propaganda. In doing so the hyper paranoid responder, whose response has itself been framed by others, will like the Berkelian idealist live in a fake reality which is an entirely mental construct even while they might at the same time be sneering at others for alleged cult like brainwashing, conspiratorial thinking, or irrational and magical thinking.…

Directed paranoiacs can be obsessed with the inability of others as they see it to perceive reality, while living themselves purely by a mental construction that evades or contradicts reality.” – Daniel Jupp

In other words, (mine), these thinkers have framed themselves into such a corner with their arguments, that the only way free is to deny the obviousness of reality altogether, as they cannot argue themselves free of their imprisonment. The argument is the imprisonment, and further argument creates further imprisonment.

I found Daniel’s essay very compelling, so compelling that it brought forth this comment.

This is a good examination. It’s a pleasure to read your work simply for your adroit turns of phrase and use of words to nail a thought. I tend to view the problem as a question of sales strength versus reality. The driving force in this view is that Dick’s and Lovecraft’s ideas make good stories, whereas reality makes no stories.

Well, I need to consider better before blurting a response:

“Thanks Carl. Interesting formulation. It reminds me of a comment on a teachers website recently where somebody was boasting about their efforts to abolish the fiction and non fiction categories and describe everything as imagination. Lots of teachers were treating this as marvellous wisdom, when of course it’s glib stupidity. One of the chief problems we face is that we are genuinely dealing with people who treat reality as a fiction and fiction as reality.”

Daniel sees the statements of the “mental constructions” side as something to refute, much as saying the price of gas on a certain date was $2.54 and not $3.79. But the problem with “refuting it thusly”, does not make the discussion end. The world as a mental construct continues nonplussed. Kicking the mental construction has accomplished nothing – just as Samuel Johnson’s abuse of the stone did not quell the opposition in his day, or in ours. Best case, Samuel Johnson felt better (sans toe) for a while.

Ironically, by “Appealing to the Stone” Daniel has confirmed the substance of that which he does a good job of describing. That is to say, these “mental constructions that evade or contradict reality,” are doing a good job! Realists are stubbing their toe against these “mental constructions” all over the place, leaving their constructed reality pock-marked as a rocky field which sorely needs clearing.

What is most ironic is that the argument for the non-existence of matter, is very much like the one made for the immanence of God (throughout the Natural world). What is perverse about it, is that those who make the argument for the non-existence of matter are generally rationalistic, aetheists who base all of their arguments on logic and the material world. While those who make their argument for God base their argument on the unknowability of the Prime Creator and his immanence within the natural world. Each insists that you must accept the argument to discuss the argument – which seems to me the essence of a religion: faith is the admittance. So, it seems both are religions.

This is why, in my view, the problem is much better viewed through the prism of marketability. Why would such a philosophy which holds that a stone is not real, be so durable – and actually harder to dismiss (do away with) than to do away with the stone itself! Civilizations die, (the stone is rolled away or lost) – and yet this belief lives on.

So it would seem there is something else which we must discuss.

I do not disagree with what Daniel Jupp has written. It is quite good, and compelling.

So compelling, I think, that we must ask the next question. That is, how is our imagination driven to obscure, misinterpret, or even to replace reality rather than to better define it?

It occurs to me that what leads mental constructionists to frame imprisoning structures were probably a trail of what their tastes found to be delicious thoughts. And that wouldn’t it be interesting to assemble and prioritize, (build a pyramid) of increasingly attractive thoughts which when sprinkled about will be absorbed and lead one into a framed thought prison from which there is no escape – except in a ‘faux escape’ through “directed paranoia”, as Daniel Jupp phrased it.

In other words, why exactly do we continue assembling these faux realities – and then cling to them so? Could we build a model, in the way that L. Ron Hubbard created the religion, Scientology?

At first blush it would all seem deliciousness of a thought to be a matter of taste in perception.

Just what is a delicious thought? And how can we better improve our taste so as to imagine a construct which is a closer illusion to the real?

The desire for interest to be coherent creates vast mental constructions just as the desire for sex creates vast populations. And this holds true for both fictional and non-fictional pursuits.

Have you happened upon some scientific breakthrough which has been ‘popularized’ and thence brought to your attention? If the interest were sufficiently compelling you might have read further from various sources. Did you notice that as you got closer to the original findings or research, how much drier the material became? Pick up a random non-fiction book and then take a look at the back page index of sources. Were any of these sources best sellers, also? Reality is incredibly dry going. It takes the imagination of a writer to properly cook and prepare it. Reality alone is very raw (unseasoned) nutrition.

