|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "It's Life Of Pi: What story do you prefer?"
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Warning! Contains spoilers about the book/film Life of Pi
I'm not intending this discussion to be particularly about the book or film, but the OP below inevitably reveals spoilers and some of the rest of the discussion might well do too.
So with that out of the way, and to move the spoilers a bit further down the post, here's the title again:
"It's Life Of Pi: What story do you prefer?"
I have lifted this quote of a quote from a post by Martin PC on the Universalism thread to ask about stories and truth.
Within the fictional world of the film, at the end of the day we are presented with two alternative accounts of what happened. One is fantastical, inspiring, and at times beautiful and moving, the other is sordid, vile, and ugly.
While the first of these two narratives stretches plausibility to the limits and beyond (and the second appears eminently believable), at the end of the day nobody but Pi knows what happened, and if I recall correctly even the insurance underwriters eventually accept his initial version.
I enjoyed the film, but my takeaway was sadness that the protagonist was seemingly unable to come to terms with what must surely have happened and so preferred his own fictionalised (and highly different) account to the grisly truth. The conviction that the truth, however unpalatable, is what sets us free runs very deep in me.
This is not just an abstract question for me as in prison chaplaincy I regularly meet people who have done unspeakable things, not all of whom acknowledge them.
MartinPC's comment made me question whether everyone came away from the film with the same conclusion I did. I may have read Martin wrong, but with regard to universalism it seems to me he's saying "well, we can't know, so why not prefer to believe the nicer story?"
The word "postmodernism" floats across the debate. Beeswax Altar says quote:
Stories are the only authority postmodernism recognize
Do postmodernists come away from this film happy because Pi's chosen story is a nice one?
If someone's "story" is compelling, does it make no difference whether it is forensically true or not? Does it make any difference if (unlike Life of Pi) there is actual evidence discounting the story? And what about the "Old Old Story"? Is it any different? Are there people out there hoping it's true solely because they "prefer" it? And is this a good thing?
[ 23. March 2014, 06:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
I enjoyed the film, but my takeaway was sadness that the protagonist was seemingly unable to come to terms with what must surely have happened and so preferred his own fictionalised (and highly different) account to the grisly truth.
Sounds a bit like religion to me!
We all use stories to deal with life and death, don't we?
This is why it's so very hard for the relatives of the people on the missing airliner just now. They have no story, no 'closure'. I have told the story of my Mum's death over and over - it seems a psychological need to settle the fact of her death in my mind.
I think, if the facts were as disturbing as Pi's, I would also have a need to find a way to tell the story to make copable with.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Boogie
Very good point about your Mum's death - part of mourning, after somebody has died, is to go over and over various stories about the death, and of course, all our feelings of sadness, guilt, anger, and so on. This usually takes a couple of years, and can of course take much longer; and maybe in a sense, we never stop the process of telling the stories. My mum cooked the dinner one night, watched TV, and got in bed and died. And of course, I have told that story endlessly, both to others, and to myself.
There is a school of thought that psychotherapy is basically a 'school of narrative', that is, helping people to tell their own stories.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Having read the book and seen the film, the conclusion that they leave you with is different. In the book, it is left far more up in the air.
To me, the point is that it is all stories. Both versions of the events are stories that fit with the known facts. There is one version that is easier to believe than the other, but that does not necessarily make it any more true.
Pi makes a story that explains his experiences. He made a story that the insurance people could accept. For me that is a good way of understanding stories. The biblical stories are similar - they are tales told to explain the experiences that the authors had. We need to understand them a little to appreciate their stories - not, maybe, so much as Pi, or so clear, but still a story reflecting the writer.
Does this mean that it is not true? Not at all. Pi was set adrift in a boat, he did survive, and he was picked up. He also had companions in his journey. To me, the story is about how we understand stories, how we relate stories to truth, how we real and interpret them as ways of expressing truth. Yes, this is very postmodern, because postmodern truth is about stories. As was ancient Jewish truth.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
Just to say, rather feebly, that tis is a very interesting OP and has caused me to go back to discussions of the book (and film), and think about the whole thing all over again. I read the book soon after it came out; haven't seen the film.
You (Eutychus) came away from the film assuming that the ugly story was the real one, and the miraculous/animal story was Pi's coping mechanism. You wonder if everyone else came away with the same assumption. The answer is, no. Others have felt that Pi was simply offering the ugly story as a more plausible and realistic one to satisfy the questioners, who were unable to accept the first story.
Others again come away from both book and film thinking that the author is asking the reader: which story do you prefer? (As Martin says.) Yann Martel has apparently (in an interview online at a blog called Textualities) summarized his book as follows:
1. Life is a story
2. You can choose your story
3. A story with God is the better story.
The "better" story--but is it the truer? And does it matter? These are the questions the books wants us to ask ourselves.
