It's been said that if you tell the truth you don't have to worry about remembering. I can see that logic and agree one hundred per cent. When I'm writing these blogs of mine I strive to be as honest as possible with my observations and opinions. There are times when I just don't say a thing not wanting to offend unnecessarily. I'm not writing these posts for the sensational, that would be too easy. Yellow journalism isn't my thing. But often when I begin to write I am concerned about repeating myself. Having been posting these blogs for over nine years, almost daily, that will happen. Sometimes I remember and go back to have a look. I wonder if I am contradicting myself. What were my thoughts back then?
I guess the question to be answered is, does the truth change? Or more correctly, does your truth change? Yes we can certainly change our opinion on subjects, see it from a different point of view, but does that change the truth? If we are in search of truth, truth must be a constant. I am a believer in fact. There are indisputable, eternal, unchanging facts. I also believe we must decide upon those facts or be forever lost and wandering. In the end you have to decide. I find that a recurring theme for me. It isn't because I have doubts, it is because others apparently reach completely opposite views. I am left wondering how that can be, when what is decided is based on facts. Indisputable, irrevocable, universal truth. When facts are combined with logical reasoning I expect the conclusion to be the same. Is that what troubled Spock in Star Trek? It isn't logical? Yes, I guess that it is and what is missing? Emotions, human emotion. That is the variable that troubled Spock and a variable that enters into all our thinking.
Emotions certainly influence everything I write or think. I do tend to be a bit sentimental. At the same time I was raised in New England, with those New England sensibilities. Stoic is the word that best describes that. New Englanders are traditionally known for that quality. Many times that stoicism is mistaken for a lack of emotion. That isn't the truth. New Englanders are just as emotional as everyone else. What we are talking about is culture. It's a cultural thing. A learned behavior. I was taught to set aside emotion when making decisions that didn't directly affect an individual. I was taught we should react, for the common good. Remember it was the New Englanders that started a revolution! Had those New Englanders only been concerned with their own fortunes I'm certain things would have gone quite differently. But it was decided, a revolution was best for the common good. A revolution is what we got. That revolution wasn't entered into by a bunch of emotional hotheads. Those that orchestrated that revolution were stable, steady, merchants, landowners, and leaders. The emotional response, the theartics of the whole deal was left to the common man. And the common man had been influenced by what? The media of the day, just as the common man is influenced today. It was that, that mobilized the masses to revolt. The common man fought and died. That has ever been so and will no doubt continue.
The whole problem as I see it, centers around emotion. As I like to point out emotions are great motivators but seldom great leaders. Emotions can get you labeled and quickly. There are a number of names applied to the emotional man, most not very favorable. At least not favorable until after the fact, when the result is known. Then praise is heaped upon them. An emotional response! So just how do we combine emotion and logic? I say that we can't. Emotions often have no logical explanation. That doesn't mean they are wrong, just that there is no fact to base that on. Like a piece of art, where one sees beauty, another sees nothing at all. And then I realize a simple fact, I get emotional about the truth! My truth. A contradiction? Not to me it isn't. If your truth doesn't agree with mine, then it's a problem. But is the problem mine or yours? That is where the truth will be found.
I guess the question to be answered is, does the truth change? Or more correctly, does your truth change? Yes we can certainly change our opinion on subjects, see it from a different point of view, but does that change the truth? If we are in search of truth, truth must be a constant. I am a believer in fact. There are indisputable, eternal, unchanging facts. I also believe we must decide upon those facts or be forever lost and wandering. In the end you have to decide. I find that a recurring theme for me. It isn't because I have doubts, it is because others apparently reach completely opposite views. I am left wondering how that can be, when what is decided is based on facts. Indisputable, irrevocable, universal truth. When facts are combined with logical reasoning I expect the conclusion to be the same. Is that what troubled Spock in Star Trek? It isn't logical? Yes, I guess that it is and what is missing? Emotions, human emotion. That is the variable that troubled Spock and a variable that enters into all our thinking.
Emotions certainly influence everything I write or think. I do tend to be a bit sentimental. At the same time I was raised in New England, with those New England sensibilities. Stoic is the word that best describes that. New Englanders are traditionally known for that quality. Many times that stoicism is mistaken for a lack of emotion. That isn't the truth. New Englanders are just as emotional as everyone else. What we are talking about is culture. It's a cultural thing. A learned behavior. I was taught to set aside emotion when making decisions that didn't directly affect an individual. I was taught we should react, for the common good. Remember it was the New Englanders that started a revolution! Had those New Englanders only been concerned with their own fortunes I'm certain things would have gone quite differently. But it was decided, a revolution was best for the common good. A revolution is what we got. That revolution wasn't entered into by a bunch of emotional hotheads. Those that orchestrated that revolution were stable, steady, merchants, landowners, and leaders. The emotional response, the theartics of the whole deal was left to the common man. And the common man had been influenced by what? The media of the day, just as the common man is influenced today. It was that, that mobilized the masses to revolt. The common man fought and died. That has ever been so and will no doubt continue.
The whole problem as I see it, centers around emotion. As I like to point out emotions are great motivators but seldom great leaders. Emotions can get you labeled and quickly. There are a number of names applied to the emotional man, most not very favorable. At least not favorable until after the fact, when the result is known. Then praise is heaped upon them. An emotional response! So just how do we combine emotion and logic? I say that we can't. Emotions often have no logical explanation. That doesn't mean they are wrong, just that there is no fact to base that on. Like a piece of art, where one sees beauty, another sees nothing at all. And then I realize a simple fact, I get emotional about the truth! My truth. A contradiction? Not to me it isn't. If your truth doesn't agree with mine, then it's a problem. But is the problem mine or yours? That is where the truth will be found.
No comments:
Post a Comment