Truth?
As is true for most of us, it is easy for this human to fall into the trap of thinking my truth is “the truth” and, thus expecting everyone to come around to “the truth”. I know, of course, that we experience the world with our brain and not with our senses. Even when viewing what appears to be an inanimate object I have to label the object based on my past experience. One example is: We might both agree to call the object in front of the couch a table. If we have a similar cultural background we might even agree to call it a coffee table. One of us might, however, see it as that ugly, terrible table and one of us might see it as this wonderful table. If one of us was in an abusive relationship and was thrown against a similar table it may be that ugly, terrible table. If, however, one of us was proposed to in a room which had a similar table we might get all mushy when we see the table. The only common truth is that there is an object which we can agree to call a table. It is not the same table for each of us.
Most of us do not argue about our individual experiences of the table unless we are decorating our home together. We do, however, often argue or debate about a past event or interaction. For example, following the divorce between my son’s mother and I, she had her experience. I had my experience and our son had his experience. There are three very detailed stories of the events that transpired while he was growing up. If one heard all three versions one might think that each is talking about a different trio of people. We might agree on some fairly benign events. When we were living in Alaska his mother and I decided on, applied for and were granted a divorce. There is a legal document which attests to that “fact” and which details the terms of the divorce agreement. That document will not tell you how the decision was made, why it was made or the legal possibilities of custody at that time. It certainly will not inform one of the emotional pain which led to that decisions. My son’s story of the divorce and my subsequent involvement or lack of involvement is not my story nor his mother’s story although he and his mother’s story might have more in common since she was granted primary custody and functioned as a single parent.
Because each of us has our own agenda when we compose and edit our stories, we often have a difficult time listening without judgment or correction to the truth of another person – especially a person who we want to think well of us. If not careful, we well convince ourselves that we know “the truth” and will set about correcting the other person. As long as we are convinced that there is “the truth” we will argue, fight, and litigate. Most of our courtroom battles are an effort to convince a judge and/or jury that there is one version of “the truth”. This week, for example, a jury in Texas determined that an off duty police person who entered a wrong apartment, mistook the authorized renter of that apartment as an intruder, and shot and killed him was guilty of murder. The fact that the person shot was African American, that the police officer was an apparent Caucasian, that there is a history of police officers targeting African American in this country, that there is a history of slavery and racism, that there is a political need for an appearance of justice and many other factors affected what “truth” the jury accepted. Other influencing factors included the skill or talents of the attorneys, the judge’s instruction to the jury, the background of the jurors as well as many others. Saying that this former police officer was found guilty of murder and will spend many years in prison tells us nothing important about truth or justice.
My spiritual and emotional goal is to be able be present to my truth and the truth of others without acting on my often felt need to convince others that my version of the story represents “the truth”. This sounds like a pretty simple task and, theoretically, easy. Yet, this human, along with most others, gets kidnapped by his habit of expecting or wanting others to validate his worth. We humans do not listen well because we are so fearful that it is not enough to be the imperfect being that we are. Unless and until we accept that we are enough we will look to others to validate our worth. We will continue to attempt to brand ourselves as the best so that we may be enough. If we attain that lofty goal, perhaps we will be able to accept various versions of a story as valid and very individual truths.
Written October 2, 2019
Jimmy F Pickett
coachpickett.org
As is true for most of us, it is easy for this human to fall into the trap of thinking my truth is “the truth” and, thus expecting everyone to come around to “the truth”. I know, of course, that we experience the world with our brain and not with our senses. Even when viewing what appears to be an inanimate object I have to label the object based on my past experience. One example is: We might both agree to call the object in front of the couch a table. If we have a similar cultural background we might even agree to call it a coffee table. One of us might, however, see it as that ugly, terrible table and one of us might see it as this wonderful table. If one of us was in an abusive relationship and was thrown against a similar table it may be that ugly, terrible table. If, however, one of us was proposed to in a room which had a similar table we might get all mushy when we see the table. The only common truth is that there is an object which we can agree to call a table. It is not the same table for each of us.
Most of us do not argue about our individual experiences of the table unless we are decorating our home together. We do, however, often argue or debate about a past event or interaction. For example, following the divorce between my son’s mother and I, she had her experience. I had my experience and our son had his experience. There are three very detailed stories of the events that transpired while he was growing up. If one heard all three versions one might think that each is talking about a different trio of people. We might agree on some fairly benign events. When we were living in Alaska his mother and I decided on, applied for and were granted a divorce. There is a legal document which attests to that “fact” and which details the terms of the divorce agreement. That document will not tell you how the decision was made, why it was made or the legal possibilities of custody at that time. It certainly will not inform one of the emotional pain which led to that decisions. My son’s story of the divorce and my subsequent involvement or lack of involvement is not my story nor his mother’s story although he and his mother’s story might have more in common since she was granted primary custody and functioned as a single parent.
Because each of us has our own agenda when we compose and edit our stories, we often have a difficult time listening without judgment or correction to the truth of another person – especially a person who we want to think well of us. If not careful, we well convince ourselves that we know “the truth” and will set about correcting the other person. As long as we are convinced that there is “the truth” we will argue, fight, and litigate. Most of our courtroom battles are an effort to convince a judge and/or jury that there is one version of “the truth”. This week, for example, a jury in Texas determined that an off duty police person who entered a wrong apartment, mistook the authorized renter of that apartment as an intruder, and shot and killed him was guilty of murder. The fact that the person shot was African American, that the police officer was an apparent Caucasian, that there is a history of police officers targeting African American in this country, that there is a history of slavery and racism, that there is a political need for an appearance of justice and many other factors affected what “truth” the jury accepted. Other influencing factors included the skill or talents of the attorneys, the judge’s instruction to the jury, the background of the jurors as well as many others. Saying that this former police officer was found guilty of murder and will spend many years in prison tells us nothing important about truth or justice.
My spiritual and emotional goal is to be able be present to my truth and the truth of others without acting on my often felt need to convince others that my version of the story represents “the truth”. This sounds like a pretty simple task and, theoretically, easy. Yet, this human, along with most others, gets kidnapped by his habit of expecting or wanting others to validate his worth. We humans do not listen well because we are so fearful that it is not enough to be the imperfect being that we are. Unless and until we accept that we are enough we will look to others to validate our worth. We will continue to attempt to brand ourselves as the best so that we may be enough. If we attain that lofty goal, perhaps we will be able to accept various versions of a story as valid and very individual truths.
Written October 2, 2019
Jimmy F Pickett
coachpickett.org
RSS Feed