I see a complete blurring of what factually is, what fictionally is and what fictionally should be. The differentiation between fact and value, between fictional reality and “factual values” has completely vanished in many aspects of modern life.

I am fascinated by “the meeting place of reality and the realities that we create to shape us”. That for me is the best definition or art. It is all about the interplay between fact and fiction, factual realities and fictional realities.

Factual realities

In my definition, factual realities are universal reality and scientific reality. Universal reality is ‘real reality’, some of which we can and most of which we probably cannot observe with our limited senses (sight, hearing, etc). Scientific reality is the best model we at any moment in history have of universal reality based on observations with our senses and with ever advancing instruments and on logical reasoning (and unavoidably … a few convictions or beliefs).

Fictional realities

Fictional realities, in my definition, are social (or group) reality and personal reality. Social reality is a set of convictions and beliefs about reality that we share with a group of like-minded people. Personal reality is the set of convictions and beliefs that we have in our own private, individual experience. Fictional realities are so strong, that for us they are reality.

Now, this differentiation isn’t new. In the 18th Century, philosopher David Hume already pondered about the so-called “fact-value distinction“. Simply said, the difference of what is and what ought to be. The difference between factual and fictional realities looks a bit like that, but there is a difference. My ‘fact’ and Hume’s ‘fact’ are the same. But my ‘fiction’ and Hume’s ‘value’ are different. In Hume’s case of value, we know it may not currently be the case (fact) but we feel it should, because if fact and value differentiate, we feel that the current state is bad and the desired state is good (value). So, there is a dissonance between the rational observation and the emotional conviction.

In the case of fictional realities, the awareness of difference between fact and value has disappeared.

In the case of fictional realities, this awareness of a difference between fact and value has disappeared. Emotion trumps ratio. Always! Daniel Kahneman RIP said it long time ago. The fictional reality has for the person become factual reality … despite eventual contradicting observations. It is a strategy that is used frequently in politics. For example, currently, in Europe we are confronted with conflicting interpretations of history by European leadership and Mr. Putin of Russia. The interesting thing, though, is that these interpretations that have become fictional realities always nicely align with the interests of the specific person or group. That is where Hume’s values come into play. In my view, ultimately values always represent – explicitly or covertly – interests, even if we have to shamelessly distort factual reality for that. So, there may be universal values, but in reality they are always interpreted towards our own interests.

Values always represent interests

Another interesting example is Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book “The Selfish Gene“. The book states that, in alignment with evolution theory, genes ruthlessly try to survive, likely at the cost of other species’ genes and if needed at the cost of individuals of its own species. For instance, a wolf eats a sheep, resulting in increasing the survival chances of the wolf gene and decreasing the survival chances of the sheep gene. Another example is a bee that stings an attacker of the beehive. The individual bee will probably die, but the bee queen will likely be saved increasing the survival chances of the bee gene.

Since the publication of his book, Mr. Dawkins has been involved in strong disputes about his theory (a scientific reality). His theory has been used by neo-nazis to justify theories about ethnic superiority and Spengler’s Abendland-like theories. Conversely, lots of scientists have made efforts to prove Dawkins’ theory wrong, because it doesn’t align with their values of equality and equal chances for everybody.

Maybe even more interesting is the discussion between neo-darwinist Richard Dawkins and physiologist Denis Noble of Oxford University. Noble basically says that the reductionist gene-based view of Dawkins is too simplistic. It overlooks epigenetics and all other processes in the body. Especially, he says, there are stochastic deviations – errors – and fluctuations in the complex processes, that may present opportunistic chances to deviate just a little bit from what the reduced genenetic predisposition would mean … if I understand it well.

Now, that would mean that not even the factual reality, being a scientific reality, as presented by Dawkins is absolutely and minutely true. And proof of that comes, according to Noble, from the fact that purely gene-based therapies don’t seem to work to heal diseases, for instance. Apparently, the workings of the body are more complex than that.

Now, we know that in science something is only true … until proven untrue, according to Karl Popper. But this is something we easily forget. Also, it is easily taken advantage of. So-called climate-deniers easily lay aside the solid science that underlies the warnings for climate change and global warming. Science is not “just an opinion”, it is the best substantiated argument we have. But even science may be proven wrong, or not perfectly right.

And that makes it complicated. Factual realities may sometimes turn out to be wrong. Fictional realities usually are wrong, but perceived right by people in whose interest they are. Ans some realities, perceived as fictional by those in whose interest it isn’t, may turn out to be factual realities after all.

Paradise for fake news and extremist thinking.

So what …

These are (just) two (be it) quite hefty examples of the interplay between factual and fictional reality. Yuval Harari has written and said a lot about it; he calls it ‘stories’. And, yes, the online world that we have now entered makes it much, much worse. The blurring of factual and fictional realities seems complete in the online world with AI, memes and fake news all over.

Going back to Hume, who stated that you cannot one-on-one derive what ought to be from what is. We now see a complete blurring of what factually is, what fictionally is and what fictionally should be. In today’s world the differentiation between fact and value, between fictional reality and “factual values” (whatever that is) has completely vanished in many aspects of modern life. Today, people easily derive what ought to be from what they believe is.

No, maybe it is the other way around.

People derive what (fictionally) is from what they believe ought to be (in their interest).

Interesting.