Truth Matters

                Growing up I acquired a value for truth. I was not only taught in my home that truth matters, but I also acquired a few tools in school for assessing the truth of a claim. It wasn’t until I began studying history in graduate school that I first encountered open despisers of truth. It was a school of thought, loosely called postmodernism, that emphasized the role that text plays in power relationships over truth. For these postmodernists power concerns so dominate everything that truth is not only unattainable, it is not even relevant except as a rhetorical device needing deconstruction. All that matters is the portrayal of truth by political and social actors. I quickly discovered that the postmodernist discussion of truth mires down in a morass of contextual equivocations and cultural relativism. For these thinkers, arriving at the truth of a claim often implies supporting the abuse of power and oppression. In this way they moralize truth to the margins of consideration. Truth does not matter to those in this school of thought.

                As some years passed, I came across another set of truth despisers. While going through a rather extensive and prolonged crisis of faith, I wrestled with the truth claims within the religion of my forefathers. These truth claims produced some difficult contradictions but they were indeed verifiable and falsifiable. I wanted them to be true, but the evidence came up short. As I struggled to reconcile such contradictions many a friend, relation, or church apologist would quip, “What does it matter? It makes me happy. Even if the entire gospel was proved wrong, I would still choose to believe it because it brings me joy.” These well-meaning individuals place a high value on the feelings and relationships that they associate with the truth claims I find to be false; so much so that, ultimately, the truth of such claims do not matter to them.

                Truth does matter. Choosing to believe something over and against the truth is not a virtue. Placing concerns for power or social relationships above the truth lays a weak foundation for further inquiry and produces a framework for potential abuse. Ignoring the truth or accepting falsified truth claims leads to all the pitfalls associated with using an inaccurate map on a backcountry expedition. A bad map can produce everything from minor inconveniences to deadly accidents. In this material world we pursue truth in the face of many obstacles. We access the reality around us with our senses and this leaves us in an epistemological box of sorts. We can overcome this limitation through combining our efforts in open inquiry where reason and evidence provide a basis for collaboration and argument concerning the truth.

                We live in a material world that requires us to interact with it appropriately or die. A set of varied conditions constrain us. Either we step carefully along the path by the cliff’s edge or we plummet to a sudden death. We work and cooperate with others and then we can eat, drink, and sleep indoors. We drive on the right side of the road in cooperation with oncoming traffic in order to avoid life threatening collisions. Since our lives and existence depend on a range of material needs and conditions, we must have an accurate understanding of our environment and its ever changing dynamic. Given this very real circumstance, collectively adopting an unverified or falsified map when other more accurate maps are available is just dangerous. A map is only as good as its correspondence and congruence to the terrain that it represents. If I were to take an expedition through a desert that I had not previously traversed, I would have a range of options. I could use a state of the art Global Positioning System (GPS) that relies on satellite communication to show my location on a digital map. Or, I could use a U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographical map produced by professional surveyors. Or, I could use a map my great-grandfather possessed that was drawn based on hearsay from those who heard the various accounts of people who went into that country (the actual methodology of early European map makers). To openly choose the latter map is obviously irresponsible and foolish. Moreover, given the material realities of our world, to select such an inaccurate map would prove dangerous and actually produce accidents. Making the decision to cross a desert based on the map’s represented size could turn deadly if the terrain in reality was two or three times larger causing one to not bring enough necessary supplies. Or, using such a faulty map to decide to take a particularly dangerous approach to a high mountain peak could bring the climber to an unseen drop off and a fatal accident. An inaccurate map is deadly and any benefits associated with its use come in spite of it, not because of it.

                Like a map, a system of ideas that claims to represent a seen world and its interaction with an unseen world can only be beneficial to the degree that it is accurate and congruent with reality. Religious views, scriptures, and even cultural traditions all make claims about how the material world operates.  I stumbled along with one such map in my young adult years. I received the knowledge from my parents and church leaders that a loving God governed everything that was and that He provided me with a map: the Holy Scriptures in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, I acquired a view that God gave me an unseen spirit to guide me: the gift of the Holy Ghost. For numerous years I used this fundamental paradigm to guide my every thought, question, and decision. I studied the scriptures regularly to find inspiration and understanding about the world and what God wanted me to do. I prayed to God in hopes that He would send me guidance and truth through the quiet whisperings of the Holy Ghost. Of course these whisperings were never audible but more akin to feelings and impressions on my mind. For quite some time this map seemed to work, but there were always outliers, exceptions to the rule. Over time, these incongruities, little failures in the story to represent reality, began to pile up.