Reminds me a bit of Puddleglum's Wager (based on Pascal's??) in C. S. Lewis's "The Silver Chair" where his grip on belief is fading but he still holds on to it because it is a more beautiful and worthwhile thing, even as a story, than the grim reality the witch posits.
So yes, in religion, perhaps people-perhaps I--try to hold on to the story we prefer. But we cannot know the real truth of the universe--can we?? As long as there is room for mystery and hope, why not choose that?
Though in the case of the prisoners who will not face up to what they have done--isn't that different? There, the truth must be faced up to--but the openness to mystery and miracle comes in the openness to believe that a person can change, even when it seems impossible....
These are just my first fractured thoughts in response, will think on.
(cross-posted with Boogie, Quetzalcoatl, and Schroedinger's Cat)
[ 23. March 2014, 08:45: Message edited by: Cara ]
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And so it is with God.
Which God story do you prefer?
A wooden one, whether with regard to creation, or God the Killer or the ethics of intimate relationships.
Or an adult one?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
The question is, as Pi raises, that they are all stories. They are all true, but in different ways.
Truth is not absolute. It depends on who wants to know. It depends on who is telling the story. To ask "which is the real truth" is to misunderstand the nature of the story at a fundamental level.
It is about which story you prefer, not because that is "better" or "more true", but because that is the one which allows you to engage with the truth better. I would rather the stories with God in them, because they seem bigger, fuller, wider.
Stories with God that are smaller I don't like. Stories where God is not allowed in seem to make the truth a whole lot less wonderful. In the end, truth should be wonderful.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I came to a prosaic conclusion about which of the narratives was true and which one was myth or fantasy. The meerkats and the island made that clear, even if surviving the tiger didn't.
Loved the movie, but it was disturbing. I think it illustrates the difference between truth as meaning and truth as facticity. Stories can illustrate inner meaning in a way in which an emphasis on facticity cannot.
I think the word 'impact' might have something to say here. Taking refuge in romanticised accounts as a form of escape from the realities of what has happened is basically a bad thing. Recognising the impact of these realities for what is, on ourselves and others, may require us to connect with other illustrative stories.
One of our problems is that we all seem to be natural story tellers about our own lives. We can very easily create our own myths, simply by the process of embellishments which make the accounts of our lives more vivid. It is not conscious lying, of course; it is almost as though many of us go into 'yarn mode' almost without thinking about it. Judicial processes understand this, which is why contemporary witness statements are so important. We can have convenient memories. We edit our own history, for complex conscious and unconscious reasons.
I think there is a relationship between this tendency (obviously more pronounced in some than others) and our real love of stories which we find convey meaning. Perhaps it relates to a need to find that our lives mean something? They are not just 'a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'.
[ 23. March 2014, 11:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
One of our problems is that we all seem to be natural story tellers about our own lives. We can very easily create our own myths, simply by the process of embellishments which make the accounts of our lives more vivid.
When we lived in South Africa my Grandma was 'saved' from a snake which came up under her chair. The gardener trapped it with his fork then killed it (he was very afraid of snakes as was my grandma). She told the story many times. The snake grew and grew - as did the heroism and prowess of the gardener. Looks were passed over dinner tables as the story was embellished over the years.
We all do this - usually with small details - often details we've simply forgotten but are needed in the narrative. So the account isn't necessarily more vivid, just changed in its completion.
We all have a 'slant' on our stories too. Grandma's slant on the snake incident was romantic - mine was practical (and I was on the side of the snake which got a raw deal imo).
I am sure this is true of the gospels and explains their discrepancies.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The author, Yann Martel, is an Anglican.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
In the story the tiger is called by an unlikely name - Richard Parker.
There is a monument in the churchyard of my childhood church - Jesus Chapel, St Mary Extra - to a cabin boy who was eaten at sea after having drawn the short straw. The cabin boy's name? Richard Parker. Chance? I doubt it. I think the cannibalism story is the "true" one.
[ 23. March 2014, 14:25: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
In the story the tiger is called by an unlikely name - Richard Parker.
There is a monument in the churchyard of my childhood church - Jesus Chapel, St Mary Extra - to a cabin boy who was eaten at sea after having drawn the short straw. The cabin boy's name? Richard Parker. Chance? I doubt it. I think the cannibalism story is the "true" one.
