This, from Deborah Hill Cone’s farewell column Black-and-white thoughts on a world of grey in the NZ Herald today echoes something …
I just write because I’m trying to work out things for myself, which is shamefully indulgent. So I really should be thanking you, Dear Fabulous Readers, after all.
Thing is, we’re all just trying to find our own truths.
Yeah. I know what she means. This is how I put it in Why am I doing this? Muckraking?:
The value of writing for ourselves: Writing to work out what I think
Sometimes I don’t know what I think or feel about a topic until I have a go at expressing it.
I have been taught (and I believe today) that what we sometimes call our ‘intuition‘ is the sum total of our experiences. That includes ‘non-verbal’ knowledge or ‘I-haven’t-quite-made-the-connection’-type links between different forces and facets of a situation or an issue. People are complicated. Sometimes our conclusions can be unspoken, nascent — subterranean, buried in our consciousness.
With luck (and a protracted endeavour to ‘express a thought’) I can find my way into or through complex matters through reflection and consideration, some of that through written exploration. It can be an effort, it can take time. But as John F Kennedy said: “Too often… we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
I am one of those who do like to process things mentally. (‘That’s just how I roll.’ {snort})
I try to always be aware that we are each emotional beings (children, really, eh?) I’d be the first to admit we cannot gain access to our deeper selves, our souls, through purely mental means … but it can help.
Meditation and reflection, and discussion, thinking-out-loud, and writing one’s thoughts can uncover conclusions, decisions and truths — truths our reactive minds, unexpressed, just could not get to.
So, that’s why I do this. For the journey of discovery.
Good luck Deborah. Thanks.
– P
Sorry but the very idea of us “finding our own truths” seems simply nonsensical to me. We can form our own perceptions or convictions regarding the truth or reality, but none of us “own” the truth. It is what it is and there’s nothing anyone of us can do about it except find it or, at our own peril, ignore it.
“Sorry but the very idea of us “finding our own truths” seems simply nonsensical to me. We can form our own perceptions or convictions regarding the truth or reality, but none of us “own” the truth. It is what it is and there’s nothing anyone of us can do about it except find it or, at our own peril, ignore it.”
Hi Graeme, I think I know what you’re saying … The Truth ‘… is what it is’.
But to quip based on what Bill Clinton is widely reputed to have said: ‘It depends on what your definition of is is.’ In this case, it seems to me we’re discussing the difference between truth and Truth.
While only a fool or someone with too much time on their hands would enter a debate on exegesis with you, it seems to me that most uses of the word ‘truth’ aren’t references to The (definite article) Truth with a capital T.
Your synonyms ‘perceptions’ or ‘convictions’ seem adequate in the context, it seems to me. I could use ‘values’, ‘principles’, ‘priorities’ or even ‘operating model’ … they’re all good. I don’t conflate ‘truth’ with ‘reality’ in this context.
If you follow the link to my original ‘muckraking’ post, you’ll read this:
I think what Deborah Hill Cone and Margaret Atwood are suggesting (and it’s ‘true’ for me) is that the process of writing one’s thoughts helps one clarify, discover or develop our understanding of what’s important and vital to us — our truth.
As for what ‘the truth’ is, let me paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
regards, – P
I have been reading the science fiction books of Philip K. Dick. I unreservedly recommend him to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick
“Themes
Dick’s stories typically focus on the fragile nature of what is “real” and the construction of personal identity. His stories often become surreal fantasies as the main characters slowly discover that their everyday world is actually an illusion constructed by powerful external entities (such as in Ubik), vast political conspiracies, or simply from the vicissitudes of an unreliable narrator. “All of his work starts with the basic assumption that there cannot be one, single, objective reality”, writes science fiction author Charles Platt. “Everything is a matter of perception. The ground is liable to shift under your feet. A protagonist may find himself living out another person’s dream, or he may enter a drug-induced state that actually makes better sense than the real world, or he may cross into a different universe completely.””
Dick was pretty obscure during his lifetime, but since he died, ten of his stories have been made in to movies (including Blade Runner, Total Recall, A Scanner Darkly, Minority Report, Paycheck, Next, Screamers, and The Adjustment Bureau).
I started reading him because Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) was one of my favourite movies. Directed by Ridley Scott (whose brother had just died), he changed Dick’s original story somewhat, but kept intact the fundamental question of the book – what does it mean to be human?
Replicants (robots) were identified using an empathy test. Questions were asked about say torturing an animal, and an absence of emotional response would see the robot fail. Ridley Scott added a subtle and ironical twist to this plot, by making the robots more empathetic in their relationships with each other than the humans were in their relationships, blurring the humanity question…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner
I recommend the book (indeed all Dick’s books) and the movie Blade Runner. Check it out!
Rgds,
*p*
Yes, I’ve read and enjoyed Dick too. I totally agree with you. Fantastic writer.
By remarkable coincidence, Dick was the subject of a Radio 4 ‘Great Lives’ episode earlier this month (6 Dec 11) which I devoured. If you haven’t yet, go and listen.
His life was a somewhat sad tale, in a van Gogh way, but his writing — his thinking and philosophy — is so much better than we had a right to expect.
– P
Look what popped up from the HL Mencken bot in my Twitter stream:
http://twitter.com/HLMenckenBot/statuses/148741885471633408
Ha! – P
Interesting comments all! I’ve never read Phillip K. Dick but having enjoyed movies based on his books, like “Blade Runner”, “Minority Report”, “The Adjustment Bureau”, I now want to read “Ubik” & “The Man in the High Castle”. Thanks!
Re truth, my objection to the name being used carelessly to describe perceptions is the inherent devaluing, as if the truth is what I see and own instead of an accurate communication of what is real which can be appreciated by all. (I think I’m going to enjoy Mr Dick’s books).
[…] the opposition than issues analysis, policy debate, or subjecting themselves to what John F Kennedy referred to as ‘the discomfort of […]
[…] The lazy non-thought that sees much debate du jour easily and carelessly recognized (viz. ‘I’ve heard that line before’) and therefore easily discarded, or filtered and filed into traditional vectors: left vs right, bosses vs unions, tax vs spend, Luddites vs Progress … or any of the myriad other dimensions along which we routinely divide is seductive. But it’s usually unilluminating, akin to patrolling our psychological borders and castle battlements. (See JFK’s wry reference to ‘the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought’.) […]