This is something I've come to learn and profoundly understand over the past few years. I was raised believing that there was such a thing as truth. I have a pen, I know it's a pen, therefore the truth is: it's a pen. I'm doing well in school, my report card says I've earned an A or B, my teachers say that I'm excelling, so, the truth is: I'm smart. I could go on and on here, there are an endless number of examples. I've come to learn, though, that that's wrong. The truth is: there's no such thing as truth.
What on earth do I mean, there's no truth? Well, there is perspective. Everyone sees things slightly differently. They see an item, witness an event, hear words, see body language, and interpret those for themselves. People weigh everything against their own history and personal experiences. We all view everything through our own filters. When we view something as true, we're actually thinking that what we perceive is what everyone should perceive. Yes, many times those around us view things similarly, or even the same. Back to my pen example, virtually everyone will look at my pen and agree that it's a pen. Though one person may view it as a "weapon", which could be used to harm someone. Is she wrong? Is she right? Is it a weapon or not? Well, the truth is, we're all right, just voicing our own perspective.
Using my school example, was I smart or not? My teachers apparently agreed, then again aren't grades more a reflection of a teacher's opinion of the student than their IQ? Most of us remember Pygmalion in the Classroom
Sure, there are some who say one thing, but believe another to be true. That's called "lying". For whatever reason, they've decided to publicly state one thing, while believing another. But, are those who erroneously believe something to be true, and state their truth, lying? It may not make sense to you or me, because their perspective differs from our own, yet are they telling the truth (as they see it) or lying? It's hard to tell the difference. Sure there are poker tells. I heard of a psychological study, demonstrating small facial ticks the moment someone lies. There are plenty of studies explaining how to tell if someone is lying by looking at their body language. Still, these will only work if the person is actually stating something that differs from their own truth.
There's yet another category, denial. There are those who, deep down, believe one thing, but who don't want it to be true. They can actually kid themselves into creating a truth for themselves that varies from their own beliefs. I'm guilty of this in trying to make my relationship with my ex work. Yet another category is misperception. A schizophrenic may see little blue gnomes climbing the walls. To them, that's true. They'd pass a polygraph telling the examiner, with a straight face, about the gnomes. Okay, so that's a bit extreme, still it's a valid example. Look at a picture, is the subject beautiful or not? Is it ugly or not? It all depends on your perspective.
I remember an old girlfriend of mine saying, "I hate closed minded people!". Doesn't that mean she's closed minded toward those she views as closed minded? I once asked her how she felt about the "KKK", "Nazis", "Extreme Conservatives"? She told me the answer was obvious. Sure, it was... she didn't like them. If a KKK member approached her to discuss the virtues (as they view them) of white supremacy, how long would she listen? Would she have an open mind toward them? Again, the answer was obvious. 
The same goes for me, I admit to being closed minded on topics I've already made my mind up about. I am, in fact, prejudiced against those I deem prejudiced people. But I'll always remember Voltair's famous words, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Sometimes I'm even guilty of making my mind up by virtue of my peers decisions. I remember years ago going to the Hopkins Fair, an annual fair held on the campus of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, MD. Not only are their rides, food, music and crafts for sale, but there are tables of people peddling their political beliefs. I remember walking by the "pro-choice" table. I gave them a thumbs up, and signed a petition of theirs. Later, after getting a sandwich for lunch, I strolled by the "pro-life" table, and shot an ugly look their way. I sat down to eat my lunch, in full view of the "pro-life" table. As I ate, I realized, I don't really like the idea of killing fetuses. I do think children are wonderful. I also know that, with the exception of rape, women get pregnant because they willingly had sex. So, why would I be "pro-choice"? Have I simply accepted the "pro-choice" position of my peers, without exploring it for myself? Guilty as charged.
I decided to challenge my own truth, open my own mind, and genuinely see if I can determine my own position, unbiased by my peers. As I munched on my sandwich, I thought, what makes me "pro-choice"? Afterall, I'm not a fan of murder... I'm anti-death penalty. But I do support the "pro-choice" movement. Are those opposing beliefs; am I being hypocritical? Okay, I thought, I'm open to exploring both sides of this issue. But first, let me define my personal criteria. If an abortion is murder, perhaps I'd not favor it. What is the alternative to 
abortion, in unwanted pregnancies? Believing that virtually everyone knows, at the moment of conception, if they wanted a child or not, what do each side offer to help people avoid getting pregnant, thus the need for abortion?
After tossing out the remains of my lunch, I walked over to the pro-life table. With an open mind, I struck up a conversation with a woman there, proudly displaying a pickled fetus. "Tell me about pro-life?" She told me that they believe abortion is murder. I asked her why she believed that abortion was murder? She said, simply, that it's ending the life of a fetus, and that's murder. I asked her if a fetus was a living being, or a developing being. Meaning, was it truly a person, or not a person yet. I asked her her position on the death penalty? She said the pro-life movement doesn't have a position on the death penalty. Okay, what is your personal position on the death penalty. Avoiding the topic, she told me that an unborn baby is an innocent life; the life of someone who's not done anything wrong. While a person on death row, has committed a horrible crime. Believing that there are many people wrongly convicted of serious crimes, I didn't pursue this any further.
Then I told her that I believe virtually everyone who gets pregnant, knew at the moment of conception if they wanted a child or not. What does pro-life feel we should do to help avoid unwanted pregnancies as much as possible? She said they believe in abstinence. That is the only way, she said, to guarantee someone doesn't get pregnant. I asked about rape, and she avoided the topic. I asked their position on sex education and birth control. She was fiercely against both. At this point, I really was confused. If they are against abortion, why wouldn't they want to avoid the decision altogether? If only those who have the means and desire to have children were getting pregnant, then we wouldn't even be having this debate, would we? Sure, that's a fantasy, still we could come much closer than we are today. I think abstinence is a fantasy too. Then again, that's my truth, not hers.
I wandered over to the pro-choice table, and told the woman there of my quest... to understand my truth. We discussed the beginning of life. She believed that a fetus is alive, but not a thinking, feeling being until later in the pregnancy. They had lots of ideas about education and contraception. She understood, and empathized with my concerns over reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. All in all, I understood where she was coming from. In the end, I decided that I am pro-choice. And I feel comfortable in my decision, believing that I've opened my mind and truly evaluated for myself, where I stand.
Why am I discussing all this? Well, my ex and I had differing truths. In many cases, diametrically opposed truths. We disagreed on so many things. At times I thought she was lying. Other times, I thought her misperceiving or denying things. Still other times I believed she hadn't thought through her own position, or challenged her own beliefs. The most frustrating to me, was when she got mad at me for doing something that I, in my perspective, didn't do, think, say or feel. This is something that I'm continuing to explore and understand. I've come to believe that, regardless of our truths, I have to acknowledge that neither of us is wrong. We just see the world in very different ways. I don't agree with her beliefs, and that's cool. Still I do need to acknowledge that they're truths to her.
WhyCali?
1 comments:
Really enjoyed reading this piece. Thank you.
Post a Comment