- On the Suspension of Disbelief -

Image Source Here

- Abstract -

Disbelief... What is it? Is it a non-belief that can be substantiated in pure reason? Or a type of belief that is contrary or a negation of an original belief? Maybe it is radical Skepticism that In-and-For-Itself that is of a higher non-belief beyond those like Gnostic atheist in religion and apolitical in a still political world? Yet still, these are all passive actions but shows no substantially active motion in a World.

With all these questions, it does raise up one similarity: it, in a passive sense, is against believing for believing's sake. For which, does it inherently mean that if we believe for believing's sake that we become lulled by poetic faith?... But this immediate entrance of poetic faith can only get an immediate exit from disbelief; that as soon as we just believe something, there will be something that sticks out. Poetic faith as it tries to ground itself finds out that it can only exist in the conditions for when the negation of disbelief must be involved. If those conditions are met not, then it is to discontinue the acceptance of the work of fiction.

Clearly something is awry, how can the Subject enjoy a piece of fiction if supposedly the only way to do so is with poetic faith? This is fine to where the immediacy of a condition that is in and for disbelief cannot be sustained in the realm of knowledge. Especially so when the particular work in itself be not disturbed by disbelief; however, that is only in immediacy and we cannot forever live in an immediate nor unchanging World. Withal, these conditions that prop up poetic faith makes disbelief an annihilatory beast and what are we left with when the conditions for such fails?

Clearly the Subject cannot fathom how they can see how they can find so many messages inside a work of fiction so useful yet a story that demands that it be treated as fiction. How can a mind ravel through the problem of something being "fake" yet possessing and even reflecting real-life from time to time? How? How? How? And in the unhappy consciousness, there does arise a fine conclusion of this disbelief to denying poetic faith and not believing that they cannot fathom a World as presented in the work. Skepticism is the fine conclusion of this particular form of Disbelief, as it now leads the reader to search for what can and cannot be trusted in a work. But to return to the sticklers for poetic faith, I ask this question ever so insincerely but demand the highest sincere answer back! Why must Skepticism, in the universal of Disbelief, be suspended in the realm of works of fiction when conditions give rise for itself to negate poetic faith? Why does Suspension of Disbelief (the universal) seem to be the only contemporary answer as to accept any meaning in a work of fiction?... Or is itself just a misguidance from other solutions that very much may as well work and not fall into the shakiness of poetic faith?

- The Problems -

The necessity to suspend Skepticism during times when Poetic Faith is present brings problems of its own:

1. The primary necessity for the suspension of such exists to cover up a inconsistency that cannot be resolved in the Work. Or, in other words, the author had failed in plot planning and detail consistency.
2. That the evolution of the work contingently processed an inconsistency. Id est: an unintended consequence of the Work that now is trying retroactively presuppose its existence. But in doing so, hurts and weakens the work.
3. The inconsistency itself cannot justify its existence with the Work, but can be at the same time be resolved in it. Id est: the author lazily wishes not to tie up contradictions nor set the groundwork for the overcoming of inconsistencies.

With all these problems mentioned, they share one thing: inconsistency and its struggle with the work. This inconsistency whatever it can be in any a work is a particular of the work. Yet, when viewed outside the work, this inconsistency can bear itself as a part of a much larger problem of which the author is failing to resolve. The inconsistency for itself can only be existing in the work and the family of which the work belongs to. However, let's be sincere and recognize that all works, whether completed or not, contains In-Itself consistencies and inconsistencies that make the work the thing itself. And one must recognize this, for without the inconsistencies the work wouldn't be what we can identify as the work itself. Wherewith if we go on denying the existence of the inconsistency, then we subtracted from our view and create a deception of the Truth (the View of such) of what the work actually is.

For when we, the reader, impose this upon ourselves, deception is processed in the perception of the work. So, how can one not subtract anything to one's perception when reading a work of literature and, in this problem, retain the knowledge in the work of fiction? Or, in other words, how can we learn to accept the work without falling into disbelief when our poetic faith has been destroyed utterly by an inconsistency?

- Solutions -

- Second Belief -

One such solution is to know and understand J.R.R. Tolkien's "Second Belief" theory when viewing works of art. This theory does avoid all the problems of simply Suspending Disbelief. By which a "secondary belief" (though it can be called a "virtual consciousness" or "virtual sense of wholeness/completeness) is transposed upon the entire work and the reader tries to figure out the logic of the work as they read along. This "secondary belief" is achieved through the medium of consistencies found in the Work itself. For which, if the author had successfully achieved in creating this "secondary belief," this In-and-For-Itself leads up to justify everything that has happened throughout the work.