As any first year student of English Law will tell you, this is the famous 19th century criminal case of R v Dudley & Stevens See here
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
Omg omg, favorite book, favorite movie. I prefer the tiger story. But obviously the other is the true story.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It is no secret among people who have heard eyewitness court testimony, or read about it, that there is no one "true" story. People who witness the exact same event at the same time, say a bar fight, will tell different stories. Which one is the factual one? All, or none. They are all recorded in the memories of fallible human beings, and subject to wishful thinking, analogizing to things already experienced or things experienced since, suppression of bits that don't fit into one's worldview or sense of morality. And from the start not everything that impinges upon our eyes and ears makes it into conscious processing anyway.
In short, the postmodern claim that there is no metanarrative seems to be played out in the actual lives of actual human beings.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
People who witness the exact same event at the same time, say a bar fight, will tell different stories. Which one is the factual one? (...)
In short, the postmodern claim that there is no metanarrative seems to be played out in the actual lives of actual human beings.
But in my view, only up to a point.
If the bar fight ended up with a dead body, there is some incontrovertible evidence. There may be differing testimonies, but to be grounded in reality they have to address this forensic fact.
In other words, I question a narrative that does not take into account all the extant evidence. In Pi's narrative, there is apparently none to support one alternative over the other (unless absence of evidence, say of other flesh-eating islands, is evidence of absence).
Cara says above that this enabled some people to come away from the film believing the first narrative. Would it make any difference to these people if, say, a human femur had been found on board the lifeboat?
[ 23. March 2014, 16:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes, testimony has to be reconciled to physical evidence. Some eyewitness who claims there was no half-wall between the bar and the restaurant portions of the establishment, when there most definitely was and is, is damaging their credibility.
On the other hand, physical evidence is also subject to interpretation, and even deception. We have only the coroner's word that the vial of blood that was DNA tested in the lab was in fact from the victim, and only the lab tech's word that the DNA test from that particular blood said thus-and-such about the victim's blood ties to the alleged murderer. And witnesses, coroners, and lab techs are all fallible human beings who are subject to mistakes, as well as to bribery.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
You only have to watch any of the detective series to know that what is obvious on first sight may not be accurate. So yes, there are some core and uncontravertable fact that seems to be established: there is a dead body. Anything else is subject to discussion. How the person dies, when they died, who else was around - these are all up for discussion.
The truth is that the "incontravertable facts" are so often much less than appears. In Pi, the only such facts are that Pi is alive, and was found in a lifeboat (I think, assuming that I remember it correctly). Everything else is up for grabs.
The more I learn about the latest understanding of quantum theory and the related aspects, the more I realise that reality is a far less simple and straightforward concept than it used to be.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Hmm, yes, but let's come back to the quote Cara referred to
quote:
1. Life is a story
2. You can choose your story
3. A story with God is the better story.
1. Sort of
3. Hope so
2. Only up to a point.
Life of Pi is constructed in such a way that it makes little difference to the insurance adjusters which is the true story. But real life is rarely like that. There are objective facts (where we were born, where we lived at various times, when we finally check out) which limit our "choice of story".
For me, the same applies to the "Old old story" of the Gospel. It works as a compelling narrative. It may even be a "better story" à la Puddleglum's wager. But if it does not rest on some actual, objective truth, it is about as useful as Slartibartfast's "I'm rather happy than right any time" (which he admits is not in fact a successful philosophy of life anyway) and we are self-deceived and to be pitied among all men.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
One thing I also got from the film (haven't read the book), was that there are many stories, and there is truth in each one, and the point is that you don't have to choose. At the beginning the boy explores Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam, and seems to believe in all of them simultaneously and without cognitive dissonance. So at the end, the two versions of his survival story can both be true: we can hold them in tension with one another, and we do not have to decide. This may not be what the author intended, but it is how I read it.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
Omg omg, favorite book, favorite movie. I prefer the tiger story. But obviously the other is the true story.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
Really ?????? OMG! (at fool on the hill)
seriously. How can the other story be true?
The tiger, meerkats and island were merely implausible. The murder and cowadice story is grotesque and improbable. The story of the zoo and the integrated religions led to his survival and the reality of that is conveyed in the book. In the film, less so. I was disappointed in the film, tho I may have liked it if the book hadn't been so perfect. I did find the details in the 'wrong' story disturbing.
I knew the tiger story was the real one because of the way the tiger walked off and was never seen again. If it were an aspect of himself, that scene would have played differently.
I am reminded of the people - like me, sometimes - who want to pick holes in bible stories. Because the 5000 sharing what they had brought, or whatever, is more plausible.
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Life of Pi is constructed in such a way that it makes little difference to the insurance adjusters which is the true story. But real life is rarely like that. There are objective facts (where we were born, where we lived at various times, when we finally check out) which limit our "choice of story".