One particular difficulty arose in the expectations this map gave me. The stories I read in the scriptures described great men of faith who performed many miracles and received profound truths about the universe and God. I understood that if I had that kind of faith, if I was obedient to that degree, I could expect similar results. The map indicated that it would be so. Over time, as I used this map to make my way through this world I did not experience those expectations. I did try to impose and project these supposed results on a number of mundane aspects of my life, yet, in the end, deep down, I knew that the outcomes imprinted on the map were not there. I realized the map was bad. It relied on hearsay from those who heard the various accounts of others who never stood accountable for their claims. The whisperings of the Holy Ghost were my own feelings and emotions powerfully marshaled to serve the claims of the scriptures and religious community promulgating the map. I also came to see that this map was layered with justifications designed to explain away and obscure its own failings. I then knew that years of my brief life were forever lost to bumbling around with a deficient and inaccurate map. Of course, my experience pales in comparison to friends who are homosexual where this same map describes them as abominations not worthy of recognition as people. Truth matters.

Herein lays the problem with embracing an untruth because it makes me happy. The given superstition or religious belief may bring a feeling of happiness for any number of reasons, but its untrue aspects make that happiness untenable and brings avoidable harm on others. Happiness based on something falsified or willfully unexamined is accidental. At some point, the believer necessarily brushes up against reality and then faces a dilemma: defend the inaccurate belief, modify it so that it conforms to reality, or abandon it. I grew up under the teaching that homosexual identity and behavior was sinful. Homosexuals did not deserve rights or protections under the law because their behavior was wrong. I accepted this and then met and got to know a few people who identified as homosexual. As I grew to appreciate these individuals, their lives contradicted my beliefs. Over time I could find nothing especially sinful in their behavior or existence. It caused me to question not only the belief but its source. I eventually abandoned the entire map because this was one of many inaccuracies I discovered.

I could have chosen to modify the belief in some way or just to defend the belief: homosexuals only seem to be happy or some such explanation. The pressure to defend it was connected to a state of happiness that I enjoyed. My family and community all embraced this belief and the religion it arose within. To reject the belief and map, of which it was a part, would make waves and cause unhappiness to myself and others. Also, there were other aspects of the religion I really enjoyed. Ultimately I refused to defend the belief because to defend it felt like an unethical act carried out only to justify a supposed good end: my happiness. To defend a falsehood in order to maintain my happiness just felt wrong. Truth makes one free—lies and bullshit just hide and obscure. Religious beliefs do not stay in the supernatural world, as such they cannot receive a free pass from scrutiny. God speaks and angels visit the earth with commands that affect real people. God’s word on homosexuals has brought about persecution, abuse, self-loathing, suicide, and murder. Defending such a belief because it makes me happy is just wrong. Truth matters.

A map is not the terrain it represents. As such, any map will fail in corresponding perfectly. A perfect map would be the ground itself and thus not of any use or value practically. Furthermore, our access to reality is necessarily mediated by our senses and mental constructions—what I call an epistemological box. These two factors alone create insurmountable difficulties in our quest for accurate representations of reality and perfect truth claims. As human beings our understandings are necessarily limited. Some face this reality and then claim that this creates an “anything goes” environment. Such thinkers assert that since perfection and absolute truth claims are unattainable all claims are equally valid and invalid. By analogy, this is as absurd as claiming since one cannot perfectly sterilize a room for surgery it does not matter where one performs a medical operation. Operating inside a septic tank is as good as a surgical room according to this line of reasoning. Another approach made to establish equivalency among all truth claims is the parable of the blind men who encounter an elephant. The blind man who feels the trunk describes the elephant as long and thin. Another describes the elephant as wide and flat like a wall. Another as thin and wispy based on encountering the tail. The fallacy in this parable lays in the presupposition that these blind men are incapable of collaborating or working together. It also assumes that their investigation stops with their initial inquiry. Through working together and exploring further over time, these blind men would be capable of acquiring a reliably accurate description or map for an elephant.

