Sunday Seminar Series: Truth and Belief, Part II

Comet, or Dragon? Image via Wikipedi

Dear Readers,

  After the problems that occured with my "Great Expectations" Friday Seminar, I discovered that the response improved when I posted my seminars to time-normal Sundays rather than Fridays, and I've changed the schedule accordingly.

  If you are just joining us, my Sunday Seminars are a series of posts adapted from material for my first-year undergraduate Anachronism students, CHRN/AUG 100.  Last week we talked about different kinds of information, and I defined some terms for you.  It would be useful to go back to that, but I intend to move on from there, so foreknowledge should not be entirely necessary.

   The important point that I want you to take home from these two seminars is that there are different sorts of conclusions you can make about "reality."

   Let me give you an example.  There is a medieval source, from your history, in which a bishop describes his experience of seeing a dragon.  Historians (as you know them) and Anachronists both are interested in this account for a variety of reasons.  However, even time-normal historians consider this source in two ways.

  The first is literally.  The source gives us an account of what a dragon was to a medieval person.  For this bishop, whatever he saw really was a dragon.  And thus we come to interpretations of truth.  Pragmatist philosophy suggests that if an interpretive worldview is useful to someone, then it is true for that person.  What is true, thus, is not necessarily the same for everyone.  Because of truth-bias from his or her original worldview, the Anachronist has to realign his or her mind to that of the source author.  That is, if the Anachronist seeks a literalist, source subjective impression of the information available.  Furthermore, it gets very interesting when you consider that there are time streams where the objective reality would agree with the subjective reality of a dragon.  Keep an open mind!

   Of course, what if we don't take the source literally?  What if we want to figure out what "really happened"?  Was the dragon a comet?  Ball lightning?  It can be a lot more difficult, because to some degree we just have to trust in our sources.  We can't see these time streams via Augury.  So we often have to look for clues in the sources words that tell us what the different possibilities.  The take home message should be that you can never know what "really" happened or will happen in a time stream.  You just know what could happen.  And that's what Anachronism is all about.

   There is another way, however.  There are the people at the University, who still have their memories from a time normal life, but the perspective of interaction with those who have different perspectives.  When in doubt, consult a colleague.  Often, there is someone here who can tell you what their subjective experience in a given related time stream was, and that can help inform you as to the possibilities for your time stream of study.

  In the end, all we can really say is what our sources believed the truth to be, not the "real" facts.

  And yet, this does not matter.  There are so many possibilities out there, and the mere inspiration from a source provides us with something meaningful.  If a source can imagine it, there is likely a time stream where it will occur.

  Always,

  Dr. John Skylar
  Chairman
  Department of Anachronism
  University of Constantinople

The Meaning Behind the Curtain

Dear Readers,

Yesterday, I published a small fable I wrote for you, entitled "Spider and Hawk," which I left a little morally ambiguous.

Part of that is because the lesson is one of moral ambiguity. The kicker for that communication asked you to think of meaning on your own, just as Spider and Hawk each derived their own meanings from life. Hawk thought that the wisdom and the light was to fly around to his prey, and be faster and less predictable. Spider preferred to lay a clever trap, and in this cunning way, came to the same success as Hawk. These truths, while contradictory, worked for both of them.

Even so, the truths would not work in reverse. Hawk would have made a poor trapper, and Spider a poor diver. So to each of them, the other's truth appeared false. Coyote capitalized on this, to trick them to their doom. Since Hawk did not think Spider's trap mattered, he did not consider it a threat. And since Spider thought Hawk's speed inefficient, she never developed the means to escape in haste from Coyote's fire.

I'm sure a few of you interpret this, or will interpret this, to mean that you should not listen to Coyotes. And in your time stream, certainly, I would not listen to a talking Coyote. At least not without significant spiritual advice. Since that moral might be true for you, in essence a "contingent truth," I cannot contest it and remain true to my real message.

My real message is, of course, that no truth is a necessary truth. At least, not to me. From my vantage point, I see time streams where coyotes do talk, or where systems of mathematics are radically different. The details are not important; what is more important is that in my line of work I must assume that the beliefs that kept each time-normal society functional are, in the context of that society, true.