But what if all the records and witnesses as to where I was born are dead? Then I can have been born anywhere I want, and nobody is the wiser. Same for all those other things. There may be "objective facts" to God. To us, all we have is testimony and a few physical facts that still have to be interpreted and fit into a framework.
quote:
For me, the same applies to the "Old old story" of the Gospel. It works as a compelling narrative. It may even be a "better story" à la Puddleglum's wager. But if it does not rest on some actual, objective truth, it is about as useful as Slartibartfast's "I'm rather happy than right any time" (which he admits is not in fact a successful philosophy of life anyway) and we are self-deceived and to be pitied among all men.
But all we have, here in the 20th century, are words on paper. Some words contradict other words. Maybe the Gnostics got it right and the people who went on to claim exclusive rights to the name "Christian" got it wrong? How do we know? We have to sift through the testimony and make our best guess. And that's the problem. As Billy Joel didn't say, "sooner or later it comes down to faith." And faith is not actual, objective truth.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
(I'm really going to try and contain my excitement at a whole thread just on this book, when I have dozens of things I need to be doing right now! ). This in response to many posts here.
I agree that the protagonist preferred his own story than the grisly one. I was not sad about it though. It is human nature. It is how we deal. It is why I think people believe in God. It is the "better" story for what works for different people. As a narrative, I believe the grisly story was true, but I prefer the tiger story because it allowed Pi to carry on. Truth does not set you free. It is about the "better" story, not the "true" story, which I thought was a fascinating distinction. I disagree that the story would "make you believe in God" as it claimed in the beginning. I think it provided a reason to believe in God. People believe in God because they want to.
To me, the better story, in life, is the one without God because for me, I see God giving me no solace, no guidance, no direction. I prefer the story that makes me think "well, maybe I should try and make the world better". Not that religion doesn't do that for other people, it just doesn't for me.
"A wooden one, whether with regard to creation, or God the Killer or the ethics of intimate relationships." Martin yes! I'm SO sorry for not quoting it. Please don't throw me overboard.
I'm not sure if I was aware that there was a real Richard Parker, but just one more reason for this to be my favorite book ever. And I've read a lot.
I think the reason that the "truth" is more apparent in the movie is because it is visual media. It shows Pis face, his gestures body language. Endless fascination with the difference between movies and books in general. Pi can't help but to reveal his truth in his body language. I'm sure the actor had a lot of instruction on how to play that scene!
The meerkats and island represent the more fantastical aspects of religious stories. If you are going to accept the God/tiger story, you have to accept all of it. Brilliant.
In the end, however, there is one truth. Humans, especially in a fight for survival, can be brutal. This is true. Bananas may float (brilliant), but the island cannot exist. In a bar fight, there is one truth. We might not know what it is, it can't be determined. But it doesn't take away from the fact that there is one truth. There either is a God. Or there is not. There was either a tiger or there was not.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Really ?????? OMG! (at fool on the hill)
seriously. How can the other story be true?
The tiger, meerkats and island were merely implausible. The murder and cowadice story is grotesque and improbable. The story of the zoo and the integrated religions led to his survival and the reality of that is conveyed in the book. In the film, less so. I was disappointed in the film, tho I may have liked it if the book hadn't been so perfect. I did find the details in the 'wrong' story disturbing.
I knew the tiger story was the real one because of the way the tiger walked off and was never seen again. If it were an aspect of himself, that scene would have played differently.
I am reminded of the people - like me, sometimes - who want to pick holes in bible stories. Because the 5000 sharing what they had brought, or whatever, is more plausible.
Murder and cowardice are objective facts, however grisly. There is more evidence that people adapt their reality than there is fact that wondrously weird islands exist.
The study of the zoo and his religious belief did sustain him. Because he knew that animals need to survive and will do whatever it takes like his dad taught him with the goat and Richard Parker. So, Pi did what he needed to do. and he sustained his hope ( also mentioned many times how crucial hope is) with his religion. And he adapted his reality because he saw beauty in so many other people's reality.
No, no, no, no! The tiger walked off because that part of Pi walked off. Never to be seen again. Never again to be without food, never again to eat meat. And Pi cried and cried for him. He lost a part of himself on that awful boat.
Beautiful character. Beautiful book. Beautiful movie.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
So at the end, the two versions of his survival story can both be true: we can hold them in tension with one another, and we do not have to decide.
There is one truth, and one truth only, which makes all alternatives simply false. If we cannot determine the truth, then we may indeed have to hold several possibilities in tension. But this does not change that only one of these possibilities is true, and the others false. Furthermore, there is nothing good about that kind of tension. It is a tension of cognitive or psychological failure, ugly and evil. If we have the opportunity to relax such tension to the knowledge of the actual truth, we should immediately do so.