                Through coming together in an open inquiry we can reduce or outright overcome the limitations in knowing the truth of various claims about reality. The use of evidence derived from experiments and observations can serve as a foundation for such inquiries. Reasonable arguments and rules of critical thinking can refine the inquiry and help avoid common pitfalls of inaccurate thinking. Eliminating authoritarian dominance by embracing an open approach makes real progress toward truth possible. The use of reasonable argument and evidence must be available to any actor willing to participate in this collective inquiry if we are to arrive at any kind of accurate account of reality. To hold onto a belief simply because an authority pronounces it leads to the perpetuation of bad maps. The human brain, by its very structure and design, provides us with the ability to recognize patterns and relationships around us in order to make predictions—to anticipate circumstances prone to change and volatility. This singular feature of being human has contributed greatly to the success of our species. To circumvent this feature, to compromise it willingly to “be happy” or for any other reason leaves us bereft of the capacity and tools necessary to successfully navigate life and society. Truth matters.

On Mattering

               We exist in an increasingly complicated world. Problems multiply and become more complex with each passing generation. Technological breakthroughs occur at an exponential rate to such a degree that they shrink our world while human population numbers explode. Most of us subsist in faceless, modern societies where our circumstances seem entirely beyond our control. Economies falter. Disasters happen. What can we do? How can our efforts make any difference in the face of such conditions? The more poignant question is how do we matter in such a context. It is in this setting that cultivating a value for mattering can be of great worth. Mattering is one of those values that encompasses and promotes other values: honesty and truth.

                The notion that we stand powerless before a multitude of conditions beyond our control is not a new one.  The idea that fate or deterministic elements control our existence runs very deep. Philosophers and various thinkers over the past centuries have probed the nature of these conditions. Some, like the ancient Stoic philosopher Epictatus, suggest that we are like a dog tied to a cart. We don’t have control over where the cart goes but we do have the choice as to whether we run along with the cart or are dragged behind it. While useful to a degree, this metaphor is overly simplistic. An immensely varied set of deterministic elements presses upon us.   A milieu of natural and human caused conditions limits our sphere of control, and thus restricts our options severely. Do we submit to a notion of determinism or put our faith in some sort of radical liberalism? While a multitude of authors have written volumes on the question of free will, I submit that pursuing an idea of influence is a valuable course of action.

                The more modest goal of influence relieves us of the unattainable urge to control. To pursue an influence on conditions around us also alleviates anxieties about our future and viability. By its very definition, the concept of influence limits the expectations we may have as we act upon our circumstances. The mere effort to ameliorate our conditions becomes a victory because in seeking to influence we recognize the impossibility of outright control. When I wake in the morning, I know that items will arise beyond my power, but I am also confident that I can influence certain aspects of whatever situation may arise. Philosophically, I have abandoned control for a more measured, realistic aim to simply influence my environment in its many aspects. Psychologically, I find satisfaction in mattering and seeing that I can make a difference. The more realistic ambition to assert influence maximizes my capacity to do so by avoiding the despondency inherent to striving for control. Efforts to control can lead to frustration and our very undoing.

