"This is my truth"

[DapperButch]

Ok, so the first time I ever saw this statement was on the dash site.

The first time I read it I thought...what does that mean, exactly? Is that just another way of saying, "This is what I believe"? If so, why not just say that?

The statement sounds so awkward to my ears, for some reason. I figured that over time it would stop sounding this way, but it just doesn't.

So, my question (to anyone who wants to answer), am I understanding this statement correctly? If not, what does it mean?

I hear the statement more and more, so I am thinking that I really need to be more clear about what it means for communication purposes!

Disclaimer: This thread is not directed towards any person or any situation where this may have been said. No subtext here, just another case of my "wondering out loud" and wanting to hear from others.

[Bootboi]

I think sometimes it may be as simple as the perception of a certain word.

"I believe" Gives the perception of judgement. Where "My truth" is more personally directed and giving the feeling of no personal judgement to other people's beliefs.

My .2 cents

[dreadgeek]

I think sometimes it may be as simple as the perception of a certain word.

"I believe" Gives the perception of judgement. Where "My truth" is more personally directed and giving the feeling of no personal judgement to other people's beliefs.

My .2 cents

Bootboi:

See, I get exactly the opposite.

Here's the difference to me:

"I believe" means "Here is how I think the world works. I may or may not have good reasons for it. It might be wishful thinking. I might be right. I might be wrong. I do not necessarily expect you to take my belief seriously."

"This is true to me" means "Here is how the world works. I have very good reasons for saying this. I do not seriously entertain the possibility that I'm wrong about this. "

The first statement seems to me to be less about judgement and more about simple acknowledgement of what is going on in one's own head and is a statement saying that one's level of certainty is at a level that is less than entirely compelling for others. The second statement seems to be more about making a judgement. Because something being true means we should expect the world to *actually* be that way.

I believe that the European social democratic model is a more economically stable, rational and humane way to order a society than the American laissez-faire capitalist model. While I think that my reasons for believing this are fairly strong and I think I can make a pretty damn good empirical case for it, I'm certainly not prepared to say that it is true. Meaning I don't necessarily expect the world to be obliged to be that way.

On the other hand, I know that it is a true statement that Earth orbits the sun. I know it is a true statement that ordinary water is two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. I have very good reasons for believing so. I would be rather surprised to wake up tomorrow morning to find out that the Sun orbits the Earth or that ordinary water is actually comprised of three carbon atoms and four iron atoms. The world is actually obliged to be a certain way because if it were not that way, then something else would be true. I think a statement can be said to be true when it would be perverse to withhold at least provisional assent.

My problem with the 'this is true for me' statement is that if I am going to behave as if that statement has any coherence to it, I'm going to have to *at minimum* treat your statement as if your reasons for believing it are sufficiently strong that I should accept those reasons as valid--at least in my dealings with you. They may not be valid and your statement may be seriously contradicted by evidence.

Cheers
Aj

[Blade]

I'm with you Dapper I don't get it...perhaps I'm learning disabled

[dreadgeek]

I'm with you Dapper I don't get it...perhaps I'm learning disabled

I have been trying to understand it for 20 years now. I still cannot make it make sense to me. The minute I acknowledge the other 7 billion of y'all 'this is my *truth*' just falls completely to shreds.

I like to think I have some brain cells I can rub together and generate heat and I can't make head or tails of it.

Cheers
Aj

[DapperButch]

I have been trying to understand it for 20 years now. I still cannot make it make sense to me. The minute I acknowledge the other 7 billion of y'all 'this is my *truth*' just falls completely to shreds.

I like to think I have some brain cells I can rub together and generate heat and I can't make head or tails of it.

Cheers
Aj

I'm thinking it means, "This is what I believe" + "no matter what you say nothing will change this belief I have"

and/or

"This is what I believe" + "And this is something I know in the deepest part of my soul"

I would really love to hear from people who use this phrase.

[1PlayfulFemme]

I'm thinking it means, "This is what I believe" + "no matter what you say nothing will change this belief I have"

and/or

"This is what I believe" + "And this is something I know in the deepest part of my soul"

I would really love to hear from people who use this phrase.

*Smiling* Having used this phrase, when I say it, I truly mean that it's a truth in my life, in my personal situation...and something I have learned that applies to me. It's stronger than a belief to me..it's a truth...but, when I say it, I accept that the emphasis for me is on the word "My". I'm not asking anyone to accept it for their own or to break it down so that it makes sense to them.

To me, it's the difference between saying "I want pizza for dinner" (I.E. Open to discussion, suggestions still..."I believe") and "I'm having pizza for dinner (I.E. NOT open for discussion or suggestions...YOU may have whatever you want...but, I'm having pizza! :) "My truth")

I don't know if that helped or hindered, but when I say it, that's what I mean. Also. When I say it, it's usually something that came from a lesson (Or more likely a series of them) that is prevalent only to me.

And when I say it, I do tend to be saying, I'm not judging or asking for judgement (tho I usually understand some may come) but your opinion won't change it for me. If I use the phrase, it's about a personal truth, growth, experience...and not a thing to do with true logistics about the world around us. I would never say "It's my truth" to refer to the moon affecting gravity...that's everyones truth...the difference between a truth and a fact I suppose.

What's true for me may not be (and usually isn't..thus versatility) true for you. By saying "it's my truth" I am saying, I get that your ideas may be very different, but this is my reality.

The last example I can think of (before I bore you to tears) is that part of "my truth" is the fact that I am a lesbian...therefore the politics surrounding gay marriage/civil unions is huge to me. I know straight people who can claim that truth, and I know gay people who don't want to claim that truth. To each their own, but it's part of my truth, my life...my essence. I hope that all made sense..somewhere in my rambling!!!!

[DapperButch]

*Smiling* Having used this phrase, when I say it, I truly mean that it's a truth in my life, in my personal situation...and something I have learned that applies to me. It's stronger than a belief to me..it's a truth...but, when I say it, I accept that the emphasis for me is on the word "My". I'm not asking anyone to accept it for their own or to break it down so that it makes sense to them.

To me, it's the difference between saying "I want pizza for dinner" (I.E. Open to discussion, suggestions still..."I believe") and "I'm having pizza for dinner (I.E. NOT open for discussion or suggestions...YOU may have whatever you want...but, I'm having pizza! :) "My truth")

I don't know if that helped or hindered, but when I say it, that's what I mean. Also. When I say it, it's usually something that came from a lesson (Or more likely a series of them) that is prevalent only to me.

And when I say it, I do tend to be saying, I'm not judging or asking for judgement (tho I usually understand some may come) but your opinion won't change it for me. If I use the phrase, it's about a personal truth, growth, experience...and not a thing to do with true logistics about the world around us. I would never say "It's my truth" to refer to the moon affecting gravity...that's everyones truth...the difference between a truth and a fact I suppose.

What's true for me may not be (and usually isn't..thus versatility) true for you. By saying "it's my truth" I am saying, I get that your ideas may be very different, but this is my reality.

The last example I can think of (before I bore you to tears) is that part of "my truth" is the fact that I am a lesbian...therefore the politics surrounding gay marriage/civil unions is huge to me. I know straight people who can claim that truth, and I know gay people who don't want to claim that truth. To each their own, but it's part of my truth, my life...my essence. I hope that all made sense..somewhere in my rambling!!!!

