Have you ever really been in love? With an actual human being, not with a dream; something you can't control and someone who has thoughts and feelings of her own? Your story could very very interesting, but it's not a story about real love. Your dream girl does what your mind wants / fears, not what she wants. Love is also about the other person. And so this is actually a fairly good example if you use your experience to make some kind of statement about true love or whatever, since that's only your mind's conception (or even its wish) of what love and heartbreak are. The matrix feels real while you're in it. (unless I misunderstand, and you dream of a woman who is or was real whom you really were in love with).

http://youtu.be/0jTuKHKIT4w

If there's one word out there that doesn't have a simple definition, it's love. It doesn't mean the same to everyone, and it can cover a huge range of emotions. If anything is one of your 'matrices' in my brain, it's our definitions and classifications. We let them define and limit our experiences too much instead of enslaving them to try and express them.

That's why I wouldn't wake up and say 'I fell in love with a dream'. No, I'd have to enslave a thousand words, or attempt to bend a novel to my will to try and express that unique love I felt. I'd have to rely on the sentences as well as the spaces between them. And maybe at the end of the day, one or two people might have understood and related, and maybe a few more might have taken some nugget from it and transformed it to benefit their own experiences.

But still, by my own definition of 'love', that emotion I had in this dream felt as valid a love as I have ever felt, so who are you to say it didn't? How could you ever get inside my heart, dissect it and prove you're right?

Even in real life, people kiss, but is the kiss real? Or is it a rehearsal of what you saw on TV or used to do in the past? At least then the girl is real even if the kiss isn't.

I've been saying it doesn't matter. If this 'fake' kiss is happening, it's as real as anything to me, it was just inspired from something different then what you think it ought to be. I sure as hell can't tell what act or thought of mine is original and what is borrowed, I don't see how anyone else could. 'Real' is just another word - a word we created to described a certain kind of experience. And I don't really care to waste my time anymore on drawing lines in the sand to say what meets some philosopher's criteria or doesn't.

Whether I'm a fish in a river or plugged into a simulation, it doesn't matter to me the arbitrary 'validity' that some other perspective applied to it - what matters is what I do with my experience and how I, subjectively, feel about it. It didn't matter that the girl was just from a dream to me, what matters is that I chose to break her heart. It doesn't matter if the kiss is from TV, what matters is if that the person chose to impart that kiss, felt it was the right thing to do in that situation, and that they were honest in their expression.

It's not about reality - it's about sincerity.

Exactly what I'm talking about. You haven't lived those lives. You've only lived your own. Do you watch COPS and think you've lived the life of a cop? Watch Mad Men and think you know what the 60s were really like? You're in the matrix…

So? I now know what the Mad Men's world is like. I know what Middle Earth is like. Just because they never happened in this life or are not historically accurate doesn't mean I can't experience them in a different way than my usual day to day and gleam something wonderful from them to affect the rest of my life.

I can go run up a hill outside or read about Aragorn running up a hill - one isn't defined as a 'reality' and one as a 'matrix' in my mind, it's just that they're two different things, both able to create meaningful and lasting impacts. I feel no need to place one higher than the other in some sort of hierarchy.

I think what I decide should influence my life, whether it's a real person or a dream, an adventure with friends or an engaging book, is up to me and my convictions, not some mighty critic or judge that goes around deciding what is worthy and 'true'.

(But I also think people can make mistakes and get addicted to things like television and games, running away from other problems, diving into into something that can hold all their attention, and never wanting to return. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not, and I think a friend that knows you might be able to pick up on the signs that a habit has become unhealthy like that and help you back to where you'd like to be. But it's usually not the quality or type of book that causes such escapism from my experience - it's the person who wants to escape and the shit they've been through. In that mindset, you'll find anything, no matter what's in front of you, be it Twilight or Crime and Punishment, as long as it successfully distracts you. But I think that's kind of a different beast than what you're talking about here.

Though if it is, we should both just shut up and read Breakfast of Champions.)

If your point is that consumption of fantasy renders us incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy, or that first-hand experience is required to write, for example, a great war novel that rings true with veterans, and that knowledge acquired through other means (including fiction) can never suffice, even (and especially) when artfully infused with imagination and empathy, then I vehemently disagree.

Curious. I think I am going through something like this right now. I mean, things I haven't directly experienced inspiring me to do experiences. I've got an idea for piece linking together Mass Effect's influence on me, filtered through Sagan and deGrasse Tyson, then applied to recent revelations in the news. It'll probably be up on my blog at some point. Would you care to read it?

What an absurd thing to say.