                I have had the opportunity recently to read the play Oedipus Rex by Sophocles with my high school English class. This play really challenged my students’ sense that if one works hard enough, any circumstance can be overcome.  Yet, it offers a model for how seeking to make a difference through exerting influence may be the only viable option in certain situations. The play opens with Oedipus setting out to get rid of the plague that afflicts his city. He learns that the city-wide illness is a punishment for the crime a member of the city committed. Of course, Oedipus is the criminal in question but he does not know it. His parents had sent him away when an infant in an effort to contravene a prophecy that revealed that Oedipus would one day murder his father and marry his mother. Ironically, his parent’s efforts to control the outcome of this prophecy set up the conditions for its fulfillment. Years later Oedipus does in fact murder his father and marry his mother. The seer, whom Oedipus has consulted, warns him that he should stop seeking the murderer. Oedipus persists undeterred. He declares that he will find the murderer out and banish him. Through a series of inquiries and careful interviews Oedipus discovers the truth. He is the criminal that is the root cause of the plague. Though he unknowingly committed the crime and the act had been decreed by the Fates, Oedipus is nonetheless guilty of these heinous acts. Being the man that Oedipus is he gouges out his eyes in anguish at seeing such a horrible truth and banishes himself from the city he rules in order to spare it from the gods’ punishment. Of course my students thought that this was a horrible story. Oedipus is in an unwinnable situation but he does matter. He makes a difference for good in his given circumstances and therein lays his heroism. He faces the discomfiting truth and then takes on the hard task necessary to relieve the suffering of the people he rules. Much is beyond his control, but this one act is within his range of influence.

                To my thinking this is sometimes the best that we can hope for: just to matter. Mattering is not about control. Oedipus was anything but in control. One of my students described him as a ship thrown about by Fate. Nothing he could do would change the horror of what he had done and Fate had decreed.  Yet he did act. He acted boldly and with a measure of abandon. When it was time to take on the difficult task he did it. The real solution to the problem of the plague had a high price. Only after an exhausting search for truth with honesty could he understand the situation enough to make the difference.

                The value of mattering needs other values such as honesty and truth in order to operate within our lives. Oedipus boldly seeks and accepts the truth in order to then act upon it and solve the problem of the plague. Everyone Oedipus encounters in Sophocles’ play discourages him from pursuing his line of inquiry because the truth threatened to destroy his comfortable status. If he had not pressed on he would have continued to be the king in a state of self-delusion. However, the city would have continued to languish under the divinely appointed plague. Oedipus would have failed to solve the problem and his efforts would not have mattered. He would not have mattered. Mattering, making a difference for good, and exerting influence require honesty with one’s self. Self-delusion and ignorance do not augment the authentic self. Without authenticity we cannot even matter to ourselves.

                By embracing the value of mattering, we can also pursue a life of substance where our choices, words, and actions do influence the world in which we live. Being able to say, “I matter!” in the face of our intractable world is truly a value worth pursuing, embracing, and incorporating into our very being.

On Possibility

          A relatively newcomer to the scene of contending values, the value of possibility provides an array of goods for society and the individual. One cannot problem solve or innovate without a range of possibilities at his or her disposal. The increasing complexity of our civilization and its problems demands ever increasing options in the face of pressures towards uniformity. All too often we find ourselves trapped within some sort of either/or box without the capacity to imagine a solution or route of escape. Without the capacity to perceive possibilities one cannot muster the necessary divergent thinking to create anything remotely new. Possibility then is the very antithesis of tradition and the ruts caused by everyday thinking. The great challenge in possibility lies in application. It is easy enough to acknowledge the value of possibility but quite another matter to maximize the possibilities in our lives. To address this challenge we have an important book available to us, The Art of Possibility by Rosamund Stone Zander and Benjamin Zander. The Zanders have collaborated to bring the expertise of an accomplished psychotherapist (Rosamund) and the creative genius of the conductor of the Boston Philharmonic (Benjamin) together on the value of possibility.

            The Art of Possibility is a how-to book that is unlike any other self-help book you may have read. Rather than provide strategies to overcome the various obstacles in our competitive lives and get ahead, this book offers a way to rise above our judgment laden world and fly into a universe full of possibilities. The fundamental tenet of the book is that what possibilities are available to us depend in a measure upon how we define ourselves. What story do we tell? What role do we play in that story? This book is not about making incremental changes. It attempts to cause “a total shift of posture, perceptions, beliefs, and thought processes.” Ben and Rosamund hope to transform our entire world. I first read this book a year ago, and since that reading, I have come back to it again and again for the vista expanding riches it offers.

            The Zanders make a fundamental claim that no institution has a wide enough level of acceptance or hegemony sufficiently expansive to create values. In fact, much of the value creation is left to our economic system of free markets: a form of mindless populism that ironically performs without values (other than drives for profit, etc.). Here is where the arts and creative fields can step in and offer new energy, insights, consciousness, and interpersonal connections. The arts can provide the means to recreate the way our world operates, its very structure to something that maximizes creativity. The Zanders offer a path for expanding our possibilities as individuals and communities.