Yet, unlike the Suspension of Disbelief, it doesn't justify totally all of the inconsistencies in any given work; the upshot however is that two types of inconsistencies are rendered ineffective in "secondary belief": unintentional inconsistencies and the ones that will later be justified later. As the secondary belief allows for these inconsistencies to exist in the logic of the work as the author had chosen to reveal to the reader. But, for the inconsistency that is irreconcilable, it only accepts that every consistency cannot justify it nor resolve it. So: the "secondary belief" (virtual consciousness) will eventually lead to a three-fold path:

1. The secondary belief must accept that it must suspend disbelief, which needs not repeating for why the suspension of such will bare worse problems later on. More-so in aiding in the weakness of the work.
2. To ignore it if necessary to do so (or really: to ignore it if possible to do so).
3. To accept that this inconsistency is a contradiction (classical logic) that must be paradoxically included with the consistencies.

The first and the last option shall, in an immediate motion, shatter "secondary belief" either way. For the former will soon be unable to use its rational organs to utilize the tool of disbelief when it was allowed to back then; leading to the problem of perception where we adding/subtracting stuff will deceive us from viewing an object. The latter being more of an additive type of adding to the perception to the object to where the former was a subtractive type of perception; nevertheless, the confusion of accepting these contradictions (classical logic) will lead to a problem of what is the true version. The middle case is a particular type of subtraction which bares a unique problem on its own: it doesn't necessitate a problem with the established consistencies, it raises the question of why it was allowed to exist in the first place. Or to say, really: will this detail be retconned later; if so, why still to mention that detail.

- Dialectics -

Another solution to avoiding poetic faith is to learn and grasp Dialectics as to understand how things came to be and why they came to be. (A post about Dialectics by me is posted below, give it a gander.) All elements and consistencies in the Work just doesn't come from a vacuum, nor does things that are aufheben (superseded) from existence don't get sublated in the higher stages of a work. In the twist of turns, whether you look at Marxist or Hegelian Dialectics, the inconsistencies are organized in a different matter altogether. For inconsistencies are rather the contradictions that are inherent in the rivaling antagonisms between distinct two objects.

Indeed, if one can pinpoint the source of inconsistencies and show how it bears on the over all work, then not only are the nuances of inconsistencies expanded, but are avoiding such previous problems. Those previous problems of course stemming from the suspension of disbelief and, nevertheless, reveals a darker condition that simply suspending disbelief cannot solve. Of which, a Dialectical outlook of a work (and here to can a "secondary belief" / virtual consciousness work as well) can solve and adapt to such inconsistencies. So what remains of our narrow inconsistencies identified above? They are treated as either externals that do not truly affect the dialectical change of the Work, or mishaps that was infected in the work and will take time to root out.

In any a case, it shall take a rather strong inconsistency to shatter an appreciation of a work. But by then, is the inconsistency really one qua inconsistency or complete incompetence of a writer to simply write a work? That much nobody can predict until they jump into a book, just only humour at being the possibility before exploring why this "alarming" inconsistency had became a work-shattering problem.

- Concrete -

As-such, the Suspending Disbelief which tried to solve this problem by making viewers/readers to not use skepticism was superseded with the likes of both "Secondary Belief" and Dialectics. They took the appreciation of skepticism and allowed it to be one in their programme to understand a work, for which poetic faith had unjustly blocked out. Both go to the lengths to try to figure out why and how a work came to be. If there was an ever-jarring inconsistency, then it shouldn't trouble the mind of the reader but a pointer of the writer's incompetency to stay consistent.

With all the spiel said here, there's one thing that contemporary suspension of disbelief seems to be mistaken for: willingness to just be poetic faith for itself only, and to stunt progress of analyzing a work. This is particularly haunting in light of groups of people taking it to online forums and mass media to hail the seriousness of a work; yet cry when people analyze the work. They want the work to be accepted dogmatically, not caring to enjoy the work while also pointing out why its flawed and there's other and more better pieces of literature, shows, animation and so on and so on to enjoy. Indeed, this contemporary form is indeed unchanged from the past form, but the content has been modified for the ill-purposes of dogmatic acceptance. While I do wish to humour respect for this, the discourse of Capitalism makes it impossible to say but that

- Sources -

Suspension of Disbelief Wiki

On Fairy Stories

My post on Dialectics which have sources into the matter

Pyrrhonism