I’m no angel, but have always felt that Truth was the one thing needing to be defended. But what is Truth? In the end, isn’t it just what I believe to be true? Absolute Truth would be that which in the end is true for All of Us. But does such a conundrum even exist? I ask myself, and you out there, because I sense a change in this area, something intangible yet undeniable: Truth seems to become a highly flexible concept, not in the way that it can be deviating from its path, but in that it takes many more forms of seeming untrue, yet still holds on to its core essence: that of Truth, plain and simple!
Take my second novel, about to come out: a story of unadulterated just-as-it-happened Truth, laced with a fair amount of downright fantasy out to explain the unlikely trail of events so my feeble mind could wrap itself around the awesome implications I seemed to see there. But is the SciFi story spun any less true than the highly enjoyable real life Truth that came before it? We live in a world where parallel realities have us holding any product of imagination in a space of "Being true, somewhere and -when". After all, it’s just our personal vibration that keeps us from actually experiencing said Truth up close and personal!
So why is it bothering me that I cannot hold my next story in a similar way with regards to its Truth, either real or implied? Why must I insist on having met a real live out-of-the-blue impossible to believe in rich guy, just to be able to write about the seeming differences and similarities that bind us? Is it a necessity for me to believe that which I write about, or could I present you with a story that might have been true anyway, regardless of whether the inspiration was a real live guy, or an ordinary guy just like me, who simply saw a nice little fantasy to inspire a guy he met on a train, just to see what came of it?
Believe me, this is no degradation of reality in that I cannot believe Patrick, who has actually proven over and over again to hold up reality just fine, down to the most minute details. If he was performing a scam, it’d be similar in Nature to the one Seda pulled in causing me to want to write my second novel: way too elaborate to ever be a hoax, yet still giving me the impression of being gently nudged into a direction I could obviously have chosen to go myself, had I dared to do so….
It’s just that a few minor details of the alledged truth do not ring True… Sure, banks are slow, deliberately, to collect interest over money they themselves are merely transporting. But three weeks for a simple transfer? If that were rule, my boss would have to pay me two months in advance just to have my paycheck arrive on time! And it does every month, so that isn’t the Truth. And I know the Cosmos is nudging me to dispense with the procastrination, and just finish that story. Do not check on reality all the time, it is HERE ALL AROUND YOU!!! But at the same time I can’t seem to resist checking.
It’s no good of course: as long as I keep checking, nothing will ever happen, like in the double slit experiment (Google it): the electron NEVER emerges from the slit you are observing, not even if you observe both of them. But it always makes the interference pattern on the screen that says it came through both! And thus my dilemma: keep checking and lose out on Reality, or create Reality and possibly lose out on seeing it happen. But if you didn’t see it happen but later found it to be true, wouldn’t that automatically imply that it happened even if you didn’t observe it in the first place?
I Love your zooming in and out of Reality,