Yes. Thank you. Very helpful!

[1PlayfulFemme]

Another quickie..

A friend who recently had some severe health problems used this phrase when telling me that her personal truth was that she would die before 40 if she didn't change her habits. She doesn't believe it to be true...she knows it to be true...and it only applies to her (not to others in her circle). No room for argument or debate...it's a fact of her life.

[AtLast]

Just isn't about right or wrong to me (that is judgement). What I believe to be my truth has accumulated over decades with a lot of trial and error- a process. A fluid process. I don't know that I want to close out possibilities that could enrich or transform what I hold as personal truth. I do know, however, that I want what I do offer as my truth to be respected by others no matter what stage of self integration it is in.

[DapperButch]

I don't know...I still think it is such an awkward phrase. Does anyone else think this? Maybe b/c I never heard it IRL (in real life)? I have never actually heard someone say the phrase, just read it.

In thinking more about it...it feels almost "uncomfortable" (can't think of a better word at this point). Like, it feels off putting. It feels like the person is saying, "step back", or "case closed". Or almost like you insulted the person. Yes...that is what it is...I think that a lot of the times I have seen it used, it has been in response to something that insulted the person and/or it was almost used in a way to shame the person for having "questioned" them.

However, by the same token, I have seen it used in just a random post where there has not been any engagement at all and the person is just using it as an exclamation point, of sorts.

I don't know...the phrase has just always disturbed me.

---------

ETA: OR maybe it seems like the person is saying "this is my opinion, so you can't argue it", instead of just the "this is what I believe in my soul" definition I used earlier.

I dunno. Others thoughts?

P.S. I have never felt there being a "judgment" attached to it. Meaning, when the person uses the phrase, I do not see them as speaking to the other person's thoughts on the specific topic. I see them as only speaking to their own thinking on the subject. Does this make sense? I am not sure why I am having such a hard time flushing my thoughts out on this.

[apretty]

it's kind of flowery and dramatic: i can't imagine anyone saying, 'this is my truth' without simultaneously clutching her pearls.

[weatherboi]

Lol well when I have used this term I am usually not clutching any pearls but my hiney hole may be puckering!!!!


it's kind of flowery and dramatic: i can't imagine anyone saying, 'this is my truth' without simultaneously clutching her pearls.

[betenoire]

I think people say that when they feel that what they are saying is above argument / as a way of shutting down or bowing out of argument / to indicate that they are not open to exploration on the subject.

And, haha, that's -my- truth.

I could be wrong, but I don't think I've ever claimed anything as my truth. Because I absolutely get that there is much I don't know - I am uncomfortable with absolutes.

[weatherboi]

Well if you are speaking for others here then you are wrong in my case, cause i didn't use it in that manner. LOL but it is funny!!! HAHAHAHA!!!



I think people say that when they feel that what they are saying is above argument / as a way of shutting down or bowing out of argument / to indicate that they are not open to exploration on the subject.

And, haha, that's -my- truth.

I could be wrong, but I don't think I've ever claimed anything as my truth. Because I absolutely get that there is much I don't know - I am uncomfortable with absolutes.

[moxie]

I have never said it but how I have read it when I have seen it has been:

"This is what I believe to be so. This is what it is to me, so I say it is my truth. I don't want anyone to think I am making sweeping generalizations about what other people feel/think/believe as being the same as what i feel/ think/believe. I definitely don't want to start a disagreement so if I say this then hopefully it won't"

That is my interpretation. Of course it is subjective, but it's what I see it to mean when I have read it. And I have not asked the person to interpret what they mean by it.

[JustJo]

I use this phrase, and I come more from where Playful does...

If I believe something. then I think it works or is that way...can't prove it, just pretty much think that's true. I believe that it's better to be kind than cruel (unless the cruelty is a consensual thing :winky: )

If I say "my truth" then I'm not saying it's the truth for everyone...but it is for me. And it's something that goes way beyond belief or thinking or a feeling...it's my truth.

My truth is that, as a diabetic, I cannot eat and behave like non-diabetics do...or I'll probably go blind. Not true for all diabetics (because scientifically speaking there's a huge range in what diabetics can and can't do)...but it is true for me.

My truth is that I must work and be independent to a certain degree. I'm not saying it's better. I'm not saying it's "right." I'm not saying it applies to everyone. I also know that it's more than an "I belive" or an "I think"....it's a visceral thing. When I am dependent and vulnerable I panic and lash out and generally fall apart. I anticipate the worst and, if it doesn't happen, I live in constant anxiety that it will. That's my truth.

For me, when I say "my truth" the emphasis is on my, not on truth...and it applies only to me.

[Liam]

Four Types of ‘Truth’
Published by Andrew Bernardin

If a truth is the perception that “it is so,” there are different types and perhaps levels of truth.

1. personal truth

A personal truth is what is true for an individual. For example, one person may believe that chocolate ice-cream is the best. Nothing said could alter his/her perception that “it is so.” He or she may consider your own favorite, strawberry to be inedible.
Personal truths reflect physiological attributes, psychological tendencies and the learning and experiences of an individual.

2. social truth

A social truth is what a distinct group perceives to “be so.” Social truths reflect group history, customs, and values. For example, to group “A” it may be true that the neighboring group, group “B,” is the enemy and thus a threat. But group “C” might not find this to be so. Or group “A” may believe that Saturday is the holy day, while group “B” claims it is Sunday.

3. human truth

A human truth reflects and pertains to the universal dispositions and abilities of our species, Homo sapiens. To one human being there is nothing more beautiful than another human being of the opposite sex (at least for heterosexuals). But to say we are the most beautiful of creatures would reflect species-centric thought.
Many things that we consider to be inherently true probably reflect distinctive features of human psychology. For instance, because human beings are primates that readily establish and acknowledge dominance hierarchies, the human individual may be predisposed to feeling that there is or could be some entity “greater than me,” whether or not that happens to be true.

4. universal truth

A universal truth is one that all sufficiently intelligent and educated observers, from this planet or any other (should they exist), would conclude to “be so.” For instance, the proportion of a circle’s circumference to its diameter is 3.141592 ( . . . ). This is a universal truth. Any capable, unbiased individual could verify that truth. Similarly, that energy is equivalent to rest mass times the speed of light squared, is also a universal truth.
A universal truth is the only type of truth that is not relative to the person or group making the claim. Science, by and large, provides us with universal truths. Or it at least aspires to.

Religion, no doubt, reflects social truths, and perhaps, in some regards, human truths as well. While one religion maintains that person X was the real messiah, another religion, reflecting its own values, customs, and history, says, “it is not so.” All groups, however, may feel that death cannot be the complete end to life. How can something so valued be lost? Humans may be naturally inclined to envision something more, irregardless of evidence.
What believers in a religion frequently fail to do is to place possible human truths and their own social truths into a wider perspective.
—
Andrew Bernardin/2005 (revised 2008)

http://evolvingmind.info/blog/four-types-of-truth/

[SnackTime]

I use this phrase, and I come more from where Playful does...

