by Robert Wilkinson
In honor of Jack Nicholson’s birthday, today we examine the truth, and whether or not he was right when he famously stated “You can’t handle the truth!”
I gave this to you over 8 years ago. I thought it looked good and so today we re-examine the subject, with some edits to make it more readable. This is how the original began:
A dear friend of mine wrote me the other day about a moral dilemma troubling her. She asked: “Is there ever a situation when bending the truth is necessary for the well-being of a person or group of people?” There were layers to her question which deserve consideration.
This is a major dilemma for all who know more than they can say, as well as all who are called to say something truthful even when it looks like it will lead to a major problem. If you're interested in my response, read on.
She went on to ask: “I am not talking about Iraq, although it applies on a level. The government has a legal responsibility to be honest at all costs, so the government is absolutely wrong in the way it went about going to Iraq.” (This conversation originally took place in 2007).
”I'm wondering about my question in much simpler terms. How about when a mom tells her son that smoking will kill him therefore he should never touch a cigarette, a half-truth that could spare a potential addiction which could lead to death? Or a mom tell her 4 year old daughter to stay away from the edge of the pool because she will drown if she falls in, a half-truth that could spare someone drowning?”
”How about when a mom doesn't tell her children that dad is a raging alcoholic so that the children grow up in a secure environment where it's okay to love dad? To me, that's an omission of truth that allows a household to grow up with a reasonable amount of love.”
"What if a great seer only illuminates part of the truth to gently propel humanity to its next level of evolution, being careful to cloak much of the knowledge because humanity is not quite ready to process it responsibly? Again, this is an omission that could be a form of protection."
"What exactly do you consider truth? And do you ever find it to be evolving or shapeshifting depending on who's telling it? And is truth a black and white matter or do you find that it exists in shades of gray on occasion? And if so does this bother you?
Can you think of any occasion where you either stood on truth at all costs, or only presented part of the truth knowing the it would get you the same results? Do you think that the end justifies the means in some cases, or that the truth should always be illuminated no matter what the issue or cost?"
Here was my answer, with a few edits:
Truth is often in the eye of the beholder, much like "reality." And there are unconditional truths, conditional truths, and untruths. (Since then I would put it there is that which is inherently real, conditionally real, apparently real, and inherently unreal.)
What is true here and now may or may not be true in other circumstances. Gravity is an unconditional truth for our Earth, though it may not be on other worlds, just like we know "Life" to be carbon-based, though it may not be across the galaxy. Still, these are true as far as we are able to measure (except if we are discussing a virus!) Is water wet? Yes and No. Both are true, depending.
Another unconditional Truth is that consciousness is a one-way street. We can never become ignorant of a thing once we've realized it. We either act in accordance, or in discordance, with what we are aware of. Even if we "forget" we still bought the ticket and took the trip. We can never go back to a state of innocence once it's lost. Life experience just doesn't work that way.
There are other unconditional Truths, like evolution of consciousness, how Magnetism, Synthesis, and Economy work, and the fact that all forms pass away, every cause creates an effect on some level, and that Love is Eternal. Also that all particles exist within a larger field, light is the source of all that has "lived" on Earth, and so forth.
That brings us to the other two types, conditional truths and untruths:
When my grandmother used to ask me "How do I look," my answer was always "great," or "beautiful," or "wonderful," or some other compliment. I would never tell her she had on too much perfume, or that her dress looked 25 years out of date, or whatever.
Was I telling her an untruth? No. I was merely stating an opinion, since in that circumstance "truth" is a judgment call at best.
If she asked me if her dress looked old, I would always tell her "You look great." or "That's dress looks really great on you." Untrue? No. She did look great to me, as well as to many of her friends.
As for perfume, well, there are a whole lot of young and old people who wear too much perfume in my opinion, but should we tell someone in a mall that they stink? Do we have the right and "duty" to express "the truth" whenever it comes to our attention?
So that brings us to the dilemma of what to say, when to say it, and to whom. Truth is like that. Is not telling someone the "whole truth" if it's needlessly hurtful "bending the truth?"
Since the original article was very long, we’ll stop here and pick up the discussion in part 2 tomorrow.
© Copyright 2007, 2015 Robert Wilkinson
Comments