Dear Ken, and Lubomir and Teena and others, Klaus and Ranulph , David

Ken provided us with the Merriam-Webster's definition of Fiction. I think we 
should also take a look at the definition of "Write".

Besides the somewhat undefined definitions of (that could lead us to the 
conclusion that all writing is friction) to form (as characters or symbols) 
on a surface with an instrument (as a pen) b: to form (as words) by 
inscribing the characters or symbols of on a surface c: to spell in writing 
<words written alike but pronounced differently> d: to cover, fill, or fill 
in by writing <wrote ten pages> <write a check> There is not any meaning 
relating writing to science.

The following meanings relate writing to Literature and Poetics besides 
writing a check and that sort of stuff. I think that Teena meant writing 
different from any king of sign articulation.

One thing we may start to assume is that writing is not something that 
Merriam-Webster relates to Science (since, in the meaning of writing, 
Science is never mentioned). This may seem silly but, although some science 
is written, writing is not the medium of science. Science aims to be 
symbolized outside writing. This is to say that ultimately, science does not 
want to express itself in the same medium as poetry or Literature.

Science, Scientia, knowledge is ultimately perturbed by writing because 
writing is (willingly or not willingly) bound to be poetic, narrative, and 
not scientific. Science, in the way Philosophy of Science had define it, 
would want to make statements with mathematical formulations or models 
outside writing. Writing (further than the troglodyte meaning of making 
whatever signs and the highly sophisticated mathematical formulations) 
requires a narrative that inexorably will gather logical propositions along 
with analogical propositions and even not logical propositions. Science 
requires only logical propositions, analogical propositions functioning as 
logical propositions and not logical propositions working as negative 
logical propositions. In the end, the scientific perfect discourse would be 
not written but reduced to logical expressions of true or false value 
conducting to conclusions. In that sense, words would be, as seldom are, use 
to build logical expressions and not, in fact, Written expressions.

The usefulness of science (as socially certified accepted knowledge) is not 
at stake here. The problem is that, other than pure mathematics, knowledge, 
in order to be socially accepted as knowledge, still needs to be written 
(and no one can prohibit written knowledge to be read as narrative).

In fact, the scientific system of producing and certifying knowledge seldom 
requires writing as narrative.

So, why is writing fictional?

-       Because writing is the original and most perfect symbolization 
process of fiction.

-       Because all un-fictional writing is willing not to be writing but to 
be part of symbolization process other than writing.

-       The organization of expressions through writing conduces to a 
symbolization process that belong to the narrative domain and thus to 
fiction.

I wouldn't move towards the notion of all known world be fictional although 
I agree.

There must be a difference between a unicorn and a horse when I write fairy 
tales or veterinarian manuals respectively.

Goodman also struggled with fictional beings regarding representation. 
Goodman wrote that a drawing of unicorn although not representing anything 
would be representational in nature.

Maybe we should agree (not concluding from Goodman) or admit that writing is 
fictional in nature.  The same is to say that the nature of writing is 
fiction, although in its various forms, writing tries to be read beyond its 
nature focusing on the aspects not natural to writing such as diagrams, 
schemes, logical and mathematical formulations.

(Writing music, mostly, is not fictional in purpose but the written music is 
always different from the music we play (especially the music I play L), in 
that sense, written music is a fiction.)

So I wouldn't say that all writing is fictional but that writing is 
fictional in nature. Thus we can start the argumentation that the writer 
projects selfs or whatever on the written.

Cheers,

Eduardo