If I believe something. then I think it works or is that way...can't prove it, just pretty much think that's true. I believe that it's better to be kind than cruel (unless the cruelty is a consensual thing :winky: )

If I say "my truth" then I'm not saying it's the truth for everyone...but it is for me. And it's something that goes way beyond belief or thinking or a feeling...it's my truth.

My truth is that, as a diabetic, I cannot eat and behave like non-diabetics do...or I'll probably go blind. Not true for all diabetics (because scientifically speaking there's a huge range in what diabetics can and can't do)...but it is true for me.

My truth is that I must work and be independent to a certain degree. I'm not saying it's better. I'm not saying it's "right." I'm not saying it applies to everyone. I also know that it's more than an "I belive" or an "I think"....it's a visceral thing. When I am dependent and vulnerable I panic and lash out and generally fall apart. I anticipate the worst and, if it doesn't happen, I live in constant anxiety that it will. That's my truth.

For me, when I say "my truth" the emphasis is on my, not on truth...and it applies only to me.

Thanks for this post! I have seen the phrase "This is My truth" or "this is true to me" used MANY times (online and in real time). Hell, I have even used the phrase before. Of course, my thought process emphasizes the ""MY" in that phrase.

To me, the phrases "I believe" and "this is my truth" are the same. It comes from a personal side. I do not find either statement to be judgemental. Again, the emphasis is based on that particular individual.

[SnackTime]

Thanks for this post! I have seen the phrase "This is My truth" or "this is true to me" used MANY times (online and in real time). Hell, I have even used the phrase before. Of course, my thought process emphasizes the ""MY" in that phrase.

To me, the phrases "I believe" and "this is my truth" are the same. It comes from a personal side. I do not find either statement to be judgemental. Again, the emphasis is based on that particular individual.

I would also like to add...There are times where we over analyze things and do not see where the emphasis is placed by the individual

[DapperButch]

It is kind of wild that one phrase can have such dramatically different interpretations, isn't it?

Isn't this kind of unusual?

Darn, if I was one who used this term I think I'd stop using it or clarify it (at least in the written word where you have no body language, facial expressions, inflections in speech, etc.), because people would have such different interpretations as to what I was saying!

[SelfMadeMan]

Great question. I say all.the.time that I am "living my truth", (yes, in RL, and no, I don't own any pearls, lol) and that others should be allowed to live theirs. What I mean specifically by that, is that I feel we each have the right, and the power to decide what is true for us, how we choose to live and be. No one else has the right to tell me how to live my life, nor do I have the right to tell them how to live theirs. It isn't really about what I believe so to speak.. just what *I* decide is right and wrong for me as an individual.

[SnackTime]

It is kind of wild that one phrase can have such dramatically different interpretations, isn't it?

Isn't this kind of unusual?

Darn, if I was one who used this term I think I'd stop using it or clarify it (at least in the written word where you have no body language, facial expressions, inflections in speech, etc.), because people would have such different interpretations as to what I was saying!

I don't see it as "one phrase can have such a dramatically different interpretation". As I stated before, if one looks at the phrase AS IT IS typed "My truth" or "this is true to Me" one will see that it is coming from a personal level.

Why stop using the phrase? I personally do not think that it needs clarification(when it comes to "I believe" or "My truth..".). I take the phrase as it is coming from a personal level. In my opinion, being able to see someone's body language or facial expression does not always matter when I am reading from the "My" truth perspective.

I have also noticed there have been times that the post is not thoroughly read. Do not get me wrong, I have been guilty of it also. That is why I try to thoroughly read and perhaps re-read the post to make sure I did not miss anything. Of course, I have not seen it in this particular thread, but I have in others.

[DapperButch]

I don't see it as "one phrase can have such a dramatically different interpretation". As I stated before, if one looks at the phrase AS IT IS typed "My truth" or "this is true to Me" one will see that it is coming from a personal level.

Why stop using the phrase? I personally do not think that it needs clarification(when it comes to "I believe" or "My truth..".). I take the phrase as it is coming from a personal level. In my opinion, being able to see someone's body language or facial expression does not always matter when I am reading from the "My" truth perspective.

I have also noticed there have been times that the post is not thoroughly read. Do not get me wrong, I have been guilty of it also. That is why I try to thoroughly read and perhaps re-read the post to make sure I did not miss anything. Of course, I have not seen it in this particular thread, but I have in others.

Hey, Snacktime.

Please know I am not being critical of the phrase. I am just wading through my thoughts on it.

It seems to me that some people read a defensive posture behind the statement, when a person may mean nothing more than, "I believe".

That's all I am saying.:)

-------------
ETA: I am thinking that some folks do not see "This is my truth" as meaning the exact same thing as "this is true for me". I personally don't. I don't know what people mean. Hence the reason I started the thread.

[gaea]

Wow a simple question has turned into quite the conversation piece...

For me saying "My" Truth" putting the emphasis on the word "my" as i have seen in other responses...It is about who i am as a person, respecting my self as well as others..

My Truth, I have 3 adult children, this may not be true for others

My Truth, i wear many many hats in this world from being a mother to my title at work to how i spend my free time...

The truth of my life isn't necessarily yours however together we can make the world a better place.

There are a ton of ways to use this phrase...

For me its personal, not guarded and in no way saying "back off", its simple actually.(for me anyway)

[AtLast]

Four Types of ‘Truth’
Published by Andrew Bernardin

If a truth is the perception that “it is so,” there are different types and perhaps levels of truth.

1. personal truth

A personal truth is what is true for an individual. For example, one person may believe that chocolate ice-cream is the best. Nothing said could alter his/her perception that “it is so.” He or she may consider your own favorite, strawberry to be inedible.
Personal truths reflect physiological attributes, psychological tendencies and the learning and experiences of an individual.

2. social truth

A social truth is what a distinct group perceives to “be so.” Social truths reflect group history, customs, and values. For example, to group “A” it may be true that the neighboring group, group “B,” is the enemy and thus a threat. But group “C” might not find this to be so. Or group “A” may believe that Saturday is the holy day, while group “B” claims it is Sunday.

3. human truth

A human truth reflects and pertains to the universal dispositions and abilities of our species, Homo sapiens. To one human being there is nothing more beautiful than another human being of the opposite sex (at least for heterosexuals). But to say we are the most beautiful of creatures would reflect species-centric thought.
Many things that we consider to be inherently true probably reflect distinctive features of human psychology. For instance, because human beings are primates that readily establish and acknowledge dominance hierarchies, the human individual may be predisposed to feeling that there is or could be some entity “greater than me,” whether or not that happens to be true.

4. universal truth

A universal truth is one that all sufficiently intelligent and educated observers, from this planet or any other (should they exist), would conclude to “be so.” For instance, the proportion of a circle’s circumference to its diameter is 3.141592 ( . . . ). This is a universal truth. Any capable, unbiased individual could verify that truth. Similarly, that energy is equivalent to rest mass times the speed of light squared, is also a universal truth.
A universal truth is the only type of truth that is not relative to the person or group making the claim. Science, by and large, provides us with universal truths. Or it at least aspires to.

