Spoken through the incarnation of my fictitious "self", I must say, this is not only a very thought provoking article, it's also quite a bit to digest (in a good way). Of course, in the fictitious embodiment of metaphor, merely suggesting, there is a bit of mental coagulation occurring, and it's yet to stop. Far out!

So then, why not drop the serious self-importance of factualising and start at the other end of the spectrum? If fiction is at the core, then isn't starting out 'fictionally' rather than 'factually' not only more direct (in an indirect way of course :) but also more honest, not to mention liberating?

This is an interesting correlation between fiction and honesty. (If I'm understanding correctly). It's actually impossible for me to find an argument with this logic. I think I've read this paragraph at least 10 times over, to fully interpret what "I think" it means, and my conclusion is this: There can be no dishonesty in fiction, it's not possible because it would completely negate the root of it's existence. To be dishonest, it would have to become a fact, and who's perception makes it fact?

I mean, this seeming contradiction between appearance and 'reality' can confuse the shit outa me, and has done so many times that I've concluded that reality is really the exact opposite of what it appears to be. Yes, but that too is fiction! But is it unTrue or fictitious ?

I've been a bit interested in the simulation theory lately. The more I fictitiously contemplate the likeliness of such a reality, the less it becomes something I would quickly dismiss. Take for example what we have effectively/efficiently done with computers. We can now simulate our "visual" reality, with unprecedented precision. Is this visual simulation accurate? Our visual perception makes it accurate. It really doesn't matter what the gears look like in each simulation, all that matters is the observers perception. It's akin to a magic trick. If a magic trick is not discernible, it becomes magic right? This comment will exact 3 different types of observers.

Observer (1), see's this comment at the visual "face value".

Observer (2) see's something like this (in their mind)


ect..

Observer (3) Realizes that @imaginary-friend isn't even real, and if imaginary-friend can be "deciphered" as FM, it begs the question of who the heck is FM, and how real is he? If you are able to trace imaginary-friend to a man named Jacob, I would say that's merely a name given to me by people who "think" that's a good name to "assign" to me, under what pretense? If I wonder why I was named Jacob, I might be able to find the answer, if I never ask, there will come a time where the answer is lost, (ever was?) and when this time comes, (which it inevitably will) I can say my mom named me after a purple frog she had as a child, and that will be as factual as the actual reasoning behind the name, because the reason ceased to exist, and without agreeable observers, it never existed anyways! There's even a chance the agreeable observers are all labeled clinically insane anyways, then it would be perceived as wrong, or perhaps, fiction depending on the observees vs observers..

I write in Truth, my fictional version of it anyway, the One that resonates inside my being.

Yes you do, and it resonates in an awesome way with my fictitious/simulated? awareness.

I loved every second of this, thank you @barge!