Stories as true and not

In what ways are stories true and not? 

When we call them true, we often mean that…

  • Others agree. They match conventional views and consensus reality.
  • They match the data. Our stories about the data, that is. (Our stories of how the data fits together matches our stories of the data.) 
  • They seem to work. When we use them as guidelines for how to function in the world, they seem to work in a practical sense. At least well enough for our purposes, and for now. 
And here are some ways they are not true, first in a conventional sense…
  • Stories always come from limited experience
    • Our experience, individually and collective, is always limited, no matter how vast it seems in a conventional sense. We are always only scratching the surface. 
    • Our experience is finite within the infinite. 
  • The map is not the terrain
    • Maps are selective. We chose what is included and what is not. 
    • There is a difference in kind. Stories are mental field creations, and what they referer to is (apparently) not. 
  • Stories are always interpretations within a worldview
    • Other interpretations are possible within the same worldview. 
    • Other worldviews are possible, producing quite different interpretations. 
    • These interpretations can fit the data equally well, and be equally functional in a practical sense. 
  • Outside of what I can imagine
    • I have no idea what is beyond my limited experience. If I do, it is most likely wrong. 
    • Many of the interpretations within familiar worldviews are unfamiliar to me. 
    • Most interpretations within other worldviews are far outside of what I can imagine in advance.
    • There are innumerable interpretations and worldviews unfamiliar to me that fit the data equally well or better than anything I am familiar with, and may work equally well or better as practical guidelines. 
  • All happens within the mental field
    • Maps are mental field creations about other mental field creations. Interpretations (maps) of interpretations (data). And these interpretations happens within other interpretations (worldviews). 
  • Words split and what they refer to is not split
    • Reality is untouched by, beyond and includes all polarities.
    • Words, by their nature, split and exclude. (That is their job, and it is essential that they do so, but it is also good to notice.)
And in the context of what we are, they are also not true… 
  • It is all the play of Ground. Stories are appearances refering to appearances. 
    • Stories are mental field creations, sometimes overlaid on pure perception and sometimes not. They are imagined. 
    • Stories, and all content of experience, is already empty and awake. Form without substance.

So what happens when we take stories as true, and not? 

  • When I take stories as true, I am at odds with reality. 
    • Reality will always show up differently from my stories. (My stories are limited, reality is not.) 
    • I already know this, even if I am not fully aware of it. So even if life does not show up differently yet, I know it can – and will. 
    • Either way, I experience stress. A sense of having to defend a story as true that I – already – know is not true. (When a story is taken as true, there is also automatically a sense of I and Other, which in itself is stressful.) 
  • When I recognize a story as just a story, I can use it as a tool. 
    • Stories are free to be used as a tool, without the added stress of taking them as true. (Having to defend them, prop them up.) 
    • Any story can be more or less helpful as a guideline in any particular situation. I can use my best judgment, select a story as guideline for action, and then see what happens. Watch for feedback. Learn. Be receptive enough to try another story if that seems more appropriate. 


Initial outline…

  • stories as true
    • matches conventional views/consensus reality
    • matches data
    • gets good feedback, seems to work in a practical sense
  • stories as not true
    • conventional sense
      • limited experience
        • always coming from quite limited experience
        • always only scratching the surface
        • always finite within the infinite
      • map and terrain
        • highlight some things, deemphasize and leave other out
        • difference in kind (in material, what they are made of)
      • always an interpretation, coming from a particular context 
        • other interpretations possible, within same/similar worldview
        • other worldviews possible, with quite different interpretations
      • all within mental field
        • maps are mental field creations about other mental field creations (interpretations of interpretations)
      • words split, what they are about is not
        • existence is beyond and includes all polarities
        • words split, exclude
    • in context of all as God
      • recognize as mental field overlay on pure perception
      • what is, is unspeakable – words/maps cannot touch it
      • all is empty/awakeness, temporarily appearing as form

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.