Religion, no doubt, reflects social truths, and perhaps, in some regards, human truths as well. While one religion maintains that person X was the real messiah, another religion, reflecting its own values, customs, and history, says, “it is not so.” All groups, however, may feel that death cannot be the complete end to life. How can something so valued be lost? Humans may be naturally inclined to envision something more, irregardless of evidence.
What believers in a religion frequently fail to do is to place possible human truths and their own social truths into a wider perspective.
—
Andrew Bernardin/2005 (revised 2008)

http://evolvingmind.info/blog/four-types-of-truth/

Thanks, Liam!

[AtLast]

Thinking how the phraze- "what rings true for me," or "what has been true for me" might not have the finality feeling. These would feel more open to communication to me.

[Softhearted]

Sometimes when it comes to words and their meaning, I go back to the source, which in my case is the dictionary.

The verb to believe can either be taken in its transitive form or intransitive form. For example:

He believes in ghosts. (intransitive verb)

Many people seem to believe that theory, but he finds it hard/difficult to believe. (transitive verb)

They have very different meanings according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

I quote:

"intransitive verb 1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we ∼ in> <∼s in ghosts>
2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <∼ in exercise>
3: to hold an opinion : think <I ∼ so>

transitive verb 1 a: to consider to be true or honest <∼ the reports> <you wouldn't ∼ how long it took> b: to accept the word or evidence of <I ∼ you> <couldn't ∼ my ears>
2: to hold as an opinion : suppose <I ∼ it will rain soon>
— be·liev·er noun
— not believe to be astounded at <I couldn't believe my luck>"
http://www.britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=believe

"True1 a: steadfast, loyal b: honest, just c: archaic: truthful
2 a (1): being in accordance with the actual state of affairs <∼ description>
(2): conformable to an essential reality
(3): fully realized or fulfilled <dreams come ∼> b: ideal, essential c: being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed <the ∼ dimension of the problem> d: consistent <∼ to character>
3 a: properly so called <∼ love> <the ∼ faith> <the ∼ stomach of ruminant mammals> b (1): possessing the basic characters of and belonging to the same natural group as <a whale is a ∼ but not a typical mammal>
(2): typical <the ∼ cats>
4: legitimate, rightful <our ∼ and lawful king>
5 a: that is fitted or formed or that functions accurately b: conformable to a standard or pattern : accurate
6: determined with reference to the earth's axis rather than the magnetic poles <∼ north>
7: logically necessary
8: narrow, strict <in the truest sense>
9: corrected for error
— true·ness noun"
http://www.britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=true

Just my .02 cents...

[Sparkle]

It is kind of wild that one phrase can have such dramatically different interpretations, isn't it?

Isn't this kind of unusual?

Darn, if I was one who used this term I think I'd stop using it or clarify it (at least in the written word where you have no body language, facial expressions, inflections in speech, etc.), because people would have such different interpretations as to what I was saying!

I think it *is* the kind of phrase that can have multiple interpretations.

But I don't think *that* is unusual at all.

We're forever discussing, debating and delineating the most common of phrases and identities here on BFP and in the broader world.

I think some people use the phrase "this is my truth" as way of being emphatic (or dramatic), as a colloquial exclamation point.

And I think other people use it to describe something (a belief or an opinion) that is deeply tied to their identity or experience; a thought that is hardwired in to their identity: physically, emotionally and rationally.

I also think the people who use it this way use the phrase "my truth" to indicate that they recognise it may or may not be a universal truth, but to emphasize that it is very true/real for them personally.

[Chancie]

<snip>

And I think other people use it to describe something (a belief or an opinion) that is deeply tied to their identity or experience; a thought that is hardwired in to their identity: physically, emotionally and rationally.

I also think the people who use it this way use the phrase "my truth" to indicate that they recognise it may or may not be a universal truth, but to emphasize that it is very true/real for them personally.

This exactly what I hear when someone says, 'This is my truth'.

[AtLast]

Thinking how the phraze- "what rings true for me," or "what has been true for me" might not have the finality feeling. These would feel more open to communication to me.

Ugh... I hate it when I don't catch a goof! "s" for "z" .. OCD anyone?

This is an interesting discussion- varied takes. All of our unique "lenses" and "filters."

[DomnNC]

A friend and I had this discussion tonight sitting outside a coffee shop. She said something that was really quite simple regarding "this is my truth". She used the color of the brick in the building. She said sitting here I can look at that brick and I will say it contains shades of red, black, brown and tan, that is what I can see, that is my truth as I see it. She said you may not see the tan as tan but a color called cream or some other shade because that is what you were taught, that would be your truth as you "see it". She said now Joe over there is color blind and doesn't see shades of red at all, so he would say that brick is probably gray, black, brown, and whatever color he may see other than red and that is his truth as he knows it. No matter how hard you and I try we will never get Joe to see that red color, ever, because medically he cannot see it. So who's truth is wrong in this example? I had to say no one's truth was wrong.

[Gemme]

*Smiling* Having used this phrase, when I say it, I truly mean that it's a truth in my life, in my personal situation...and something I have learned that applies to me. It's stronger than a belief to me..it's a truth...but, when I say it, I accept that the emphasis for me is on the word "My". I'm not asking anyone to accept it for their own or to break it down so that it makes sense to them.

To me, it's the difference between saying "I want pizza for dinner" (I.E. Open to discussion, suggestions still..."I believe") and "I'm having pizza for dinner (I.E. NOT open for discussion or suggestions...YOU may have whatever you want...but, I'm having pizza! :) "My truth")

I don't know if that helped or hindered, but when I say it, that's what I mean. Also. When I say it, it's usually something that came from a lesson (Or more likely a series of them) that is prevalent only to me.

And when I say it, I do tend to be saying, I'm not judging or asking for judgement (tho I usually understand some may come) but your opinion won't change it for me. If I use the phrase, it's about a personal truth, growth, experience...and not a thing to do with true logistics about the world around us. I would never say "It's my truth" to refer to the moon affecting gravity...that's everyones truth...the difference between a truth and a fact I suppose.

What's true for me may not be (and usually isn't..thus versatility) true for you. By saying "it's my truth" I am saying, I get that your ideas may be very different, but this is my reality.

The last example I can think of (before I bore you to tears) is that part of "my truth" is the fact that I am a lesbian...therefore the politics surrounding gay marriage/civil unions is huge to me. I know straight people who can claim that truth, and I know gay people who don't want to claim that truth. To each their own, but it's part of my truth, my life...my essence. I hope that all made sense..somewhere in my rambling!!!!

Beautifully said.

I don't know...I still think it is such an awkward phrase. Does anyone else think this? Maybe b/c I never heard it IRL (in real life)? I have never actually heard someone say the phrase, just read it.

In thinking more about it...it feels almost "uncomfortable" (can't think of a better word at this point). Like, it feels off putting. It feels like the person is saying, "step back", or "case closed". Or almost like you insulted the person. Yes...that is what it is...I think that a lot of the times I have seen it used, it has been in response to something that insulted the person and/or it was almost used in a way to shame the person for having "questioned" them.

However, by the same token, I have seen it used in just a random post where there has not been any engagement at all and the person is just using it as an exclamation point, of sorts.

I don't know...the phrase has just always disturbed me.