This is to be sharply distinguished from the case where we are only capable of speaking partial truths, but can go beyond any individual partial truth by setting them in tension with each other. Then the tension increases the overall truth being realised, and is beautiful and good (though not perfect). A typical case is the statement "a photon is both a particle and a wave." Often we speak as truthfully as possible about God by employing such tensions of partial truths, e.g., "God is both just and merciful."
It is important to make this distinction. Faith is often in tension, but only the latter kind can be holy - the former, never.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is important to make this distinction. Faith is often in tension, but only the latter kind can be holy - the former, never.
But how can we tell which is which?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
<deleted a post that misunderstood mousethief's question>
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is important to make this distinction. Faith is often in tension, but only the latter kind can be holy - the former, never.
But how can we tell which is which?
This is not generally difficult. In one case, everything we say is true, just not complete. A photon is a wave. That is true. It just does not exhaust what one must say to fairly characterise the structure of a photon. A photon is a particle. That is also true, but it also does not exhaust the structure of a photon. And when we fuse the partial truths, we know that we speak more truth even though the apparent contradiction at the same time lets us lose our grip on what exactly we are saying. To say that a photon is both a wave and a particle is truer than to say each part, because it covers more of what a photon is like structurally (we describe more observations), even though we understand it less, because the concepts of wave and particle are somewhat at odds in our minds.
In the other case, we have alternatives. Either it was like this, or it was like this. Either there is one fruit on the table, and it is an apple. Or there is one fruit on the table, it is an orange. If we are not allowed to look, but have good reason to believe that indeed there is one fruit on the table, then we have two contradictory accounts that we cannot decide between. The intention here is not to say that the fruit on the table is both an apple and an orange. We are not combining the partial truths of appleness and orangeness into a greater truth appleorangeness that is hard to grasp. We just don't know whether it is one or the other.
Now, as far as I get it from what people are saying here, the movie offered two clearly alternative accounts. It is not like we are trying to reconstruct what really happened by somehow fusing these two accounts - or at least not so as far as the "facts of the story" are concerned. One could perhaps argue that there is some attempt of meta-level fusion here, at a conceptual and emotional level. But either there was a tiger, or cannibalism, but not both. (Sorry, I haven't seen the movie, so I cannot do an in-depth analysis.) So at least at the level of history, of what really happened, this is tension of the ugly and evil kind, which stops us from seeing the truth.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The problem with your example is that the wave/particle thing was solved by orangifying the apple. At one time the two were conceived to be mutually exclusive. Something is either a particle or something is a wave. Then somebody had the genius idea to say, Hey, maybe it's both! Hegel would be proud. But at one point, the nature of a photon was in the same category of dichotomy as the apple and the orange.
The apple and the orange are at one extreme of a continuum, to be sure. But it seems simplistic and of questionable authority to say that everything is either an ugly dichotomy -- there was either an apple or an orange -- or a beautiful, consciousness-expanding dichotomy -- wave or particle, justice or love, One or Three. Seems to me we have no reason to think there isn't a large and blurry middle, and we have to be careful with saying, "this is an ugly one" because it just might turn out to be beautiful, like the photon. We may decide to move something out of the blurry middle into the beautiful basket, and something else into the ugly basket. But many things, we may have to just leave in limbo.
[ 24. March 2014, 01:40: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Truth does not set you free. It is about the "better" story, not the "true" story, which I thought was a fascinating distinction.
What about another, earlier film (and more spoilers): La vita è bella (Life is Beautiful)?
(And in an attempt to push the spoilers down a bit - again - let me just comment that this is not intended to invoke Godwin's law!)
The child is told a children's story by the father to tide him through the horrors of the Nazi concentration camp. He believes it, at least enough to survive and be genuinely delighted when he sees his prize, a real-life tank, arrive at the end. But in later life (as I recall) he becomes reconciled to the much more awful truth.
The narrative that got him through was clearly, unequivocally and objectively not true. The Nazis did not set up the camp for the amusement of the child. It did make sense of things for him at the time. It could be said to be the "better story" (at least for him). But would those praising Pi's self-deception (assuming he actually did resort to cannibalism) praise Joshua if he went on sustaining his illusion about the concentration camp being a game into adulthood? Or attempting to convince others of that?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We may decide to move something out of the blurry middle into the beautiful basket, and something else into the ugly basket. But many things, we may have to just leave in limbo.
