Real and Not True

Can something be real and yet not true?

This morning, I noticed that I use the words “real” and “true” as-if they’re directly related, synonymous even. I have lived with the understanding — that which is real, is true. But on closer examination of these two words, it does not seem to be the case.

Can something be real and yet not true?

It seems that the answer is yes, especially psychologically.

My experience of fear (any fear) is real and yet, the cause of that fear could be entirely not true. Just because I experience fear physically, and psychologically, does not automatically imply that it is rooted in truth.

My experience is real, as in “existing and/or occurring in fact” and yet not true as in “erroneous”.

It seems that “real” and “true” are not related in the way I believed they were.

In August, our family visited the Harry Potter world at Universal Studios in L.A. We took the 4D “Forbidden Journey” ride in which Harry Potter guides you through a flying adventure through Hogwarts — escaping dragons, and other creatures from the merchandise. Despite knowing that I was essentially sitting in one of their hi-tech moving chairs, I experienced a semblance of what it might mean to fly on a broomstick. The experience was real, but also not true. I experienced flying on a broomstick but the truth was — I was not flying and I was not riding a broomstick.

It appears, in this specific case, the word ‘real’ refers to my experience. My experience of flying is real. But at the same time I did not fly.

While walking a dimly lit street I see a snake. All my senses see it, all the details are visible — the snake is real. I’m afraid. But as I take a step toward it, the light changes and I realize that it’s actually just a piece of rope. Now in that brief moment of fear, the snake was absolutely real and posed a real danger and my instinct told me to protect myself. But at the same time, the snake was not truly there. It was only a rope all along and there was no snake, but my experience of it was exactly the same as if it was truly a snake.

My experience is real but not true. In truth, there is no snake. The truth is the rope.

A few years ago, I was in NYC for a week for work. One evening, I stepped out of the hotel for dinner. I was listening to music on my headphones and watching the wonderful activity of NY all around me. I love that city because in some way it reminds me of Mumbai. As I was neared my hotel from dinner, I noticed a woman walking ahead of me with her child. I noticed her because she turned around and looked at me every few steps. I kept walking still thinking about how crazy and wonderful it would be to live in this city but how I’m too old to keep up with it. I noticed that the woman and the child picked up her pace and still turned back to look at me. In that moment, I realized that my presence behind her may have been a cause of some kind of panic. I am a brown man with a beard. Plus, women are faced with the threat of violence in our society almost continuously. It could have been any number of factors that caused her to panic. It turns out that she was staying at the same hotel that I was and when I walked into the hotel shortly after her, it must have contributed to whatever narrative was playing in her head. I imagine that her experience of fear of me was absolutely real but also completely untrue — it was completely unconnected to me as a person. It had to do with her perception — perhaps the problem of race + the problem of gender based violence and probably many many other factors. It made me realize that just my presence could be perceived as threatening/intimidating.

So it appears that “real” is not always connected to “true”.

What then, is the relationship between “real” and “true”? It seems that, “real” does not require “true”.

The word “real” seems to be related to the machinery of perception (information received from physical senses, analyzed, classified and recorded as memory). There seems to be no connection of this entire phenomenon of “real” to “true” or “not true”. “Real” does not rely on “true” or “Not true”. The phenomenon operates with whatever information is available.

Experience seems to be entirely based on the output of this machinery of perception and it continues unless new information is received. Once new information or knowledge is received, experience changes; “real” changes.

It also appears that what is “true” exists independently. The rope exists independently. It’s not dependent on my fear. The hi-tech chairs exist independently. They are not dependent on my experience of flight.

What is “true” does not require perception to validate it. It exists outside of the paradigm, on it’s own. What is “true” does not change based on what is “real”. What is “true”does not change based on the experience of it. The rope remains the same and the chairs remain the same before, through and after the experience.

How then does one understand what is “true” if it’s not related to what appears “real”?

Perhaps through the qualities of these two words.

So far it seems that “real” relies on accumulation, storage, retention and analysis of knowledge (using memory). It seems that what is “real” changes as knowledge is acquired.

On the other hand, what is “true” does not rely on knowledge, on experience, on memory or analysis and does not change.

“Real” only exists in my perception but “true” sits outside it. The only way to know what is true is to recognize the limits of my perception and not overly rely on that which appears “real” for in a brief flash of new information, all of it might change completely.