            The Zanders organize the book around twelve practices or principles that increase the levels of possibility and creativity in our lives. One of the first is that view that it is all invented. Our brains are narrative writing devices designed to explain and anticipate the conditions of the world in which we live. As such, we are ultimately the authors of this story. It is all a story that we tell. As such we can revise, rewrite, expand, or completely re-conceive the narrative. As the Zanders put it, “Every problem, every dilemma, every dead end we find ourselves facing in life, only appears unsolvable inside a particular frame or point of view. Enlarge the box, or create another frame around the data, and problems vanish, while new opportunities appear.” One point the Zanders do not address as well as they could have is the way that many stories are not of our own creation but have been imposed upon us from our infancy. The path to fully embrace this view of life would necessarily involve a bit of rebellion against narratives firmly entrenched in our thinking habits. A lifetime of traditional narratives designed to oppress and keep us in our limited and traditional roles can be a daunting obstacle.

            Another change the Zanders offer involves moving out of goal oriented task thinking. Rather than set up benchmarks for our success, we should create a vision for what we could be or what our world could become. Once this dream is in place, we step into that dream and out of the world of measurement. Anxiety over how we measure up or how our work will be received stifles our possibilities and suppresses our passion. Constantly comparing ourselves to others imposes hierarchies that either give us a false sense of accomplishment or debilitating discouragement. Views of the world that emphasize scarcity of resources or accolades limit our perception and awareness of opportunities just below the surface. The Zanders advocate that we change the context of our thinking: step away from the measurement world and step into the dream allowing life to unfold full of possibilities. A practice that guides us toward this shift in outlook is called “Giving an A”. Taken from a classroom experience where Benjamin Zander gave the entire class an “A” on the first day of school, “Giving an A”  removes the measurement world and presents a vision to live into. “Giving an A” assumes the best and gives people the respect that allows them to realize their best selves. “This ‘A’ is not an expectation to live up to, but a possibility to live into.” Through giving an “A” we allow those we meet to escape the “stranglehold of judgment” and free ourselves from the measurement world as well.

            Many of the principles and practices that the Zanders offer stand in a delicious tension with one another. One of the criticisms I have often had with self-help books is that they place an unrealistic burden on the individual and overstate one’s ability to control an array of environmental constraints. The Zanders escape this tendency, in my view, through maintaining conceptual tensions. For example, the Zanders instruct us to be a contribution. “In the game of contribution you wake up each day and bask in the notion that you are a gift to others.” Another similar practice is to lead from any chair by giving way to our passion. Stop holding back out of fear and spark the possibility in others. Enroll them into our possibility. Then we read about “Rule Number 6” which states, “Don’t take yourself so seriously!” Another example of such a tension exists in the outlook of “Being the Board”. To be the board refers to approaching life as though in a board game where we recognize that our assumptions contribute to how the “board” is set up rather than just focusing on the moveable pieces. Owning that our assumptions make certain things possible helps us avoid downward spiral talk and instead focuses us on radiating possibility. “Gracing yourself with responsibility for everything that happens in your life leaves your spirit whole and leaves you free to choose again.” Be the board and we are free to direct our attention to what we want to see happen instead of what we need “to win or fight or fix.” This is a focus on making a difference not gaining control. Yet, the Zanders also recognize the importance of seeing circumstances as they really are. They call this principle “It is what it is”. Possibility is all around but rooted in reality.

            The Zanders provide a treasure trove of insights into how to maximize possibility in our individual lives and communities. I highly recommend this text for the practical approach it offers to making a virtue of possibility. The value of possibility needs to expand and grow across our world if we are to meet the challenges that face us.

