Thursday, June 26, 2008

unstoppable forces and immovable objects

The preamble: I credit Dallas Willard with giving new life to what should be one of the most obvious truths available to all mankind when he said - of truth - that, "Reality is that thing you run into when you're wrong." Dallas was trying to contrast the concept of "relative truth" and "absolute truth" as he went on to give a parable which I will paraphrase. He talked about a man driving a car and running out of gas. The man, not really comfortable with the inconvenience of his current reality decides to engage in a series of denials. But, as Dallas puts it, no matter how much our shared reality offends our sensibilities, no matter how much sympathy we garner from others about how we shouldn't be beholden to a reality that is so at odds with our own self-interests, no matter how much we protest it: that reality continues to exist. It is that objective reality that should return as the standard for our labels of "truth".

The case: As a history major I had to take a class my first semester at the university to teach me how to be a historian. In this class our professor had to lay the foundation for "historical inquiry" by training us to see the difference between fact, inference, and opinion. You might think to yourself: "wow, seems kind of obvious what the differences are." You might be right. What I noticed during that grueling process (which, at some levels, took all semester) is how unable most people - myself included - are unable to separate empirical fact from inferences and opinions stated as though they were facts. As it says on the sidebar of the blog, I've come to the conclusion that truth has three essential and core elements: it is universal, it is factual, and it is objective. Let's unpack that here for a second.

By claiming that truth is universal, I'm not insisting that it is absolute. The word "absolute" carries with it a stigma that I won't inject into our, hopefully, shared vision of reality. By attributing that it is universal I'm simply characterizing truth as something that must apply equally to all at all times. That means if something is really true for you, then it is also true for me. If it is really true, then that truth almost certainly transcends time. In this way is truth different than fact which can be tied, intrinsically, to specific points in time.

While truth and fact are different in certain aspects of their nature, truth is factual. Truth must be rooted in facts for it to be actual truth. This is where so much truth gets confused and lost for so many of us. As I mentioned in my last post on ideologies and "isms", many of us filter truth and reality through our ideological constructs and we begin to claim that things are true simply because we believe them - not because the reality supports them.
I'm not saying that having a belief is wrong so please don't misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that having a belief can be dangerous because you may find, at some point, that your belief is actually at odds with the truth... and that is a life-shattering moment. This is true of all ideologies (of which religions are a considerable member). We see this confusion of truth and belief or opinion in mediums as muddled as car dealership commercials and as sacred as commentary on holy texts. But the reality of it all is that factuality determines truth, not belief. I can no more say that the Christian Bible is "inerrant" holy writ than I can say that so-and-so Ford dealership is the best place in the world to buy a car. The available and empirical facts simply do not support either statement as truth. (I promise to return to this statement in a later post because I know that it might be something of a 'bombshell'.)

Perhaps most importantly for us to remember is that truth is objective. Truth has no agenda to advance, no ax to grind, no interest to protect. Truth simply is... it just exists. As I've mentioned before, the enemy of truth is ideology which is rooted in ego-centrism and the preservation of one's own self-interests. Therefore, it stands to reason, that one will often find truth quite at odds with one's own self-interests.

It is at this starting point of truth as objective and factual reality that our individual and collective journey can begin. I'm not sure if it is a fact or if it is true, but I believe that you - the reader - are likely to be interested in finding some kind of truth in your life. If that is true of you then your first step on this path to finding truth (which will always go deeper and farther than we expect it to, feel comfortable with, and can afford) is to make a solemn pledge of allegiance to the truth. Be prepared to ask questions that make your stomach turn. Questions that are truly unthinkable. Questions that will very likely offend your morals, values, and your sensibilities. Questions that may shake the foundation of your identity and your view of reality. And then prepare yourself for the answers which will almost certainly do all of that and more.

The questions: What values are so deeply ingrained in you that you consider them "non-negotiable"? Are those values rooted in belief or in objective and factual reality? (Be honest with yourself.) In what areas of your life have you been like the man that ran out of gas? Perhaps most importantly: how far are you willing to go to find out the truth?