From all the dreams I've had and stories I've experienced, I sometimes feel like I've lived hundreds of lives

Exactly what I'm talking about. You haven't lived those lives. You've only lived your own. Do you watch COPS and think you've lived the life of a cop? Watch Mad Men and think you know what the 60s were really like? You're in the matrix…

Just because it's a story, a metaphor, a dream, a matrix, that doesn't make it less real to me - it's just a different beast is all. And I can learn from all of types and kinds. Whether I'm in-line with the author's intent or not, I can still take something meaningful and wonderful from their work. Sometimes an author's accidents can turn into fireworks for a reader, and I think that's worth celebrating.

Hence my 'the genius proves everybody right' comment.

I'm still not sure what is meant by "genius proves everybody right" (Original ource? It's an interesting thought. I'd like to know the context). Are you saying that the work of geniuses seems in accordance with what we know of reality? Here's a relevant quote from Tolkien in his essay "On Fairy Stories":

Probably every writer making a secondary world, a fantasy, every sub-creator, wishes in some measure to be a real maker, or hopes that he is drawing on reality: hopes that the peculiar quality of this secondary world (if not all the details) are derived from Reality, or are flowing into it. If he indeed achieves a quality that can fairly be described by the dictionary definition: “inner consistency of reality,” it is difficult to conceive how this can be, if the work does not in some way partake of reality. The peculiar quality of the ”joy” in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth.

If your point is that much creative work is derivative and lacks this inner consistency of reality, in part because the work is inspired only by other works and the creators did not spend enough time attending to bringing their unique sense of the real into it, then I agree that yes, that is in line with my definition of derivative.

If your point is that consumption of fantasy renders us incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy, or that first-hand experience is required to write, for example, a great war novel that rings true with veterans, and that knowledge acquired through other means (including fiction) can never suffice, even (and especially) when artfully infused with imagination and empathy, then I vehemently disagree.

Bonus points if you can respond without using the word "matrix." That'll also keep me from having to put my fist through my monitor.

Even in real life, people kiss, but is the kiss real? Or is it a rehearsal of what you saw on TV or used to do in the past? At least then the girl is real even if the kiss isn't.

Porn is a great example of the potential disconnect between fantasy and reality.

And where the 'matrix' ends and a 'real' experience begins is a vague line for me; sometimes I don't think there's a difference at all. From all the dreams I've had and stories I've experienced, I sometimes feel like I've lived hundreds of lives -lives that rise and fall in my subconscious like half-remembered dreams. And they inspire me and invite new dreams I want to illustrate. They come from a different place than my waking reality, but not necessarily less of a place.
That girl that I dreamed of 5 years ago... The one I fell in love with and then broke her heart... The hard emotions that stayed with me as I awoke... Should I have disregarded all that because I never 'truly' experienced it? Were those emotions somehow worth less than others? And if I poured that experience into a story... would that story be a waste of time? Could I or anyone else not learn from that or resonate with it? The girl was a dream, the emotions were real, and a false story created a truth. So was it 'false' to begin with?

Have you ever really been in love? With an actual human being, not with a dream; something you can't control and someone who has thoughts and feelings of her own? Your story could very very interesting, but it's not a story about real love. Your dream girl does what your mind wants / fears, not what she wants. Love is also about the other person. And so this is actually a fairly good example if you use your experience to make some kind of statement about true love or whatever, since that's only your mind's conception (or even its wish) of what love and heartbreak are. The matrix feels real while you're in it. (unless I misunderstand, and you dream of a woman who is or was real whom you really were in love with).

Even in real life, people kiss, but is the kiss real? Or is it a rehearsal of what you saw on TV or used to do in the past? At least then the girl is real even if the kiss isn't.

From all the dreams I've had and stories I've experienced, I sometimes feel like I've lived hundreds of lives

Exactly what I'm talking about. You haven't lived those lives. You've only lived your own. Do you watch COPS and think you've lived the life of a cop? Watch Mad Men and think you know what the 60s were really like? You're in the matrix…

Just because it's a story, a metaphor, a dream, a matrix, that doesn't make it less real to me - it's just a different beast is all. And I can learn from all of types and kinds. Whether I'm in-line with the author's intent or not, I can still take something meaningful and wonderful from their work. Sometimes an author's accidents can turn into fireworks for a reader, and I think that's worth celebrating.

Hence my 'the genius proves everybody right' comment.

I've thought about this, and I think ultimately that a misinterpretation of a work of art is either the failure of the person viewing who himself lacks the life experience (or intelligence) to correctly interpret it, or it is a failure of the artist who either lacks the life experience himself (and is drawing from the 'matrix' instead of his own experience), or lacks the life experience to know how other people experience things.

I don't even think there IS such a thing as a misinterpretation and 'successes' and 'failures' in this regard - and that's what makes art and the world amazing. Once you set your stories free they can become entirely different things to different people - they become a crystal with an infinite amount of facets that can be peered into and compared, which then only builds more facets...