On Values and Virtues

          I had an interesting conversation with an Evangelical Christian a couple of years ago. He was very interested in talking with me upon learning that I was a former Mormon. He immediately asked if I was an atheist. He had met a lot of former Mormons and found many of them had become atheists. When I told him that I was indeed an atheist, he contradicted me and informed me that I was not an atheist. Needless to say, I was perplexed. I was speechless. He continued to explain that I believed in God because I held onto values. If I was truly an atheist I would not accept values like truth, justice, and freedom. All of these values come from God and cannot exist without God as their source. Thus the existence of values proves God’s existence and even reflects that deep down I still believe. Such was his claim. Beyond his circular logic, fallacious thinking, and flat out lack of respect, he was wrong. Values have a much more complex and rich origin. Values, like emergent properties in chemistry, arise out of the interest, interaction, and shared experiences of lived communities. Real people striving to live lives of meaning and substance share those values. What we do with them determines whether they become virtues that are a part of us or not.

            Of course my Evangelical acquaintance was simply employing a rhetorical strategy to refute my atheist position. But, his view does illustrate a common understanding of values among many believers. Values such as honesty, kindness, compassion, and justice exist independent of human nature. Moreover, they exist dependent on God. For such faithful, one can best realize these values in his or her life by approaching and worshiping God. As such, many of this mindset see our contemporary society as in a state of crisis when traditional values like sexual purity become less accepted generally. A plurality of religious views can also appear very threatening to this demographic because only the true worship of the true God will yield the benefit of realized values in our broader society. Such religionists also bemoan this lack of shared values because it undermines the communal effort to cultivate the right virtues in the lives of individual members of society. This mistaken view fails to accurately account for how values emerge, transform, and recede in our civilization.

            Values are coded shortcuts for desirable behaviors, feelings, and relationships in our shared life-world. They are primarily shared and transcend many of the boundaries that divide up the various aspects of our world. The value of kindness has a desirable place among individuals, families, and even professional settings. In short, values are the goods that we desire. The more extensive and deep the desired for good, the more prominent and powerful the value.

            Virtues then are the habituated realization of such values in our everyday lives. Virtues are values so ingrained into our character that even our impulse reactions are in accordance to that value. Of course moralizers preach virtues as though there is an essential list all of us should cultivate and possess. In truth, the emergence of virtues in us comes from a complex cultivation of thoughts and actions in concert with the experiences, relationships, and predispositions we have. A virtue is far more complex than a simple ideal or some code one selects to live by.

            In short, values are emergent properties of the communities in which we live. An emergent property is a property that emerges from the collection of constituent parts. An emergent property cannot be found in any one individual member of the constituting parts. More importantly, an emergent property does not have any manner of existence independent from its constituent parts. For example, in chemistry, salt has the property of saltiness when we taste it. Saltiness is an emergent property of Sodium Chloride, the chemical compound for salt. Yet, the property of saltiness is not present in Sodium or Chlorine separately. Also, one is hard pressed to find the ideal form of saltiness floating around in the Ether somewhere. Put some salt on your baked potato and it tastes salty. The sociologist Emile Durkheim first developed the idea that properties of social systems emerge from social interactions in the early twentieth century and Talcott Parsons expanded the concept. Lived communities that stretch through the ages produce these values. As emergent properties, values ride on a tide of history, contending interests, and shared desires of real people but not independent of them.

            Once values and virtues have emerged they do have a guiding force. They become a foundation for action. They give us motivation, direction, and a strong sense for the way the world ought to be. How we live in proximity to these values even gives us a sense of worth and a measure of self-esteem. Values and virtues present us a way to matter in the world. Hence institutions and organizations of many types have sought to establish a monopoly on what values and virtues count. These institutions also create mechanisms to disseminate their values and inculcate them into others, children and youth in particular.

            Our task then is to explore these powerful features of our life-world. The world is far smaller than it has ever been before due to the exponential explosion of technological advancement in communication and transportation. A clash of contending values rages across the land. There are winners and losers. Values such as honor recede while others like equality of opportunity expand (as seen in the civil rights movement). There is an ongoing tension between a longing for unity in the face of pluralism and liberty under the weight of hegemony. In this context we must come to grasp how we receive and discover values, many of which date back millennia. Most importantly, by what criteria could we evaluate a set of values? How does one create a value?

*The foregoing paper speaks in general and vague terms. Subsequent entries will be rooted in much more concrete material rife with examples.