People Come First When Truth Is In Context

Recently I remarked to a girlfriend that “it’s not needed to figure it out but to accept that it’s true, understanding can come later." I had said something of this sort before and like then it yet again struck me as profoundly different than my usual focus. Had I not just written about the difference between knowing and thinking in "To Think Is Not Always To Know"? Had I not in "Foregoing Reason For Enlightenment" lamented about the tendency people have to pander to the most absurd of ideas despite of or often because of the lack of evidence that is in connection to it? Have my studies in spirituality finally placed me in that ephemeral world of postmodern wackiness where up is down and down is up and all of reality is a display of my own consciousness in some twisted narcissistic play? Alas, no. Instead I realized I was continuing to expand beyond the egoistic notions of rightness I have long lived with. 

 

Proselytizing is the attempt to convince someone of the rightness of one’s position, where zealotry is connecting with the shifting of opinion rather than an engagement in dialogue. Leaving fundamentalist Christianity brought many issues to be dealt with, not least of which the dedication to making everyone else believe as I do. The path away from it has had many iterations, each “softer” than the other, each taking into account a growing understanding of how the mind works and an appreciation for the individual narrative being lived through. Until the last few years I had not taken the time to contemplate a reality where truth is only as powerful as the ability of people to hold it in the context by which it touches them.




This contextual nature of truth is a relational one, as context is at core, an interactive dynamic between the reality-universal and the reality-subjective, where the latter does not so much create as cordon off aspects of the broader canvas to make a smaller picture. Mandelbrot art comes to mind here, repeating patterns larger and larger, but at any given point on the canvas one could stop and say this is all there is, ignoring the vastness that spirals ever outward. There are any number of conversations that occur which allow for any number of potential battlegrounds to hold one’s sight at. Focusing only on a particular understanding of a point or noting only one particular way to view a situation is like halting one's eye to see only the pigment and never the fuller artistic rendering. 




As an aside, I want to note that the "pigment" as it were can still be quite fruitful for discussion and study, merely that it is not the entirety. To focus on it as if it only is what encapsulates the situation is simply reductionism and in no way helps us to achieve a truly expanded awareness. Rather, it would sublimate all else to the narrow confines of its particular view. This is true of ideological battles and of human relational dynamics. We are not simply our genes, the mind is not merely the brain, rather we are our environment and relationships and our minds are relational as well. 

 

This is not a declaration that truth is meaningless or that objective truth is a fantasy, though I'll admit that such is no longer the traditional religious notion of being of an absolute nature. Rather, it is acknowledgment that truth simply has a subjective component. Not subjective in the sense of relative, but subjective in the context that all dialogue is subjective because it entails communion between two or more human beings, each possessing a phenomenological or what it feels like, experience. 




For example, the color blue is an objective truth but the how of its instantiation in nature is tied to the sight apparatus of the human person and will inevitably engender various thoughts from the blue of someone’s eyes to that of a cloudless sky or the deep swells of ocean waves. Truth is therefore not free-floating pieces of information awaiting to be believed, but tied to the inner workings of each individual in a social and personal-historical context. Any of us who have fought valiantly against an opinion only to at some point in the future find ourselves agreeing with that very point can attest to the power of truth's acquisition being contingent upon one’s place in life.




Such it is then in relationships, of whatever form they may take. The rightness of one’s opinion has little bearing upon the acceptance of it by any other person. In focusing so strongly on the rightness of one’s opinion, the broader reality in which that other person exists in the same universe, subject to their own concerns, fears, development and existential progress tends to be forgotten. 




At times what a person wants or is willing/able to give may not coincide with what another is able/willing to give or want/need. Yes, within the intellectual field of psychological analysis, there exists a virtually limitless field in which to ponder the mechanisms behind the creation and development of these wants/needs. Further, there is ample energy available to then judge the legitimacy of their existence and potential for building difficulty or success. Post break-ups are famous for these kind of mental prognostications, though they also are quite numerous whenever one enters a discussion wishing to “prove their point,” with proof being conflated with the words and position one uses and holds.




The needs and wants of any person, so long as they dwell within the spirit of authenticity and a lack of harm to self or others, can and should be cherished, acknowledged and open to fulfillment. There is a time for standing on one’s ground with feet firmly planted and flag waving, but more often than not it should be less about being right and more about the dialogue that reminds us all that there is no “other,” no “enemy,” no “contrary force” sitting across from us. We are all one in Spirit and reason is only one aspect of our being. Celebrating the totality of our existence, that we share and expand within in our connection to others, may in fact result in a greater rightness than we at first envisioned.







© David Teachout