And where the 'matrix' ends and a 'real' experience begins is a vague line for me; sometimes I don't think there's a difference at all. From all the dreams I've had and stories I've experienced, I sometimes feel like I've lived hundreds of lives -lives that rise and fall in my subconscious like half-remembered dreams. And they inspire me and invite new dreams I want to illustrate. They come from a different place than my waking reality, but not necessarily less of a place.

That girl that I dreamed of 5 years ago... The one I fell in love with and then broke her heart... The hard emotions that stayed with me as I awoke... Should I have disregarded all that because I never 'truly' experienced it? Were those emotions somehow worth less than others? And if I poured that experience into a story... would that story be a waste of time? Could I or anyone else not learn from that or resonate with it? The girl was a dream, the emotions were real, and a false story created a truth. So was it 'false' to begin with?

Just because it's a story, a metaphor, a dream, a matrix, that doesn't make it less real to me - it's just a different beast is all. And I can learn from all of types and kinds. Whether I'm in-line with the author's intent or not, I can still take something meaningful and wonderful from their work. Sometimes an author's accidents can turn into fireworks for a reader, and I think that's worth celebrating.

I've found that last paragraph is best read in a Bob Ross voice, btw.

So as a creator, I wouldn't want to tell those people with different solutions they're wrong - I'd just be proud I was able to invoke anything that could impact or help their own equations.

As the receiver, I wouldn't want to tell people who got the solution differently they're wrong or have bad tastes. No, I could instead share with them and see how different inputs create different outcomes and gain wider views of the original equation.

And if I got a negative number from the author's creations? Maybe I shouldn't say the author is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Maybe it wasn't even meant for me. Maybe I'm just not in the position to understand it at this point. Maybe I never will. The world outside the cave is a wide one.

I've thought about this, and I think ultimately that a misinterpretation of a work of art is either the failure of the person viewing who himself lacks the life experience (or intelligence) to correctly interpret it, or it is a failure of the artist who either lacks the life experience himself (and is drawing from the 'matrix' instead of his own experience), or lacks the life experience to know how other people experience things.

In a sense you are right - no two people have the same experience, but I'm not sure that's applicable to what I'm saying. Someone once said (I forget who), that the true genius is not the one who proves everyone wrong but himself, but the person who proves everybody right.

I'm late to this, and I'm not gonna try to rekindle an argument, I just have something to say. I, on a fundamental level, see no real difference between doing something you want to because you were raised to think you wanted it, and something you "really" want to do. To me, they are both something you want to do. Because, you have a point that you can't tell which is which easily. But, what does that wind up mattering?

Because things you want because you have been taught or conditioned to want them may not be what's best for you, nor something you would actually want if you had never been conditioned or taught to want it in the first place.

A woman is submissive to her husband. You ask her why. She says she wishes to be, because making him happy makes her happy. She really wants it, and really does get pleasure from this. Is this okay? Does it end up mattering?

Just because something comes from outside of you doesn't mean it isn't a facet of the "real" you, because otherwise our concepts of personality wouldn't reflect someone's actual personality. Most people get ideas placed into their heads their whole life, and they are obviously going to be changed by them. So whenever someone states that only some wants are "real" and not just constructs, I can't help but perceive it as arbitrary and false distinctions.

I'm sorry, but I don't think I disputed that.

The other thing I want to say is that I don't see the issue with playing games to have fun.

I don't either! I do it all the time and love it!

First, how does ubiquity make something worse? I honestly don't get where you're coming from on the "everywhere becomes nowhere" thing.

To see a movie in 1941, you had to go to a theatre. It was a special place. Now you can watch a movie anywhere. So now everywhere has that property. But if everything has that property, there are no special places anymore. Everywhere becomes nowhere.

I also don't see this "Matrix" as inherently bad; everyone seems to have assumed it is, but I don't see why. It isn't an artificially constructed reality like its namesake, it is just... heck, it just seems like you're calling the influence of media "The Matrix".

Not just the media, but tradition, religion, values, political correctness, etc.

Are we more than our thoughts? Are we afraid we're not in control of our thoughts, motivations, selves? Are we really just biological constructions reacting with some highly evolved instinct - do I decide what to do before I've decided what to do - or is there something else? If we are, is that such a bad thing? I'm not convinced it isn't pretty amazing in its own right, all things considered.

Hopefully I actually conveyed my point, but I'm glad just to have written this.

I'm glad you wrote it, too.

Indeed.

A questionably executed(but prime in concept) novella that I read once would be appropriate to mention here. But I'm not sure I want my kids to be exposed to that material yet. :)

~M