Thank you for clarifying this to me, Willem.

Btw, I actually temporarily went on the REWILD forum as “Dickens” about three years ago where I discussed some of these topics with Jason. I have mixed feelings on the issue of writing, and I had a hard time seeing eye to eye with Jason because due to my autism, I learned how to write and read before I could talk, and gravitate toward that form of communication more naturally than speaking. I don’t have any ill will toward Jason, I just was born with a brain that views things this way, but also view things based on my own opinions, since due to my autism, my experiences and observations routinely seem different than other people. I’ve had to live based on that “observational” attitude much of my life to socially survive.

Think of it this way, you can speak about all the phenomena of the world “afactually” and honestly (meaning, you can speak about them as personal observations rather than immutable realities), but you can’t speak about all the phenomena of the world” factually” (meaning even modern research accepts that observers impact what they observe in certain contexts).

Most of our stories and observations suggest that all humans die eventually. When we see the same thing over and over enough times, we call that pattern. Calling it a fact doesn’t make it more real, and if we do, again we stumble into the territory of error - what if one human being, somewhere, whether in the past or future, had a biological switch missing that made aging an inevitability? What does the “death” of a human mean, anyway - babies comprise the material of both of their parents, and yet we conceive of them as separate beings.

This may sound nitpicky if you remain unaware of the scientific epigenetic revolution going on right now: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover/article_view?b_start:int=3&-C.

So, what do we have now? Holding on to factuality, with any kind of honesty (I’ve met plenty of people who happily hold onto it dishonestly, by saying “facts are facts” and turning their brains off), has become extremely difficult. We could have this conversation forever, possibly, chasing down one “fact” after another, with me offering other ways to see that “fact”, but…for me the point remains this:

For intact indigenous people, the so-called scientific epigenetic revolution has brought no “new news” at all; for countless millenia they’ve known about ancestral ghosts, taken them seriously, and dealt with them accordingly. But to the “fact” people, they come to these kinds of realizations kicking and screaming.

To hold on to the cultural fallacy of factuality means to put blinders up that constantly impede new information. Certainly, we can collect a lot of information, refer to it as “facts”, and still successfully put rockets on the moon. But the enormous amount of fascinating phenomena going on that factual bias blocks out…do you really want to miss out on that?

Changing your reasoning to an animist, observational mode simply opens you up to more information and experience. I leave it up to you, whether you find this of value. For me, everyday revelation makes life worth living! For many others, it terrifies them. They want a stable world. I don’t. I respect their decision, although it baffles me.

This post is not related to the subject matter, but I struggled to find a post where I could post this.

I have been reading your website for a long time and have wanted to post on a subject you have talked about for quite some times–the notion of factuality. You have talked about how animist languages do not worship facts. But I see one hole in this. The hole I see is that there are some things in our world that I happen to see as facts. I also have struggled immensely with writing in E-Prime or E-Primitive in the forms you have mentioned and seem that while I agree with the spirit of your intentions for that language, I find myself unable to write or speak without “to be” or other nouns.

You have argued the notion of afactuality, and rightfully pointed out the flaws in facts regarding the rising sun. Yet I still see certain facts. One other example–the inevitability of death. We all eventually die, and I see that as a fact. How could you explain the fact that all humans pass away eventually in aworld of afactuality? I’m curious about your response.

The problem with rejecting a broken model is you then need a healthy model to replace it with. That’s what I’m still chasing, and having difficulty finding.

I read that article on sex a bit ago and found it paradigm-busting and ultimately inspiring–it spoke right to a lot of my sexual and gender neurosis and opened up a lot of blockage in how I view my sexual and emotional being. Just like making good art, the sexuality the article speaks of is free from obsessive worry or self-judgment; it’s a free and joyful exploration concerned with nothing but the present moment. As I wish to love, in all things.

Peace,
-Joel

PS This post is a veritable back-linking extravaganza! You’ve given me a lot of archived treasures to dig into.