“Here’s one firm law of history: Truth is known at precisely that point in time when nobody gives a shit.”
– Charles Simic, The Monster Loves His Labyrinth
__________
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
Philip K Dick, quoted in The Ashtray by Errol Morris
__________
What is the correct protocol for proclaiming a truth?
Is it the volume of evidence to hand?
Does it depend on the depth of experience of the proclaimer?
Does it rely on cold mathematical logic?
Is truth provable?
Is it even probable?
I’m happy to be ignorant of absolute truth.
I can live with ambiguity.
It’s a survival mechanism.
I cannot imagine being a dogged investigator of what really happened or what is actually true.
I don’t have the temperament for defimitive statements.
I can muster a tepid, “this is what I think.”
I try to avoid “this is what I know.”
I don’t need to be right.
I can be negligent of reality, secure in the knowledge that it will carry on regardless of my level of engagement.
It’s comforting to know that the world is not dependent on my vigilance.
It seems I am more interested in creating my own realities. I enjoy my imagination. I have an inclination to be entertained, I’m not one for debate. But if someone writes what they think and believe in a compelling way I am liable to have a read and, perhaps, readjust my ideas of truth and reality.
It’s likely I am not an engaged citizen. Maybe the world doesn’t need 8 billion people pursuing the truth. It’s improbable that we will all agree on the same answer. And likely, and proven by history, that the defense of one truth against another creates serious problems.
So what is left after this avoiding of the truth?
An acceptance of reality, but with plenty of mental capacity for the pursuit of the imagination.
Conversations With Quotations 