Therefore, to use an example that will require minimal explanation, when I read Beowulf, I must read from the perspective that the original audience lived in a world where dragons were a real species. Not necessarily because I believe that there were dragons around, but merely because I know, from the presence of a dragon in that work, that belief in dragons was useful to the audience. They gained from a belief in dragons, and it helped their society to function. Spider believed in webs, and to believe anything else might have hurt her. Likewise Hawk would have caught few mice without his dives. So, too, might someone from Charlemagne's day have lost a lot of livelihood if he did not appease his deity in Heaven. And for you, who live in a great age of information, you would not find yourselves successful if you did not believe in the magic of the Internet and the connections it forms between people.

You might think that is a ridiculous comparison, but it is not. When a religious person prays to a deity, they cannot be completely sure that their god lies on the other end of the line, listening. But how much more sure are you, when a celebrity replies to you on Twitter, that you have heard from the real thing? How much faith can you really place? Still, it is as true to you as it is useful. And as useful to me as it is true to you.

Always,

Dr. John Skylar
Chairman
Department of Anachronism
University of Constantinople

A Fable: Spider and Hawk

Dear Readers,

A lesson I wish to teach this week is best conveyed first via fable, so I've written one, in the style of myth.

One day, as Spider fixed her web among the high trees, Hawk came to perch nearby.

A frequent scoffer, Hawk laughed on Spider's efforts, "You work so hard, when you could just go out and find your prey, Spider."

Spider, not one to take such remarks with a light heart, hissed, "Why should I go anywhere, when food will come to me? It's you who works too hard, Hawk."

To this, Hawk a first found little to say, but he soon dove in on an answer, "We can't both be right, Spider, but I don't know how to argue my point."

Spider, pensive, replied, "Nor can I think of a clear way to argue mine."

From beneath, Coyote called up at that very moment, "I hear your quarrel, Spider and Hawk! I think I can solve it."

Most animals learned early on, when the world was young, that Coyote could not always be trusted. Spider and Hawk both knew that in some way, his suggestion would lead to his gain. With great reservation, they both turned towards their companion on the ground.

"And how is that?" Hawk spoke first, defensive.

"An experiment! We will see who can catch more prey--she who builds the web, or he who soars the skies."

Spider, wiser than her friend, asked, "And what is in this for you, Coyote? I've never seen you offer free advice."

Coyote smiled in the way that canines do, part mirth, part threat, "Good question, Spider. I will judge your contest, and so you must provide me with one tenth of your catch for my judging fee."

Hawk and Spider nodded at each other. "It is reasonable," said Hawk.

"Then it begins now; you have one day to capture as much prey as you can." Coyote licked the edges of his mouth.

The pair set to work immediately. Hawk soared through the sky as never before, and birds and mice everywhere rushed to hide themselves beneath his sharp gaze. Still, early on, his speed and eyesight gave him a quick lead.

Spider was more patient; her passive web needed to be built so that it could catch more prey for her. She toiled and toiled to expand it through the high trees, and built more and more connections until soon her catch rivaled Hawk's.

It was then that Coyote's clever trap sprung. Hawk swept down from the sky to catch a vole, and straight into Spider's net. Trapped, he struggled to no avail to escape.

Spider, not far away, felt the vibrations and rushed to find this large animal trapped in her web. When she saw Hawk, she felt pain for him. The two were friends, even if they now competed. She set to work to free him, "I am sorry, Hawk, it seems my web has caught you."

From below, they heard laughter, "And my swift movement and clever web has caught you. Both of you, that is." They looked beneath them; there, smiling at the base of the tree, stood Coyote with a flaming branch in his teeth. He hurled it up towards them, and the web caught fire in an instant. There was no escape, not even for Spider.

"You see, my dear, departed friends, you were both right, but did not see it, and so I will feast tonight on your fresh-cooked bodies and stockpiled prey." Coyote chuckled, and waited for them to roast.

And there you have it. Think about what it could mean, and I will be back with you tomorrow.

Always,

Dr. John Skylar
Chairman
Department of Anachronism
University of Constantinople