---------

ETA: OR maybe it seems like the person is saying "this is my opinion, so you can't argue it", instead of just the "this is what I believe in my soul" definition I used earlier.

I dunno. Others thoughts?

P.S. I have never felt there being a "judgment" attached to it. Meaning, when the person uses the phrase, I do not see them as speaking to the other person's thoughts on the specific topic. I see them as only speaking to their own thinking on the subject. Does this make sense? I am not sure why I am having such a hard time flushing my thoughts out on this.

There is often judgement, I think, but it's usually from the listener. Why on Earth should I have to rephrase something that is not prejudiced...not hateful...not hurtful to anyone because it doesn't 'feel right' or 'sound right' to someone else? That's like telling me not to call myself Queer because Aunt Sally is 'uncomfortable' with the term.

:blink:

I am NOT okay with that. Even though I don't use the phrase often, there's a part of me that wants to say it a LOT now.

I know your inquisitive nature, Dapper, so I know you don't feel judgement coming from yourself, but it sure sounds like it in text. I do want to say that I do understand that you tend to think 'out loud' on the threads and I do know that you're not in a Judgy McJudgerson frame of mind right now, but as we all know, it's hard to 'hear' folks when all we have are colored words on a white background to go by.

As some have mentioned the emphasis is not on the 'truth' but on the 'me' or 'my'. To me....ME...when someone questions something I've said is 'my truth' or is 'true to me', it feels as if they are questioning ME, whether it's because they don't like the phrase or if they don't understand it, etc. When someone speaks up and says...in one way or another...this is about ME...that is a very personal thing for them. It's a part of them. I always try to keep that in mind, especially if my truth or my reality as I see it does not coincide with theirs.

I use this phrase, and I come more from where Playful does...

If I believe something. then I think it works or is that way...can't prove it, just pretty much think that's true. I believe that it's better to be kind than cruel (unless the cruelty is a consensual thing :winky: )

If I say "my truth" then I'm not saying it's the truth for everyone...but it is for me. And it's something that goes way beyond belief or thinking or a feeling...it's my truth.

My truth is that, as a diabetic, I cannot eat and behave like non-diabetics do...or I'll probably go blind. Not true for all diabetics (because scientifically speaking there's a huge range in what diabetics can and can't do)...but it is true for me.

My truth is that I must work and be independent to a certain degree. I'm not saying it's better. I'm not saying it's "right." I'm not saying it applies to everyone. I also know that it's more than an "I belive" or an "I think"....it's a visceral thing. When I am dependent and vulnerable I panic and lash out and generally fall apart. I anticipate the worst and, if it doesn't happen, I live in constant anxiety that it will. That's my truth.

For me, when I say "my truth" the emphasis is on my, not on truth...and it applies only to me.

Yeppers.

It is kind of wild that one phrase can have such dramatically different interpretations, isn't it?

Isn't this kind of unusual?

Darn, if I was one who used this term I think I'd stop using it or clarify it (at least in the written word where you have no body language, facial expressions, inflections in speech, etc.), because people would have such different interpretations as to what I was saying!

Wild, maybe. Unusual, not a chance. Ask ten people what Stone means to them. Or Queer. Or just about anything. You'll get ten completely different answers. That's the blessing and the curse of this medium. Soooo many people, with different lives, experiences, truths, beliefs, judgements, etc coming together to discuss specific topics.

I'm raising an eyebrow at you because you said, again, that those who use this harmless phrase should stop because it might make things more difficult for other people or be uncomfortable for others. :eyebrow:

Great question. I say all.the.time that I am "living my truth", (yes, in RL, and no, I don't own any pearls, lol) and that others should be allowed to live theirs. What I mean specifically by that, is that I feel we each have the right, and the power to decide what is true for us, how we choose to live and be. No one else has the right to tell me how to live my life, nor do I have the right to tell them how to live theirs. It isn't really about what I believe so to speak.. just what *I* decide is right and wrong for me as an individual.

I remember you saying this a couple of times and then thinking that it's an outstanding phrase. To thine own self be true, but with less thines and thees. :)

A friend and I had this discussion tonight sitting outside a coffee shop. She said something that was really quite simple regarding "this is my truth". She used the color of the brick in the building. She said sitting here I can look at that brick and I will say it contains shades of red, black, brown and tan, that is what I can see, that is my truth as I see it. She said you may not see the tan as tan but a color called cream or some other shade because that is what you were taught, that would be your truth as you "see it". She said now Joe over there is color blind and doesn't see shades of red at all, so he would say that brick is probably gray, black, brown, and whatever color he may see other than red and that is his truth as he knows it. No matter how hard you and I try we will never get Joe to see that red color, ever, because medically he cannot see it. So who's truth is wrong in this example? I had to say no one's truth was wrong.


Exactly.

[JustJo]

Wild, maybe. Unusual, not a chance. Ask ten people what Stone means to them. Or Queer. Or just about anything. You'll get ten completely different answers. That's the blessing and the curse of this medium. Soooo many people, with different lives, experiences, truths, beliefs, judgements, etc coming together to discuss specific topics.

I'm raising an eyebrow at you because you said, again, that those who use this harmless phrase should stop because it might make things more difficult for other people or be uncomfortable for others. :eyebrow:


Absolutely.

How many definitions of femme have we heard on this site? Or butch? And those terms are even applicable enough to the whole assortment of us that they're in the name of the site.

But we all do them differently. And I doubt any of us would say we shouldn't be using those terms.

For me, the phrase isn't hurting anyone...doesn't put anyone else down...doesn't imply "less than" or "better than"...isn't telling anyone else what to do...it's a matter of claiming self, just as we all do with a whole variety of phrases and terms.

Heck...Bete's even got Scoote claiming "fat"...and I thought that would never happen. :blink:

[SelfMadeMan]

I remember you saying this a couple of times and then thinking that it's an outstanding phrase. To thine own self be true, but with less thines and thees. :)

LOL Gemme - I have those very words, thine included, tattooed across my chest... lookie ;-)

http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL900/3537512/23685657/395716877.jpg

[Andrew, Jr.]

This is my truth - I am me. Nobody can walk in my shoes. Nor would I ever ask them too. I live as Andrew. I have a dog, Dino, who is sickly as I am. I also have 3 cats. I have squirrels, Hank and Honey. They have 2 kids, Henry and Henrietta. I feed them every day. I feed the birds every day. It is just how I am. It brings me joy to have a woodpecker come to the window and look inside to see if I have my coffee yet because Hank has eaten all the peanuts, and he needs his handfull.

Rejection, harsh criticism, and judgement has been my childhood background. I know now that my father has company with other people who are just mean and nasty. It is the way of the world. That is why I am so very guarded now as an adult. For example, look at road rage. I never thought I would see drivers crossing a double yellow line to pass drivers in front of them for whatever reason. Another example, look at our court system. Pedifiles, drunk drivers, drive by shooters who kill others get out of a jail term or lost in the system for whatever reason. They seem to walk away scott free. And there is little to no remorse. I just don't get that at all. Never will.

My truth lies in my faith and spirituality. I believe in trying to always turn the other cheek. To be a forgiving man. To be open to others. It has taken me years to get to this point, but now that I am here I am free-er than I ever imagined to be.