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

the "ism" - our own personal neurosis

The preamble: I have this awful habit of starting books and not finishing them. I don't really read literature or fiction so this habit of mine can be pretty maddening sometimes. That's my disclaimer in saying that I will say, from time to time, that I read a particular book but I want to be clear that I may not have actually finished it. With all that being said:

The case: I read this book called "Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality" by a guy named Donald Miller. At some point in this book Don points out two very interesting ideas which provoke two very unsavory questions.

1. Human selfishness (or ego-centrism) is the root of all iniquity. It is this unchecked self-love that sits at the core of all human suffering and evil.

2. This human selfishness, the core of evil and suffering, is what produces ideologies which individuals integrate into their identities. These ideologies are indicative of the mental derangement existing in all of us.

As mentioned in the sidebar, ideologies are an "integrated belief system" that defines values, moderates behavior, and helps formulate the identity of the believer. If you thought about it for a while you might begin to consider an ideology as a pair of colored sunglasses. These glasses block certain effects of the Sun that are inconvenient and inconducive to our desires, but in turn ends up distorting the vision of reality. The shape and form of the world doesn’t much change under ideology, but it becomes tinted, shaded, and colored. Some aspects are harder to see, and are flushed out by the overwhelming tint of the ideology. Some aspects become impossible to see or distinguish. Ideology filters out those aspects of reality that are inconvenient or potentially “harmful” to the agenda of one’s self – but at the expense of truth.

An ideology can come in many forms but shows up most especially in political, social, and religious manifestations. These forms – often made taboo in sensitive environments (such as the workplace) due to the disruptive and potentially explosive nature of discussions based around them – are values-oriented and form a symbiotic-circle with one another. What I mean by that is this: a person's values will lead one to a particular ideology and will fuel the ideology until, at a particular turning point, the ideology begins to turn on the believer and takes an active role defining values, creating conformity and acting as an intrapersonal enforcement mechanism. Once an ideology begins to set the values-structure of a person, the ideology becomes part of the person’s identity and cannot become un-rooted without challenging (in the very least) or re-creating (in the most extreme and eventual cases) that person’s identity.

Most ideological systems are easily identified with the "ism". An "ism" is defined as a "system, doctrine, or theory" that is built around the joined ideology. You see it everywhere. Conservatism, communism, patriotism, Calvinism, racism, Catholicism, pacifism, terrorism, atheism, etc. Ideologies are the frameworks of beliefs and the gatekeepers of values. Of course, not all ideologies have an "ism" (such as "Christianity") and not all "isms" are ideological in nature (such as "autism"). But these ideologies and their isms are dangerous to anyone dedicated to truth.

Ideologies are dangerous because they do have a tendency to become dogmatic – allowing for no critical self-examination. In a sense they’re something of a developing neurosis where they begin to take over the mind’s ability to perceive reality objectively and, once securely in place, will begin to identify (or fabricate) deviant or enemy thought processes outside of the structure. Once the ideology has identified sufficient threats, it then spends all critical energies outward and builds a shield against any challenges to itself. Ascribing to any particular ideology makes it incredibly difficult to be intellectually honest about the reality in which we all live. Because it is inherently self-centric, ideology has a particularly misanthropic aspect to it, preferring to define and label – a divisive process creating a very “us and them” mindset. Even ideologies that have their roots in benign or philanthropic activities (such as pacifism or the abolitionism of the nineteenth century) can over time become incredibly divisive, mean-spirited, antagonistic and dogmatic.

The questions: What ideology or ism have you ascribed to? When did it happen? How have you changed since then? If provided with sufficient proof or evidence that this ideology was damaging you and hindering your search for the truth, would you feel comfortable abandoning the values structure that you've derived from your ideology? Could you cast it off easily? Or would you have to reshape your entire worldview and identity?

No easy answers... just hard questions.

let truth rule

Welcome to veritas regnum - latin for "the rulership of truth". As the subtitle suggests, what I'd like to use this blog for is a medium to discuss some of the more unsavory questions facing our heads and hearts. Moreover I want to ask the tough questions that try to cut through the difference between real truth and mere ideology.