We moderns, males in particular, are scripted to dismiss that which, by some interpretation, we can evaluate as ‘not true’ or false. Originally, however, the greek word θεᾱρῐ́ᾱ (theoria) from which we get the word theory, was not concerned with »validity, but rather with »seeing. It meant something like ‘a way of seeing’, a perspective, a model that was useful for »insight.

These ‘ways of seeing’ were not entirely unconcerned with validity, but the primary focus was on something resembling usefulness or insight. Much of what we are capable of entertaining as a model or perspective is not true, in the sense of being valid, but may well be true in a deeper sense: the sense of granting us new vistas of consideration, perspective and imaginative faculties.

It’s reasonable to be concerned with validity, but if this is our only test of value, our intelligence starves. Many crucially powerful and insightful perspectives come in the form of ‘as if’ models, stories and ideas. Their depth and richness is profound, and nourishes our imagination and intuition. If we are trained to dismiss perspectives because they are not formally valid, we will miss much of the insight and wonder, awe and curiosity, that are otherwise available to us.

Consider the entire range of speculative fiction, science-fiction in particular. These stories are a: definitely not true b: partly prophetic and c: grant us perspectives and imaginal manifolds that are otherwise impossible to entertain. Shall we dismiss them all because they are not true? Or do they, instead, comprise »a different mode of truth? A mode concerned with the priority of »insight over validity…