The only time where "good tension" can arise is where our mind hits the very limits of its conceptual functioning. This happens for some (not all) physics, some (not all) religion, and ... well, where else? Perhaps in some poetry playing with words to go beyond words. That sort of thing. Whereas you, and everybody else on this thread, has understood the movie as supplying us with two alternative accounts of the of the facts, of what happened. You can perhaps claim that the author is playing the "good tension" game with a poetical overlapping of these two stories at a different level than the factual. Perhaps the message is that both the tiger and the cannibalism say something partially true about the human condition, and we are supposed to bring these together for a greater truth at a level above the mere happenings being described. Fine. But if we take this seriously at the level of the imaginary protagonist and within the story, then there is no doubt that the facts are assembled in clashing alternatives there. And that is "bad tension".
Yes, probably there was some "limbo" as wave-particle dualism was being established. But there is a reason why I went to this example, and the reason is that it is pretty difficult to think of other examples that are not mystic or poetic. It is however true that wherever we use "good tension" to express a higher truth, there is a tendency to downgrade it to "bad tension". For example, saying that God is both just and merciful quite commonly is "limbo-ed" by people deciding that God is either just, or merciful, and that it is "bad tension" to claim both about God.
But we know quite well where we are attempting to forge a higher truth, potentially spending some time in limbo as we sort things out, and where we aren't. Try telling your wife that you spend the household money shopping for food, or in the whorehouse, and that the question whether these are complementary partial truths or clashing alternatives should be left in limbo. Good luck with that...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Of course, it depends on your point of view. From the point of view of the Zebra and the sailor who was eaten the story is pretty much the same.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
No no no no no. The whole point is that both are true, and neither are completely true.
Ingob - you are misunderstanding the nature of truth. It is NOT objective - it is only a truth as perceived by a person. Fool - I don't think either is "obviously" true. The point is that they are both true. Depending on what you want to hear.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
For me, the same applies to the "Old old story" of the Gospel. It works as a compelling narrative. It may even be a "better story" à la Puddleglum's wager. But if it does not rest on some actual, objective truth, it is about as useful as Slartibartfast's "I'm rather happy than right any time" (which he admits is not in fact a successful philosophy of life anyway) and we are self-deceived and to be pitied among all men.
Useful for what, exactly? If believing in an afterlife helps people to live their lives here and now then does it really matter if at the end of the day the afterlife doesn't actually exist? Would it be better for them to be utterly bereft of meaning and purpose?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If believing in an afterlife helps people to live their lives here and now then does it really matter if at the end of the day the afterlife doesn't actually exist? Would it be better for them to be utterly bereft of meaning and purpose?
I was thinking specifically in terms of the Gospel (the "Old old story"), not some vague belief in the afterlife.
The way I see it, the Gospel, um, narrative, relies on some actual events. At the very least, the Incarnation, the crucifixion, an empty tomb, and the firm hope of resurrection. If those aren't true, then I'm with Paul in deriving no hope from them at all, because the whole thing is a fallacy.
To function even as a narrative, the Gospel must be more than a "better story". It must have some basis in fact. The narrative itself relies on actual things actually happening. As far as I'm concerned, without them it makes no sense at all.
Do the Pi tiger fans believe Pi was shipwrecked? That the lifeboat existed? Not everything can be explained away as somebody else's narrative.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
No no no no no. The whole point is that both are true, and neither are completely true.
Given that the stories are apparently largely contradictory, at most the could both be true where they agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Ingob - you are misunderstanding the nature of truth. It is NOT objective - it is only a truth as perceived by a person.
This is plain insanity, or at best, solipsism - the most pointless of philosophies. If there is no objective truth, then human cognition has no actual truth value, and all is possible while nothing has meaning.
The utter idiocy of this claim is manifested by its blatant self-contradiction. For is this not trying to convince me of an objective truth, of something that is supposedly true both for Schroedinger's cat and IngoB, namely that there is no objective truth?
If indeed there is only individual perception of truth, and no such thing as an objective truth, then the only proper mode of human communication is to sit catatonically in some corner and drool. For nothing one can say has any necessary meaning for anyone else.
Postmodern analysis, from which this ridiculous bullshit arises, made some valid points about the impossibility to nail down the precise meaning of a text. But this extrapolation to the claim that no objective truth exists is both completely unwarranted and totally de-brains any human engagement with reality.
Actually, the proper response to this nonsense is to just slap the speaker in the face, and then say "I just gave you ten pounds, why don't you say thank you?" And then to repeat such actions until objective truth makes a comeback in their addled minds. I trust that will happen rather rapidly.
[ 24. March 2014, 09:56: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Some of the story is objectively true - like my Grandma's snake story, there was a snake and a gardener, it was her Eden.
The rest is embellishment (with both Pi versions). We then choose which we want to believe.
Or not.
I haven't chosen, I found both stories very disturbing and thought provoking. One thing's for sure - vegetarians wouldn't survive in either account.
