A reflection on alternative identities

[eclective]

But then, I strongly feel that when it comes to it, Otherkin don't really have that much room to talk about fic'kin, and furries don't really have that much room to talk about Otherkin. When it comes down to it, it's all variations on "I see something of myself/something that clicks with me/something that feels right to me in X, and that helps me

Comments

[prophetic]

So here's me, having to google "otherkin" at the beginning of reading this . . . and then being like "Whoa, um, what?" . . . and then reading on to the "I am a dragon because-" part and suddenly understanding.

This thing you talk about here--

something trickier to grasp, in parts allegorical but also more significant, more central than a metaphor

--makes so much sense, and I totally see how that kind of truth and identity would be at play in a person identifying closely as something--otherkin, fic'kin, anything really. That feeling of "I see myself."

I have been thinking about kinds of truth, how some things are literally true, and some things are not literally true but, despite that, are still true, and are in fact often truer than the literal things. (In my brain, because of the traditions I come from, I tend to call those two kinds of truth "literal" and "prophetic." *points to username*) You do a wonderfully elegant job of making that distinction here. In fact, it's so lovely, I'd like to link to it if I could. Would you mind?

[eclective]

Oh, go right ahead, certainly. I'm quite touched that I could have explained this in a way that makes sense to someone who didn't understand the concept previously... I tend to assume I'm writing for an audience who's familiar with the culture when I write these sorts of things, and sort of forget that there are people on my friends list who've never encountered the concepts before. But you always seemed like someone who'd never be too bothered by the concepts involved. I'm glad to see my intuitions held true.

and some things are not literally true but, despite that, are still true, and are in fact often truer than the literal things.

Aye. As per Dream of the Sandman, "Things need not have happened to be true. Tales and adventures are the shadow truths that will endure when mere facts are dust and ashes and forgotten." That quote is one I've always liked because it resonates strongly with the above concept for me... and that concept's sort of one I live every day of my life, in some way or another.

Incidentally, was this anything like the page you came across? Because this does a really good job of explaining it, IMHO.

Woo, tangent.

[luinied]

[link]

Mrm, I wish they would not refer to the Big Bang as a myth. That rather flies in the face of the logos vs. mythos distinction (yes, I'm stealing someone else's words from another recent thread) that seems to be the intended goal.

Re: Woo, tangent.

[eclective]

I don't know that I would put it down to wilful depiction of the event as a myth in the face of scientific evidence, but either a lack of awareness that the theory had been canonised (I mean, I didn't know that), an admittance that even with advanced technology we cannot make absolute statements about the nature of the universe or how things came to be until we really know everything about how it works and how those pieces fit together (a theory I subcribe to - for example, I think evolution and such are extremely likely, but if a new theory came along that explained things even better I would probably change my mind), or a subjectivist reflection on the fact that all explanations of things are stories that we tell ourselves about the world and so everything is mythic in a sense.

Re: Woo, tangent.

[seika]

You'd need to add to that "ignorance of what myth is". A theory, even if it isn't one as canonical/likely/etc as Big Bang, is not really the same thing as a myth.

Although dictionary.com says myth can be "with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation", I think this phrase is actually trying to refer to whether the story itself really happened, not whether the story was made up in a way that took into account natural observation. I think so because the word "myth" is usually understood to be "something that people make up out of their imaginations", not "something people make up by carefully taking measured observations". Note that every other definition on that page points to the connotations of that word being that something is either supernatural, fictitious, or both.

A scientific theory, on the other hand, by definition has been supported with concrete observations. If it hasn't been, it's a conjecture, not a theory.

IOW... I think that a scientific theory (such as the Big Bang) cannot be a myth, because a myth is something that was come up with via a different sort of means.

The argument that would serve this dragon's case better would be, "Even if something is a myth, it still affects people, such as the people who came up with or believe in it, and so it still matters." Or something like that.

(I understand that he probably wasn't confusing the two terms wilfully, but it's still something that IMHO really ought to be edited, because a page like that that is trying to appeal to the uninitiated needs to not make skeptics go "omgzorz u not know what u talking about therefore u is all rong".)

Re: Woo, tangent.

[luinied]

Generally agreed, and also I would add that a big part of science is falsifiability, in the sense that when you propose a scientific hypothesis, it needs to be at least conceivable that someone else could prove you wrong. But that sounds like completely the wrong attitude to have towards personal myths.

Re: Woo, tangent.

[seika]

Ah, yeah, good point. I wouldn't want to take that attitude towards personal myths either; that is Doing It Wrong, as they say. (Like the part of the draconity FAQ that says "do you believe you are all going to sprout wings and turn into real, literal dragons"-- someone who thinks that that is the point is really missing the point.)

Re: Woo, tangent.

[seika]

Also, skepticism really doesn't require faith. I could see making a case that hardcore 100%-convinced atheism requires faith, but skepticism is not the same thing. Skepticism means you don't just believe tall claims easily. To say that skepticism requires faith... irks me, because those words are kind of like opposites.

[prophetic]

The link: No, it wasn't, but I'll definitely check it out. Thanks so much for the rec!

And thanks for letting me link here. I'll do it as soon as I overcome this latest bout of internet-shyness and recover the ability to post in my own journal. The Dream of the Sandman quote is awesome. Tales-and-adventures-type worlds are the ones that seem the most conscious of this fantastical untrue-truth that we're talking about.

And this?

But you always seemed like someone who'd never be too bothered by the concepts involved. I'm glad to see my intuitions held true.

Thank you. I feel complimented. I can tell there's so much about your world that I don't know, but I love hearing what you have to say. We don't talk often, and I don't know that our worlds overlap in that many places, but when we do it has this aura of deep understanding about it that makes me very happy.

*draws secret hearts around your name on my f-list* :)