Dear diary,
So I was pretending to be a guest on this radio show yesterday, and this guy calls in and he’s a real jerk — he’s like, “Hi, I’m a long-time listener to your show, and I have a question for your guest Bryan Ray….” And the host says, “Go ahead.” And the caller says:
“Yeah, I don’t understand why you like to read and write weird stuff like imaginary fantasy and romance. I only like to read scientific writings, because they’re TRUE: they actually matter in our world, not like stupid made-up stuff that some person just thot of.”
This caller was trying to skewer me upon the pike of creative art, because I was on the program promoting my latest book. So after hearing his hateful words, I first put my hand over the microphone to mute my voice, and I turned to the host and whispered, “I don’t wanna argue with this guy — can you just tell him that I didn’t hear his question, and invent a fib to cover my tracks? — you could say, for example, that I was elsewhere, far away, in another room, powdering my nose.”
But the host scowled and said, “The show must go on.”
So I took my hand back off the microphone and answered the caller:
“Dear caller, you say that so-called scientific texts are the only writings worth reading, because they’re quote-unquote ‘true’. Also you say that you don’t understand why I myself enjoy creative, imaginative literature, as it is ‘stupid’, and because it’s ‘just made-up’. — Well my first reaction was simply to avoid this conflict; I asked the host to lie and say that I was indisposed at the moment, and I tried to get him to hang up on you; for I was afraid that I’d lose the battle, because I’m not very good at persuading people with logic and reason. But now I’m glad that our host nudged me forward and compelled me to swing my spoon in this knife-fight, cuz it’s healthy to try new things & to meet new people. So here’s how I answer you:
“It is true that scientific writings are true. But that does not mean that non-scientific writings are altogether false. (Incidentally, can non-scientific writings even exist?) It also does not mean that scientific writings are not false as well. My point is that scientific writings are a mixture of true and false, just like imaginative literature. And the reason for this is that all language is metaphorical. We start with a falsehood and gesture toward a supposed truth. Does that make sense? No? OK well then consider this next desperate flub:
“The truth in scientific writings lies in the fact that the subject is limited to what is sensible, what is plainly perceivable to all. Do we agree on that definition? No? Well let me continue anyway:
“Imaginative writing presents what a particular mind envisioned — at least it claims to do so; for instance, I myself say: ‘I saw the god Yahweh sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims, and one cried unto another: Holy, holy, holy is Yahweh-god, the commander of heaven’s army. And the posts of the door shook at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.’
“Now, dear caller — you who telephoned into this radio show to berate me — after listening to my affidavit above, you assert that nobody can tell for sure whether I beheld Yahweh-god or not. But I say: that’s not the point. It’s not important whether or not you can measure the exact dimensions of the temple and the ‘seraphims’ in my vision. I admit it readily: Those things lie beyond the realm of empirically verifiable fact. But the fact that I spoke those true words IS a fact. Regardless of their content, we all CAN verify that those words were spoken, or at least that they were written; in short, that they were composed (by ME, not the prophet Isaiah 6:1-4). So that’s something: you must admit, it is not nothing.
“What I’m trying to say is that I am enthralled with the varieties of arrangements of words that are possible, and I’m in love with the thots that they summon forth inside my own mind. Sure, whatever happened inside the mind of the author of a thot at the instant it was born is eternally unknowable, and so are the actual thots that enjoy their advent in the mind of each reader. But a poem is a thing we can seek out and say ‘There it is!’ if it is written in a book, because, just as one can point to the place where a tree is growing from the soil, we can point to the place on a page where a poem is printed; and we can marvel and remark: ‘How is it that nine out of ten scientists who claim to have read this poem also swear that, while doing so, they experienced the presence of Yahweh? Maybe Yahweh lives inside the poem: inside the words or something? Let’s do some experiments with physical matter and note the results.’ And then the scientific community carefully ignites a match and touches its flame to the pages of the book that contains the poem; and lo: the book combusts and transmogrifies into the thermosphere. It rises as smoke, up into heaven where Yahweh-god commands his army. (Is this not proof of parenthood, or identity or something? You’ve gotta give me some sort of credit for this finding. No? Fine.) Also I should admit that a certain portion of the scripture ended as ash, and fell to earth. So, I repeat, fantasy and romance are not 100% accurate, after all. There’s always a remnant that survives the rapture.
“And one last point that I will grant you is that not all poetry exists as ink on paper pages in the form of a codex. Some poems are written in blood upon scrolls; and other poems are simply composed mentally & memorized, & then published or transmitted exclusively verbally, so they leave no trace on earth of their existence, beyond the molecules of air that they have managed to clang together (cuz if you try to tell a poem to your friend while you are both floating in outer space, if there is not enough atmosphere, your friend might seem to ‘hear indeed, but understand not’ since the lack of molecular vibration will have made her ears heavy; and although her eardrums are physically capable of hearing your prophecy, and her heart is likewise capable of understanding it and thus converting to your cult and achieving salvation, alas she’ll be forced to feign ignorance of the content of your speech, and it will be as if you had placed your hand over the microphone during a live broadcast from paradise, on account of your having respired insufficient fumage) (one must have air, in order to be ‘on the air’); yes, the only thing more daring than etching your life in water is branding it upon… what is the name of the substance behind all the other substances? — you’re a scientist, you should know this.”
*
Now I’m out of time, so I can’t relay how Monsieur Science answered my arguments in this debate. Nevertheless, I hope that you agree that I was the winner. I find that it’s always more convincing when you pay attention to just one side of an issue. And, I assure you, if you could hear my opponent’s responses, they would bore you to tears. So let’s rejoice that TRUE TRUTH was the victor. And if you happen to run into any of that scientist’s colleagues or constituents, just go ahead and destroy them, and annihilate all their writings.
No comments:
Post a Comment