I am sure that many people feel like they would rather die than eat another person, but it's amazing how incredibly strong our will to live is - so how could you be sure you wouldn't do the same terrible thing?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I am sure that many people feel like they would rather die than eat another person, but it's amazing how incredibly strong our will to live is - so how could you be sure you wouldn't do the same terrible thing?
FWIW, cannibalism of corpses - or more properly necrophagy - as last resort to survive is not sinful at least according to Pope Paul VI, who spoke to this after it occurred among the survivors of the crash of the Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 in the Andes in 1972. Whereas it would not be morally allowed for the survivors to kill one of their own, even if otherwise they will all die. One may not do evil to achieve good.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
I think you also have to factor in that Life of Pi is fiction to start with. Objectively neither story is true.
Bearing that in mind, I would much rather walk away with the story about the tiger. Both are works of the imagination, and I prefer to dwell on the one that imagines something fantastic and beautiful. Because it speaks to the world as I want it to be and insofar as we can talk about truth in fiction, it relates to our desires and understanding of the world.
(I have read the book but haven’t seen the film.)
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
ing that in mind, I would much rather walk away with the story about the tiger. Both are works of the imagination, and I prefer to dwell on the one that imagines something fantastic and beautiful. Because it speaks to the world as I want it to be and insofar as we can talk about truth in fiction, it relates to our desires and understanding of the world.
Yes - I prefer to imagine and contemplate the fantastic and beautiful to the dark and disturbing. I don't do well with horror stories because of this. But many people like to explore the dark side in fiction because it's safe there to do so.
But The Life of Pi tiger story is not fantastic and beautiful for animal lovers, is it? The Zebra and the Sailor get just as raw a deal.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
No no no no no. The whole point is that both are true, and neither are completely true.
Ingob - you are misunderstanding the nature of truth. It is NOT objective - it is only a truth as perceived by a person. Fool - I don't think either is "obviously" true. The point is that they are both true. Depending on what you want to hear.
I don't think either is obviously true either.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I would much rather walk away with the story about the tiger. Both are works of the imagination, and I prefer to dwell on the one that imagines something fantastic and beautiful. Because it speaks to the world as I want it to be and insofar as we can talk about truth in fiction, it relates to our desires and understanding of the world.
That's fine, given the premise that it is fiction.
Where it becomes more complicated is when (as in the universalism thread) the "best story" is adopted simply on the basis that it's the most pleasing, with the assumption that it can somehow be made to correspond with actual reality even if it doesn't, or that whether it does or not doesn't matter.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I would much rather walk away with the story about the tiger. Both are works of the imagination, and I prefer to dwell on the one that imagines something fantastic and beautiful. Because it speaks to the world as I want it to be and insofar as we can talk about truth in fiction, it relates to our desires and understanding of the world.
That's fine, given the premise that it is fiction.
Where it becomes more complicated is when (as in the universalism thread) the "best story" is adopted simply on the basis that it's the most pleasing, with the assumption that it can somehow be made to correspond with actual reality even if it doesn't, or that whether it does or not doesn't matter.
The "best story" is the one that allows you to function best in your life.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
The "best story" is the one that allows you to function best in your life.
It is my conviction that if this "best story" is maintained in the face of any objective facts that contradict it, in the end it will not serve you well.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
The "best story" is the one that allows you to function best in your life.
It is my conviction that if this "best story" is maintained in the face of any objective facts that contradict it, in the end it will not serve you well.
Not in the case of a story that does irreparable harm to your psyche.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It is my conviction that if this "best story" is maintained in the face of any objective facts that contradict it, in the end it will not serve you well.
Not in the case of a story that does irreparable harm to your psyche.
I know people who I think could be said to have had "irreparable harm" done to their psyche as a result of the acts they have committed. (Note: I'm sure this is also the case for their victims, apart from those who died as a result, but I know more perps than victims).
So one day they end up in court. Their responsibility is established beyond all reasonable doubt (in one case I'm thinking of, the perpetrators thoughtfully recorded the unspeakable events on their cellphones). They minimise or deny or fabricate.
What story do you prefer? Should we simply leave them with their preferred story and explain to them that any custodial sentence imposed is just a sadistic game on the part of some quirky judge?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
No, No, No!
It's not whether one story is the truth and the other is a falsehood, it's the fact that from a grotesque set of events a human not only survived but created something, a story that inspires and entertains.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
Sometimes story can be a psychological coping mechanism. I can see how that might work with your prisoners, Eutychus. They are not yet ready to face the trauma of what they have done (and indeed, may never be ready), so they tell themselves a version of events in which they are not so bad as all that. And while they cannot hide in that fantasy for ever, there is perhaps some value in their imagining of themselves as a better person than they really are. At least they have a concept of what a better person is and, had they made different choices, that this could have been them.
