Lessons relearned
Yesterday I happened to be driving more than usual which gave me the opportunity to listen to a number of the speeches of members of the United States House of Representative regarding the question of whether to vote for impeachment of President Trump. As I listened I “heard” myself reacting as if I was surprised that accounts of the events leading up to and including the action of those forcibly entering the United States Capital could be so divergent. I know and often teach that we hear, and we see with our mind and not with our ears or our eyes. I “know” that the light waves or the sound waves which reach our individual brains have to be interpreted; that our brains have to use opinions and information we have previously stored to select what details to attend to and what to avoid. It is not surprising that some of us responded to some of the speeches as if we were listening to aliens reporting what they heard and/or saw first, second or third hand of the events or last week.
The question of course, is not why we heard such divergent stories but why do I and others expect to “hear” or “see” the same stories. Why did many of the speakers and why did I want to believe that there was an event or series of events which told the “real” or the one true story? Of course, if that were the case then there would be no need for debates. We would simply have to look at videos, replay speeches and decide what action to take as a result of viewing the “real or true” story. That seldom is the case. The “truth” is a very subjective matter. The example I often use in the office when I am working for/with clients is that of the coffee table. If I am seeing someone whose head was slammed on a similar coffee table during a rape, she or he might insist that I remove that anxiety producing dam table from the office. If someone else was proposed to in a room where a similar coffee table was located then just seeing the table evokes a happy, even radiant mood. There is obviously something which we might agree to name a table, but our agreement about the reality of the object may stop there. The people who entered the United States Capital building last week were either patriotic citizens attempting to protect the election process, a bunch of radical, domestic terrorists determined to subvert the democratic process or ….
Anyone who has spent time in court knows that opposing attorneys work hard to convince a jury that their version of the story is the accurate one or that there is at the very least a doubt that the story the other side to telling is accurate or true.
Obviously, in our private lives, our work/professional lives or our community life we need to make decisions and we need to make those decisions based on:
· A desired objective or goal.
· Information which approximates some facts as best as can be known at that time.
· The humility which leaves open the possibility that the decision was based on an educated guess or a biased perception based on past experience or belief.
We are constantly learning new ways of viewing people, events and the world at large. We are constantly making educated guesses about the nature of reality. Sometimes, the educated guess is based on concrete information. For example, if the elbow of the pipe under my kitchen sink is rusted out or the plastics pipe is cracked, replacing it will most likely stop the leak.
Perhaps a laudable goal is to passionately work towards what we believe will best achieve a more just, viable economy and body politic while humbly attempting to listen to the arguments of those whose reality and, thus, opinions are much different than ours. Obviously, we must first agree on some ground rules ensuring mutual safety.
Written January 14, 2021
Jimmy F Pickett
coachpickett.org
Yesterday I happened to be driving more than usual which gave me the opportunity to listen to a number of the speeches of members of the United States House of Representative regarding the question of whether to vote for impeachment of President Trump. As I listened I “heard” myself reacting as if I was surprised that accounts of the events leading up to and including the action of those forcibly entering the United States Capital could be so divergent. I know and often teach that we hear, and we see with our mind and not with our ears or our eyes. I “know” that the light waves or the sound waves which reach our individual brains have to be interpreted; that our brains have to use opinions and information we have previously stored to select what details to attend to and what to avoid. It is not surprising that some of us responded to some of the speeches as if we were listening to aliens reporting what they heard and/or saw first, second or third hand of the events or last week.
The question of course, is not why we heard such divergent stories but why do I and others expect to “hear” or “see” the same stories. Why did many of the speakers and why did I want to believe that there was an event or series of events which told the “real” or the one true story? Of course, if that were the case then there would be no need for debates. We would simply have to look at videos, replay speeches and decide what action to take as a result of viewing the “real or true” story. That seldom is the case. The “truth” is a very subjective matter. The example I often use in the office when I am working for/with clients is that of the coffee table. If I am seeing someone whose head was slammed on a similar coffee table during a rape, she or he might insist that I remove that anxiety producing dam table from the office. If someone else was proposed to in a room where a similar coffee table was located then just seeing the table evokes a happy, even radiant mood. There is obviously something which we might agree to name a table, but our agreement about the reality of the object may stop there. The people who entered the United States Capital building last week were either patriotic citizens attempting to protect the election process, a bunch of radical, domestic terrorists determined to subvert the democratic process or ….
Anyone who has spent time in court knows that opposing attorneys work hard to convince a jury that their version of the story is the accurate one or that there is at the very least a doubt that the story the other side to telling is accurate or true.
Obviously, in our private lives, our work/professional lives or our community life we need to make decisions and we need to make those decisions based on:
· A desired objective or goal.
· Information which approximates some facts as best as can be known at that time.
· The humility which leaves open the possibility that the decision was based on an educated guess or a biased perception based on past experience or belief.
We are constantly learning new ways of viewing people, events and the world at large. We are constantly making educated guesses about the nature of reality. Sometimes, the educated guess is based on concrete information. For example, if the elbow of the pipe under my kitchen sink is rusted out or the plastics pipe is cracked, replacing it will most likely stop the leak.
Perhaps a laudable goal is to passionately work towards what we believe will best achieve a more just, viable economy and body politic while humbly attempting to listen to the arguments of those whose reality and, thus, opinions are much different than ours. Obviously, we must first agree on some ground rules ensuring mutual safety.
Written January 14, 2021
Jimmy F Pickett
coachpickett.org
RSS Feed