Goodness knows there is much of reality which is interesting – in fact, most all of it, if we were to believe poets. Nevertheless, the popularization of reality will inevitably create its own propaganda. First, selective reporting in order to dramatize and build narrative, then slanting, then deletions and omissions, censorship, until finally fabrications and lies – these all have their writing and speaking practitioners who are comfortable living in various regions of gray.

What I am trying to do is to display a road to Hell that is paved with not only good intentions but delicious thoughts, in a graduation to where we are “genuinely dealing with people who treat reality as a fiction and fiction as reality.” Or, as it is phrased biblically, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter”. – Isaiah 5:20 What biblical prophecy could sound more contemporary?

But even essayists, it would seem, can get carried away by their ‘delicious’ thinking and develop a need to kick the rock of reality again (and again). After all, people read because they want to know something they don’t know. And finding that out is of interest. So reality can be delicious, all and of its own accord. Stated plainly, it might be said that reality, when recorded properly, can speak for itself. We can come close to getting our information from the horse’s mouth, I think, if we keep the ‘me’ out of it.

The big problem in accurately recording reality would seem to be our egos. It is very hard to talk about anything and not place a little bit of ourselves into the mix. If we are reporting a great event, it is very hard not to acknowledge that we are there. (And then perhaps add a bit of how we got there, the struggle to gain access, etc. – in order to ‘personalize’ the narrative.) Our ego is always seeking to insinuate itself into reality, as if it matters. It’s the way we get paid.

As a conservative my first thought would be that our writing should first recognize the common sense hammered out by tradition and reality as evinced by facts, and proceed carefully from there all the while realizing that if there were a wall put up, there must have been a good reason, before taking it down. For example, as St. Paul notes in the bible, it is imperative that we do not tempt ourselves or others to sin. In other words, the Christian religion would put limits upon the imagination, just as reporters try to curb their egos. We cannot beat the Devil. Don’t help him to go viral.

A Progressive might argue on the other hand that we can very well ‘beat the Devil”, and in fact, can argue him right out of existence. Which, they believe they have done. And “Oh the places you will go!” (Dr. Seuss) when your imaginary taste is unbounded. Sex can be whatever you decide, as is ‘the science’.

How do you decide between conflicting religions? For example, how can you decide between the Christian religion and the Matrix religion?

Arguing between them is useless, as they describe themselves in their own terms and deny any others. However, Jesus states that one will be able to identify false prophets by their fruits.

“They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. – Matthew 7:16

Have you ever read anything which better describes the radical Left? Indeed, it is no accident that they hate Christian thought.

For example, if in the Matrix, the turncoat collaborator, Cypher, continues to enjoy his imaginary steak, he will eventually starve, as do Marxists, as do others who believe fantasies. But how do we prevent ourselves from leaving the proper path and finding ourselves trapped in painted corners?

As I’ve noted, reality is dry going. Not all of it takes the imagination of a writer to properly cook and prepare it. But reality is very raw nutrition.

What I would say is that a good philosophy and/or religion (as does good journalism) helps us to optimally present or to cook and prepare our reality for good nutrition. A bad religion and/or philosophy (and journalism) does not do this.

The Bible adjures us to the straight and narrow path of virtue – Ten Commandments and the New Covenant. And for those of us who fail or who fall away it offers forgiveness and charity. (The journalist prints a retraction).

Progressives on the other hand allow near total license of behavior, and moral relativism – but a very narrow line of belief (which can change in a blink) which cannot be crossed on threat of expulsion or elimination (journalistic cancellation).

In a recent post by Roger L. Simon, “Does Political Ideology Without Religion Beget Violence”,  this pairing is explored.

So, I would argue that in combating the irrational, seemingly insane, pronouncements of the Left, perhaps you could argue the irrationality of their position. I’m currently reading, The Parasitic Mind/How Infectious Ideas are Killing Common Sense, by Gad Saad, which seems to be arguing thusly.

Or, since the Western world is still at its base a Christian society, perhaps it is better to argue the Christian principles of correct living encapsulated in the New Covenant. Does what they are doing glorify God? And does it fulfill the Golden Rule? Better nutritional taste might be the way.

For example, how does surgically changing the sex of a child glorify God? And would you like to have been surgically changed, while still a developing child? Is it okay to alter the facts (lie)? Etc.

Whichever path is taken, or perhaps another unimagined cure is yet to come, I will wager that since we are dealing with conflicting religions – the answer will eventually come as an epiphany. That our modern world must be ‘born again’.

Managed Realities

You can say many things that aren’t so.

Carpenters who frame conversations

build whole empires. Leave pyramids.

Perhaps this is why there are

eyeballs on our money.

 

While cold hard Brutalist reality,

that gold standard of atheists,

probably doesn’t even know they exist.

So, (objectively) perhaps they don’t.