[DapperButch]

Beautifully said.



There is often judgement, I think, but it's usually from the listener. Why on Earth should I have to rephrase something that is not prejudiced...not hateful...not hurtful to anyone because it doesn't 'feel right' or 'sound right' to someone else? That's like telling me not to call myself Queer because Aunt Sally is 'uncomfortable' with the term.

:blink:

I am NOT okay with that. Even though I don't use the phrase often, there's a part of me that wants to say it a LOT now.

I know your inquisitive nature, Dapper, so I know you don't feel judgement coming from yourself, but it sure sounds like it in text. I do want to say that I do understand that you tend to think 'out loud' on the threads and I do know that you're not in a Judgy McJudgerson frame of mind right now, but as we all know, it's hard to 'hear' folks when all we have are colored words on a white background to go by.

As some have mentioned the emphasis is not on the 'truth' but on the 'me' or 'my'. To me....ME...when someone questions something I've said is 'my truth' or is 'true to me', it feels as if they are questioning ME, whether it's because they don't like the phrase or if they don't understand it, etc. When someone speaks up and says...in one way or another...this is about ME...that is a very personal thing for them. It's a part of them. I always try to keep that in mind, especially if my truth or my reality as I see it does not coincide with theirs.



Yeppers.



Wild, maybe. Unusual, not a chance. Ask ten people what Stone means to them. Or Queer. Or just about anything. You'll get ten completely different answers. That's the blessing and the curse of this medium. Soooo many people, with different lives, experiences, truths, beliefs, judgements, etc coming together to discuss specific topics.

I'm raising an eyebrow at you because you said, again, that those who use this harmless phrase should stop because it might make things more difficult for other people or be uncomfortable for others. :eyebrow:



I remember you saying this a couple of times and then thinking that it's an outstanding phrase. To thine own self be true, but with less thines and thees. :)



Exactly.

Hi, Gemme. I wasn't aware as to how this sounded. I am glad that you know that it was just a "talking out loud, wondering", kind of thing.

No, I don't actually mean that I think that people should stop using the term. I have no investment in that, at all.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify and giving me the benefit of the doubt.

[Mister Bent]

yJxCdh1Ps48

[Star Anise]

I don't tend to use that phrase, but I do think it is important to acknowledge how subjective and personal "truth" can be. I am somewhat skeptical of truth that comes in the category of "universal" or "objective" especially when related to abstract concepts and social constructs. To debatable extents all that we know and feel is our own truth, I think this is part of the human experience.

[Star Anise]

Although in saying that, I just want to add that I do agree that saying "this is my truth" is sometimes used to shut down a conversation, or rebuff confrontational questions because it is very difficult to argue with someones subjective experience.

[ButchBowWow]

Ok, so the first time I ever saw this statement was on the dash site.

The first time I read it I thought...what does that mean, exactly? Is that just another way of saying, "This is what I believe"? If so, why not just say that?

The statement sounds so awkward to my ears, for some reason. I figured that over time it would stop sounding this way, but it just doesn't.

So, my question (to anyone who wants to answer), am I understanding this statement correctly? If not, what does it mean?

I hear the statement more and more, so I am thinking that I really need to be more clear about what it means for communication purposes!

Disclaimer: This thread is not directed towards any person or any situation where this may have been said. No subtext here, just another case of my "wondering out loud" and wanting to hear from others.

For me, when I hear that my brain translates it to this is my experience.

[tapu]

A little late to the discussion, but DapperButch, the reason it "sounds funny" to you is that the word truth in that statement is used in a way that doesn't match most people's meaning for it.

Generally, truth is an absolute, and appears with the: The new usage, exemplified by my truth, your truth, contradicts the semantic feature of truth we're all used to, that it's an absolute.

I see it used a few ways, mentioned earlier in this thread: both "it's what I believe and you can't dissuade me; and "it's what is true about/for me" (when the situation is a subjective one, usually).

[Jett]

What is true for one person may not be true for another, this "is my truth" to me means it is that persons perspective/belief/reality/situation... and simultaneously it acknowledges it may not be another persons.

I haven't seen it used to shut-down a conversation, but can imagine it could be used to say "you're not going to change my mind", or that a person is wasting their breath arguing what ever "truth" is being referenced in the conversation.

*shrugs*

[Gemme]

Although in saying that, I just want to add that I do agree that saying "this is my truth" is sometimes used to shut down a conversation, or rebuff confrontational questions because it is very difficult to argue with someones subjective experience.

I haven't seen this myself, to the best of my recollection, but I do see where it could happen. Kind of like the stalemate in the conversation....when all sides have expressed their thoughts/feelings/etc and none of them have the wherewithall to say "I accept your pov and let's agree to disagree".

I've had folks try to pin me down one way or another in a conversation and sometimes, the answer they are looking for just isn't there. So, there may come a time when I feel that all I can say is "this is what I know" or "this is my truth". When I do that, I'm not saying that their truth is invalid or that one is better than the other. I'm saying it's MINE, so keeps your mitts off, bud. Respect that I have the right to have that mindset or opinion. You don't have to agree, but don't try to oppress me with your opinion either.

For the most part, I'm very much a 'if it doesn't hurt anyone and it rocks your boat, then get to it' kind of person. As long as your thoughts and feelings don't lead to hurtful actions, I'm good. I wish more people were like me. :cheesy:

[dreadgeek]

What is true for one person may not be true for another, this "is my truth" to me means it is that persons perspective/belief/reality/situation... and simultaneously it acknowledges it may not be another persons.

I haven't seen it used to shut-down a conversation, but can imagine it could be used to say "you're not going to change my mind", or that a person is wasting their breath arguing what ever "truth" is being referenced in the conversation.

*shrugs*

No matter how many times I hear it explained, I can't get past the idea that 'true', when applied to a statement, is supposed to be a measure of veracity. If it is not then 'tell the truth' and 'tell a lie' become empty phrases.

Take, for example, the old idea of a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Imagine that child explaining that for her it is 'true' that she wasn't told she couldn't have cookies before dinner. Since she wasn't told that (because it was true for her) then that means she could have a cookie and because it is true for her there is no grounds for punishing her for taking a cookie when she wasn't supposed to. Now, of course, the child's mother has her own 'truth' that she did tell her child not to eat cookies before dinner but if we concede that the child has her own truth and the mother has her own truth and if we decide that there is no reason to prefer one truth over the other, then the mother has no grounds for disciplining her child. I think we would all agree that if, for example, the child was demonstrably at school and the cookie jar fell off the counter and broke, it would be unjust--even abusive--for the mother to punish her child for something the child demonstrably could not have done.

Yet, if we concede that the mother can have one 'truth' (one where the child broke the cookie jar even if she was nowhere near it) and the child can have another (where she didn't break the cookie jar because she was at school) now we have to concede that if the mother asserts that her 'truth' is that her daughter broke the cookie jar then she is justified in punishing the child.

If you would concede that the only circumstances where it would be unjust to punish the child is when the child did not do that for which she is going to be punished, then we have now broken the link between what the child does and what she is punished for. It does not matter if she *did* the thing what matters is if her mother has as her truth that she did the thing. Whether it *actually* happened becomes functionally irrelevant.