There is a sense in which 'the better story' is a kind of eschatological imagining where, in the time between Eden and eschaton, we tell ourselves how something should have been, rather than how it 'really was'. And sometimes we need to live in the should have been for a while before we can come to terms with how things really are. In a totally serious sense, it is a form of play. Like children, we play at things in order to understand them. And every time we rehearse a story, the details will alter slightly, both unwittingly, and deliberately, as we adjust them to make the story more perfect, more rational, more heavenly.
To give an example: when my nephew and niece were aged 4 and 2, their grandfather had a bad accident in which he fell from a roof and broke his back. He spent many months in hospital. During this time, the children played over and over a game that they called, 'Getting Granddad off the roof safely'. In other words, they acted out how things should have been, if only the world were perfect and unfallen. And they kept acting out the story, until they had processed that the world is not as it should be, but that bad things happen to people they love.
Yet the vision of what the world should be is an important one. The tiger story is in fact the more rational of the two, because it offers us beauty and relationship and courage and life, and these are all things that make sense. There is no meaning to the alternative story, none at all, however 'true' it might be.
Therefore I would suggest that tiger story is not an untruth: rather, it is a glimpse of an ultimate truth. And without an ultimate truth to imagine and play at and aim towards, the more sordid truths of what we call 'reality' would be unbearable indeed.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
In a totally serious sense, it is a form of play. Like children, we play at things in order to understand them. And every time we rehearse a story, the details will alter slightly, both unwittingly, and deliberately, as we adjust them to make the story more perfect, more rational, more heavenly
Yes, I'm fine with that. The film Life is Beautiful, which I mentioned upthread, is a good illustration of this.
The crucial thing though is your later comment that people do this quote:
until they had processed that the world is not as it should be, but that bad things happen to people they love.
The end result in your scenario above is that people end up being reconciled to the actual truth. I hope you'd be worried if the children continued to believe the entire accident was just a game.
quote:
Yet the vision of what the world should be is an important one. The tiger story is in fact the more rational of the two, because it offers us beauty and relationship and courage and life, and these are all things that make sense. There is no meaning to the alternative story, none at all, however 'true' it might be.
Therefore I would suggest that tiger story is not an untruth: rather, it is a glimpse of an ultimate truth. And without an ultimate truth to imagine and play at and aim towards, the more sordid truths of what we call 'reality' would be unbearable indeed.
I have a lot more problems with this. I can sort of see the eschatalogical argument, but consider Life is Beautiful again. If it is accepted that the 'coping story' is 'ultimate truth', it seems to be edging worryingly close to holocaust denial. Supposing everybody accepted this 'ultimate truth'? If that were to happen, we might be 'happier' in the short term as a human race, but I think we'd be deluded, not enlightened.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
The "best story" is the one that allows you to function best in your life.
It is my conviction that if this "best story" is maintained in the face of any objective facts that contradict it, in the end it will not serve you well.
That doesn't apply to beliefs about the afterlife then, given that we don't have any objective facts about that particular subject.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
No, but it applies to the "story" which leads to any such belief. If Christ did not rise from the dead than we are the unhappiest of men.
A few more thoughts following on from Cottontail:
When my mother-in-law died, the care home manager told the family a "story" about how she died peacefully in bed in her sleep. When, coming to the funeral from abroad, we asked about viewing the body, they got a bit funny about it. To cut a long story short, it transpired from viewing the body and the post-mortem that she had died out of bed, probably having fallen, and that the night staff check-up reports had probably been fiddled to cover their lack of due care.
My wife and I were glad to find that out, to know the truth, and filed an evidence-based complaint against the home in the hope that other residents might get a better standard of care.
If the trend is just to let everyone believe the "story" they prefer, I think it offers far too much potential for wrongdoing and lies.
I wanted to come back to this comment by Cottontail, too:
quote:
'the better story' is a kind of eschatological imagining where, in the time between Eden and eschaton, we tell ourselves how something should have been, rather than how it 'really was'.
Eschatalogically, I think we end up with both. Joseph says to his brothers "God meant it for good" (which is the bit Christians seem to rejoice in quoting) but he also recognises that "you wanted to do me evil". In Heaven, we don't see a spotless Lamb; we see the Lamb who was slain. The risen Christ appears - but he appears with the marks in his hands and his side.
True hope is not about closing our eyes to evil, it's about the evil being faced and subsumed into a whole with which we can be reconciled. 'Stories' that don't get us there are delusions.
[ 25. March 2014, 06:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
