Armunn wrote a good essay on stories and fakeology.
Stories are the foundation of human behavior. In that, we seem to diverge
completely from the rest of life. This does not necessarily mean that the stories
the human mind needs to function are a negative thing, quite the contrary.
Stories are the signposts that guide thought and we are the most thinking
animals around. Without them, humans wouldn’t exist. Sometimes we may be
lead to believe that it would be best if we didn’t exist… but then who would
acknowledge our inexistence?
Once upon a time, apparently, our stories however seemed to have not been
written, even though writing had been invented. If we had the technology to
store information in a physical state, then why not? To our current way of
thinking this may seem a very imbecile fallacy, as an account that is not
written can easily be subject to alteration. This didn’t seem to bother much our
ancestors, if this archaic assumption is true. In fact, I propose that this made
perfect sense for a different kind of mindset, perhaps the mindset of a different
kind of human animal.
A story works always as a guiding background so that mental concepts that
have already been learned and digested are not required to be thought about
and rediscovered every time they are pertinent to the context. If a certain fruit
is found good for eating, then the background stories will reflect that,
removing the need for a arduous, repetitive and unproductive assessment
every time one finds it. It would seem, to the current mindset, very pertinent
to write these stories, making a more or less permanent record that would
serve as an unaltered reference for future generations. However, an unwritten
story has an ability that surpasses its written counterpart: it is able to evolve.
A written story is stagnant. A written story is therefore prone to become sacred
for the mind and to, with that sacredness, become more important than the
context, as that does not remain fixed in whichever the story was originally
Stories that are not written but that are transmitted verbally have exactly that
ability to adapt to changing contexts without necessarily losing the inherent
knowledge which they were created to preserve. The fruit may now also be
found good to make juice, not just eating. An unwritten story has the ability to
transmute to accommodate this new knowledge without the sacredness of a
cumulative script, allowing for a quick learning process of that new knowledge.
On the other hand, a mind habituated to a certain fixed, sacred, text will find
itself resisting the idea that the fruit can also be used to make juice to drink
and not just for eating – for that is not part of the background reality the story
This is a completely different mindset, one that is now even alien to our
context. We really do require written stories if we are to preserve, at least,
what truth isn’t, from the attack our minds have been under. We need a record
of the lies, for sure. Still, “they” have been writing stories for much longer than
we have. “They” have always dealt with the irrelevance of inadequate or
fictional but sacred texts, that override the importance of the context or the
people whom were supposed to benefit from whatever knowledge it was
supposed to convey. “They” have even learned a long time ago how to write
fiction into the text stories to guide human behavior. We are new at this and we are, I like to think, as pure as those ancestors apparently were, when they
were telling the relevant stories that would evolve alongside their context,
without ever writing them down. We are inexperienced and often gullible at it.
Additionally, there may even come a time when we will have to throw our
records away and face the danger and uncertainty of losing such precious
knowledge, lest it become another sacred text and we become “them”. Now is
not the time at all for that and that is not my point.
“They” have enhanced their written stories to a higher level. These are now
moving pictures with sound: video. These tell us much more than a thousand
words and guide us far quicker and more imposingly. It is, up to current times,
the most effective method for “them” to preserve and divulge written sacred
stories to guide the behavior of ever growing numbers of people. There is no
need now for them to send a missionary to invest years trying to convert a
small tribe or village of people into whichever story was required for their
goals; a simple video clip can do all that in a few minutes or seconds.
Don’t take me wrong, it is not the technology of writing or video-making that
I’m putting at stake here, I am yet putting the question forward of what we, in
the future, should there be one free from insanity, will consider worthy of
storing. What knowledge will we need that will not be subject to context
changes in a natural development of our daily lives together, as we certainly
become a different kind of human animal, less fixed on sacred stories? Will
whatever we store from this mind-war enable the return of the same insanity
we face today?
I have all these questions, but no answer. As I’ve said before:
That’s the true challenge of fakeology – as it is not a mere matter of checking
if media events are staged (if the “priests” are telling the truth), it is a matter
of slicing reality to eliminate as many untruths as possible. That destroys the
cushion-stories. What then? What lies beyond when we have discovered
everything truth is not?
What lies beyond is an unknown, as it should be. Absolute security is a false,
insane, concept. We will not know how the context will change in this
hypothetical sane future… but we might as well reflect upon what we may or
may not want to bring along with us, that may not always be relevant or
adequate for whatever context we will find ourselves in over time.