The problem I have with the 'this is my truth' idea is that it breaks the linkage between our actions and our behaviors. I woke up at 4:30 this morning to be at the office by 6:00. Not because I wanted to but because I believed--correctly--that I had to be there by 6:00 and that failure to do so would be a 'career limiting move'. In other words, I behaved in a manner appropriate to the circumstances I held to be true--that my boss expected me to be in at 6:00 to be at a meeting with members of our organization in England.

Now, it may be that the link between the beliefs that someone holds and their actions is under-determined but I don't believe it is so. This means that if someone believes--holds to be true--that homosexual couples should not be allowed to be legally married because this or that divine being hates the very idea of homosexuals existing much less marrying then that person's behavior will be *very* different than one who, for instance, does not believe that the sensibilities of divine beings has no legitimate place in determining laws in a secular legal system. Perhaps it is because I grew up in an America where non-trivial numbers of the majority saw the color of my skin and determined, based upon that information, that their 'truth' was that I was an intellectual and moral inferior and that they should behave appropriately that I distrust the 'this is my truth' construction. I do not think it is benign and, in fact, I think it can lead to quite malevolent outcomes.

I'm curious, is there anyone here who believes that if N-number of Republicans hold to be true that Barack Obama is a Marxist, Mau-Mau, Islamic fascist, socialist who was born in Kenya and hates America does that mean that, in fact, Mr. Obama is obliged to BE those things. If someone believes these things to be true and it turns out that he is none of those things, doesn't that mean that someone holds a 'false' belief? There are no sane worlds (sane here meaning not self-contradictory) where Mr. Obama was both born in Kenya and born in Hawaii. If it is 'true' that he was born in Kenya then he is not the legitimate President nor can he ever be the legitimate President since the Constitution is quite clear on the matter. If it is not true then one may not like him, his party or his policies but that does not mean he is illegitimate.

I understand that 'that is my truth' is supposed to be a way of promoting dialog and tolerance but it fails to do the former and actually gives aid and comfort to bigotry since, for instance, a bigot can assert that it is her 'truth' that I am her mental and moral inferior and the *only* counter I have left to me is that my 'truth' is that I'm not--but no one should expect me to accede to statements about my own inferiority so there's no way for someone on the sidelines to adjudicate that. Meaning that outside of a 'well, my truth is that I don't like racism' is the *best* stance you can make. Again, if my being black is held by someone to be prima facie evidence on my mental and moral inferiority it is *entirely* appropriate, given the 'this is my truth', construction for them to act in the most racist manner since they are not being 'racist' by their own lights but acting in accordance with what they held to be true. To promote, pass or enforce laws or social norms that make that kind of behavior out of bounds is to violate the bigot's truth for no *good* reason.

Is that really the world people want because that is the world that elevating an opinion--even an incorrect one--to the level of 'truth' ineluctably creates.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

I don't think relativizing to "my truth" makes a real difference in the examples. It's exactly what goes on anyway. People often dispute what is "really" the truth. The child claims, "Nossir, you never told me that!" The mother responds "Yes, I did." Or even, "You know I did." In this case, the power balance is unequal and generally the mother "wins." When power is more balanced, people argue and bring evidence to support "their truth."

I do think words have power and that a change like this is often part of a process that changes understanding as well as usage, but I don't think the case is quite as strong here as you make it.

[dreadgeek]

I haven't seen this myself, to the best of my recollection, but I do see where it could happen. Kind of like the stalemate in the conversation....when all sides have expressed their thoughts/feelings/etc and none of them have the wherewithall to say "I accept your pov and let's agree to disagree".

I've had folks try to pin me down one way or another in a conversation and sometimes, the answer they are looking for just isn't there. So, there may come a time when I feel that all I can say is "this is what I know" or "this is my truth". When I do that, I'm not saying that their truth is invalid or that one is better than the other. I'm saying it's MINE, so keeps your mitts off, bud. Respect that I have the right to have that mindset or opinion. You don't have to agree, but don't try to oppress me with your opinion either.

For the most part, I'm very much a 'if it doesn't hurt anyone and it rocks your boat, then get to it' kind of person. As long as your thoughts and feelings don't lead to hurtful actions, I'm good. I wish more people were like me. :cheesy:

But what if someone's truth is that their thoughts don't lead to hurtful actions or if they do the person's hurt are not inside the circle of moral concern. Then what? Since there is no reason to *prefer* non-hurtful actions as a touchstone if someone holds a truth that leads to harm, all we have is 'I don't like that so please don't". That seems a flimsy basis upon which to build any idea of justice. What we *can't* do is argue that the person holding the truth that leads to malevolent action is wrong because it's their 'truth', so it *can't* be wrong. It can't be wrong even by our own lights since your truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong and my truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong and Ebon's truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong but *of course* we would say that. We all have a vested interest in it being wrong. But since we have conceded that if you believe something is true then it IS true--for any reasonable definition--then all someone has to get around the codicil that it can't lead to harm is for that person to say "racism doesn't hurt people, of course those on the receiving end will *say* that it hurts them but what else would you expect 'those people' to say?" Now, they've stated that their 'truth' is that racism doesn't hurt people. If you insist that it does then they can even concede that it might but that the targets of racism are beyond the circle of reasonable moral concern and the same way you wouldn't, say, crash an airplane with 300 people on board in order to save the life of an ant, one should not force society to roll into the circle of moral concern people who are clearly beyond that circle--it is their truth after all and there is no reason that anyone can give as to why *your* truth is preferable to *their* truth.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Where do you come down then on truth as relative or absolute?

(I usually position myself squarely at "relatively absolute," rather than "absolutely relative." Meaning, I have no argument to support a position either way. This one drives me nuts.)

[dreadgeek]

I don't think relativizing to "my truth" makes a real difference in the examples. It's exactly what goes on anyway. People often dispute what is "really" the truth. The child claims, "Nossir, you never told me that!" The mother responds "Yes, I did." Or even, "You know I did." In this case, the power balance is unequal and generally the mother "wins." When power is more balanced, people argue and bring evidence to support "their truth."

I do think words have power and that a change like this is often part of a process that changes understanding as well as usage, but I don't think the case is quite as strong here as you make it.

It may not be the best example but I think it illustrates a problem. There's a set of unspoken assumptions about the way people are and the way the world works that I do not think are supported by evidence or observation. To make the assumptions explicit:

1) Saying "this is my truth" is more benign than saying "I believe X, you believe Y, X and Y are mutually exclusive so one of us is wrong".

2) People's behavior has no necessary link to their beliefs. In other words, no matter how tempting it might be to state that I wanted coffee, believed there was coffee in the kitchen, rose from my chair and walked to the kitchen to pour coffee and then returned from my desk, the fact that I started off with a belief that there was coffee to be had had *no causal influence* on my actions. I might have just as easily walked to the roof to get coffee or I might have just as easily sat at my desk wishing for my cup to be filled.

3) That people do not hold beliefs that are malevolent or even if they do those beliefs do not lead to unjust or malevolent actions.

4) That as long as everyone was as tolerant as the people holding the 'this is my truth' stance like to believe themselves to be then all will work out well in the end.

