Thank you all for your input.
otwo: "autobiographical fiction" seems to be a fairly honest label for much of what we live/write anyway... best wishes for your "next chapter," should it consist in "actual writing" or not.
Mr. Flipper: nice to meet you too! Inasmuch as I am dead, past, silent or absent, I guess I am "fact," too.
BTS: great! just mind the mills.
cbb, nice to see you! I guess we're the readers / audience just as much as we are the authors / actors. Much of our "freedom" may lie in our ability to shift positions -- within our own time as NMG writes...
FF, can we help influencing others, in one way or another? We are interactive fictions, and this applies ad intra, too. The past chapters of our life certainly affect the next, but the reverse is also true. The future can give fresh meaning to the past.
DoomVoyager: maybe solipsism smiling at itself in the mirror?
hamilcarr, are we "trapped" if we are the texts?
Rapunzel, merci! I think I'd prefer the formula "no 'outside-the-text'"... and in your last sentence (of your first post) I'd stress the word our. To me, the point is not about denying there may be such thing as "non-human reality" -- it's rather about acknowledging that we never actually know "it," since our verbal and imaginary representations, which all involve some "fiction," are an integral part of our cognitive processes.
You're quite right about gnôthi seauton and mèden agan in Delphi (although we actually depend on literary, not archeological sources on this point afaik). I really don't remember where I first read or heard about the former. In my mind it is tied in with the alleged Socratic use of the formula, which may have been paradoxical already (certainly more than in the Platonic system which involves a positive knowledge of "ideas"). And before being paradoxical it was probably ambiguous (like many oracle statements). Anyway, certainly to us it is only understandable as a paradox -- although a very useful one I believe.
Thanks also for the great Kundera quote.
R. Crusoe, you raise very interesting questions. I must have a look at your "anhedonia" thread, the title of which caught my eye.
Leolaia, thank you very much for your analysis of memory and sharing your experience. I tend to think "we" are "fictions" in an even more radical way, by structural necessity of language, since "that which speaks" in us cannot do so without separating itself from anything "real" or even imaginary. Objectively, of course, "man speaks," but when I say "my body," "my soul," "my life," "my mind" I "confess" not being whatever I call "mine" -- and, perhaps, not being anything "real".
lalliv, your remark about the Internet made me think that one reason of its success may consist precisely in what I'd call (paradoxically) our "virtual nature". From ancient myths, epic and theatre, to the Internet we have no truer way of expressing our "selves" than playing fictions.
purps, nice to see you too! I haven't read Tolle, in fact I only heard of him through discussions on this forum. As you might remember from such discussions (with James Thomas in particular, I miss him!), I'm rather wary of the oft-repeated idea that one has to break free from "fiction" to find his/her "true self". But that may be quite different from what Tolle is actually suggesting. Got to read him someday. Thanks again for the tip.