What is the importance of telling stories that aren't even true? In our current culture's paradigm doesn't this question also need, albieit beg for an understanding of truth? And in such a "world" where truth is a relativity (which seeks to say that there is no absolute truth) are we not asking for an impossibility in answering the question? Or perhaps it is possible. Perhaps we have misused, perhaps mis-characterized Truth. Perhaps the relativism of truth we have discovered is correct, but the verdict in so deciding that this is the gist of truth is overlooking.
The relatvity is based in our conscoiusness--which is to say that the consciousness of truth is relative. It seems to me from experience that what we are describing as the relativity of truth is the persuasion of truth. Perhaps this is not readily apparent to you (or your reading self). I may have not persuaded you and thus you have chosen not to believe me. Perhaps this will act as a hint to you that what you believe commonly decides the truth of a matter for you.
Your beliefs are structures you have crafted or that have been crafted for you. Now I don't expect you to believe any part of my investigation and by now you may be asking yourself why I have placed you into the physician's chair, asking am I not supposed to be speaking of stories? Well what about you? I'm sure you have stories you tell-certain ones that have become well rehearsed. Certain ones on which you may or may not have become aware of yourself falling into a role as your words and body language play out the story. And is the story true? Has what happened changed or have you? The Truth of what happened which is what happened itself cannot change. The only thing that changes is your perception in the telling-which begs us ask whether or not there was any truth in your initial perception of the event when it played out in its present.
Now these are stories that you have clung too-that you have crafted and revised throughout your life. You have possibly always believed that these stories really happened. And you may even, and probably do identify with these stories. Yet as you tell them your identity changes-you switch into a role. And perhaps you find that you systematically identify with these roles-but are they you? And if you find that they aren't really you-just reductions of something much vaster-and if these stories you have collected around you begin to no longer hold validity as factual, and yet you have believed them to be true, what possibly could be the point of telling stories that are obviously not true? I'm guessing you've always believed (or in the gossipping case,
disbelieved) those stories you tell about yourself or that have been
told about you are true-but why the persuasion-why does the story seem
to gain strength or "give you a name" as its power builds (and then
perhaps weens, as your belief in them weens as well)? Is perhaps the obviousness of the non-truth behind these fake stories-these mythologies and folktales-is perhaps the obviousness of the non-truth behind them only the lack of the stories trying to persuade you to believe it is you? Perhaps Truth only flows from an identification of truth--one in which our perception is no longer playing roles and thus perceiving from that reductive perception. Just as the relativity of truth on a conscious level is a persuasion so to does it seem, to me, that our identities on a purely conscious level (which is to say conceptually) are also just persuasion-passing fashions. Truth is an identification. And whereas our world is subconsciously training us to believe that we are our iPhone and shoes and career and the boys or girls were fucking, it should seem entirely ludicrous and violent to propose that our identities are actually tied to such states instead of such objects.
