Let’s Pretend: Fallacy or Fantasy
|What a ride.|
In movies, the end is where everything is wrapped up and people usually feel good, or fulfilled; or answered. The point of the movie has made itself clear and folks walk out thinking about what has been presented.
What makes thoughts go from “just ideas” to “beyond the pale”?
“let’s pretend” are magic words for me. They open up all realms of possibility and cut me free from the reality of my life: a heavy set not so pretty lady, married to a heavy set not so traditionally handsome man (don’t get me wrong, I think he is SUPER fine!); with 2 normal kids, a dog, a crazy busy schedule that doesn’t allow a lot of time to strengthen an already stressed out marriage, the usual money complaints (not enough of it) and work woes (a job that’s either annoying or stressful or both) and a myriad of other “standard fare” issues. In my real life, I have to deal with all these, even when it’s not fun.
Pretending allows us to go way beyond ourselves and touch on infinite ideas, constructs, merits and worlds. Pretending can be seen as creation; whether through literary, artistic, visual, sonic or gastronomical works matters as little as the spark that started things. For many, the result of imagining and pretending doesn’t matter; it’s the process that fuels them. There’s a “starving artist” idea out there for a reason- for some, merely acting in a creative fashion is what nurtures them and the value of the creation can often fall to the wayside.
Let me say this again: pretending can be seen as creation.
Thuloid asked a pretty heavy question in his recent post :
Can we go further and suggest that we game in imitation of the divine itself?
Gaming is modified pretending, in most cases. In very limited circumstances is gaming strictly educational or informative; but the vast majority of our games; our play itself- is nothing more than fancy make believe.
When does pretend become real? When does art imitate life? When does a thought process become something more dangerous?
This is a question people have been asking for as long as there have been things to argue over. The reality that people disagree on everything from necessities (food, clothing, shelter) to luxury (games and game systems) should be as completely evident to all.
For most, the act of disagreeing is pretty simple. You say “tomato” and I say “tamahto” and we just accept that we have different viewpoints and move on. There’s nothing personal about the interaction, and both parties continue to feel respected and whole.
Sometimes, however, ideas and thoughts enter into boundaries we set for our personal selves and make us uncomfortable and yes, even offended. Those thoughts and ideas make their way into our psyches and disturb our perceptions about certain things (usually others, but it happens that it’s self directed fairly often). What then?
Are the ideas and concepts we’ve pretended or imagined become real? Have we become deities in action, creating not fables but truth? Are our ramblings now cogent and thus more insidious?
When thought becomes reality and when ideas cause concern is definitely worth considering. That’s just part of my exploration here, but it is one of the most important points.
Are certain types of ideas that are inherently “worse” than others?
I don’t know.
I’ve read enough history (Galileo, anyone?) and seen enough Law & Order and SVU episodes (as well as real life situations) to know that there are those that believe so. There are folks that want ideas to be watched and held under close scrutiny. There are people that will attack you for thinking, writing, saying- but not actually DOING- all manner of things. That’s not something I can find a lot of ways to support. The Thought Police is a real fucking scary proposition.
Some ideas are scary to some people. Sometimes those people want to squash out those ideas for a variety of reasons, but the biggest one is inevitably children and their innocence. Most of the time, that reason is the thinnest of shreds to hold to, but there are cases where it’s a genuine concern.
For those majority of times when children are a cover for less developed concerns, Ken from Popehat’s call of “for the children” as a mockery usually rings true for me. Christopher Titus’ “Arm The Children” skit takes the mockery to an absurd extreme, and proves several points with just a few lines. But every now and then an idea crosses my boundaries and I find myself fighting a concept.
I think it’s safe to say we all have faced that situation- where an idea is so bafflingly outrageous that it steps firmly across our thresholds uninvited and causes great upset such that something- anything has to be DONE.
It’s happened here on more than one occasion. Hell, I’ve even incurred the wrath of the pitchfork masses at least once, and I am quite the milquetoast in comparison to some of our other, more strident writers. Does my desperate need to avoid confrontation at any turn mean that we censor what we write about so that there won’t be conflict? No, not here. Conflict happens here.
Knowing that it has happened here is worth mentioning. This is The House- a mature blog intended for adults. We are NOT by any means the family friendly FTW and that was part of the point of this place’s creation.
DETHTRON WROTE HERE.
|These are our jokes, man|
It’s going to happen that something comes out of this place that someone is upset and there’s going to be concern. I’ve accepted it like you accept that there will be some bleeding at any hockey game you go to. It can’t be stopped, it just *IS*.