5) There are never legitimate conflicts of interest that might lead people to hold contradictory beliefs.

I would argue that all five of those premises are demonstrably false and that the idea that you have your 'truth' and I have my 'truth' is actually quite a bit more problematic than people give it credit for. Deeply problematic.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Where do you come down then on truth as relative or absolute?

(I usually position myself squarely at "relatively absolute," rather than "absolutely relative." Meaning, I have no argument to support a position either way. This one drives me nuts.)

Truth is, more or less, relatively absolute depending upon the subject matter domain. Whether that 'truth' is comprehensible or can be apprehended may be up for question but there appears to be an actual world 'out there' and while we may not have *direct* access to it, much of the time we can treat our approximations of the world as 'true enough' to work with.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

It may not be the best example but I think it illustrates a problem. There's a set of unspoken assumptions about the way people are and the way the world works that I do not think are supported by evidence or observation. To make the assumptions explicit:

1) Saying "this is my truth" is more benign than saying "I believe X, you believe Y, X and Y are mutually exclusive so one of us is wrong".

2) People's behavior has no necessary link to their beliefs. In other words, no matter how tempting it might be to state that I wanted coffee, believed there was coffee in the kitchen, rose from my chair and walked to the kitchen to pour coffee and then returned from my desk, the fact that I started off with a belief that there was coffee to be had had *no causal influence* on my actions. I might have just as easily walked to the roof to get coffee or I might have just as easily sat at my desk wishing for my cup to be filled.

3) That people do not hold beliefs that are malevolent or even if they do those beliefs do not lead to unjust or malevolent actions.

4) That as long as everyone was as tolerant as the people holding the 'this is my truth' stance like to believe themselves to be then all will work out well in the end.

5) There are never legitimate conflicts of interest that might lead people to hold contradictory beliefs.

I would argue that all five of those premises are demonstrably false and that the idea that you have your 'truth' and I have my 'truth' is actually quite a bit more problematic than people give it credit for. Deeply problematic.

Cheers
Aj



Yes, I agree with your overall point. I think we differ on the relatively (heh) minor point of how insidious "my truth" is in the groupthink; as opposed to, "This is what I say the truth is." Understand, though, that I absolutely (heh) understand why you think the change to "personal truth" may be more insidious than a disagreement about what is true. That's very insightful.

And... and, I was going to say something else about it... and now, I forget. (Sorry--this is me, stunted. It was California, it was the 80's....)

[JustJo]

I probably shouldn't enter into serious discussions since I'm in a crappy ass negative mood (disclaimer), but....for me there's a significant difference between saying "the truth" and saying "my truth."

When I use this phrase (and I do), it's something that I have learned about myself, and that I know to be true for me and me alone.

My truths don't apply to anyone else. They only apply to me.

For instance, one of my truths is that I cannot be in a committed relationship without passion and sexual intimacy. I can't. I end up feeling rejected, depressed, "less than" and disconnected. If it goes on long enough, I start feeling (first) depressed, (secondly) angry, and (finally) a combination of "my life is dead and empty and not worth living" and "I hate you for treating me like this, get the fuck out of my life."

Does this mean that the truth is that committed relationships must include passion and sexual intimacy?

Nope.

I'm sure there are some or many or *fill in the blank because I haven't a clue* wonderful, committed, loving relationships that don't.

[tapu]

So "my truth" means, more or less, "my experience"? I think your explanation of the meaning is excellent, Jo. Now, since there has to be a way to express that otherwise, I'm trying to think what it is so we can arrive at the beginnings of a definition.

[tapu]

still thinking: Does "in my case" capture it (though with less eloquence)? As, "In my case, a relationship has to include sexual intimacy."?

[dreadgeek]

That use of 'my truth' is, more or less, unproblematic since it really does not effect the world the rest of us live in. If that were the *only* way that people use that phrase, I wouldn't be concerned (and probably wouldn't be involved in this conversation). My concern is that people don't draw a distinction (presumably because they do not see one) between the following kinds of statements:

1) If there is not some kind of intellectual meeting-of-the-minds I am not going to be happy in a relationship.

2) If we allow marriages between two men or two women, we will have to allow marriages between father and daughter or a 50 year old man and an 10 year old girl etc.

The problem isn't statements of type-1, the problem is statements of type-2. I think we should not evaluate the 'my truth' idea on the basis of type-1 statements but on the basis of type-2 statements.

Cheers
Aj


I probably shouldn't enter into serious discussions since I'm in a crappy ass negative mood (disclaimer), but....for me there's a significant difference between saying "the truth" and saying "my truth."

When I use this phrase (and I do), it's something that I have learned about myself, and that I know to be true for me and me alone.

My truths don't apply to anyone else. They only apply to me.

For instance, one of my truths is that I cannot be in a committed relationship without passion and sexual intimacy. I can't. I end up feeling rejected, depressed, "less than" and disconnected. If it goes on long enough, I start feeling (first) depressed, (secondly) angry, and (finally) a combination of "my life is dead and empty and not worth living" and "I hate you for treating me like this, get the fuck out of my life."

Does this mean that the truth is that committed relationships must include passion and sexual intimacy?

Nope.

I'm sure there are some or many or *fill in the blank because I haven't a clue* wonderful, committed, loving relationships that don't.

[JustJo]

So "my truth" means, more or less, "my experience"? I think your explanation of the meaning is excellent, Jo. Now, since there has to be a way to express that otherwise, I'm trying to think what it is so we can arrive at the beginnings of a definition.

still thinking: Does "in my case" capture it (though with less eloquence)? As, "In my case, a relationship has to include sexual intimacy."?

Right....I could say "in my experience" or "in my case" and those would both work. I use those as well. I think I tend to use "my truth" when it's a stronger, more fundamental, more visceral usage.

So......in my case I prefer my coffee black. My experience is that "surprises" generally don't turn out well for me, so I prefer to know what's coming next. But my truth is that I must have a passionate connection with my partner.

It's a good, better, best kind of usage....if that makes sense...

That use of 'my truth' is, more or less, unproblematic since it really does not effect the world the rest of us live in. If that were the *only* way that people use that phrase, I wouldn't be concerned (and probably wouldn't be involved in this conversation). My concern is that people don't draw a distinction (presumably because they do not see one) between the following kinds of statements:

1) If there is not some kind of intellectual meeting-of-the-minds I am not going to be happy in a relationship.

2) If we allow marriages between two men or two women, we will have to allow marriages between father and daughter or a 50 year old man and an 10 year old girl etc.

The problem isn't statements of type-1, the problem is statements of type-2. I think we should not evaluate the 'my truth' idea on the basis of type-1 statements but on the basis of type-2 statements.

Cheers
Aj

Right. I think the problematic part is that many of us who use this phrase use it in different ways.

[tapu]

In one episode House says:

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I really think your opinion is stupid.


:poc-biggrin:

[tapu]

Right....I could say "in my experience" or "in my case" and those would both work. I use those as well. I think I tend to use "my truth" when it's a stronger, more fundamental, more visceral usage.

So......in my case I prefer my coffee black. My experience is that "surprises" generally don't turn out well for me, so I prefer to know what's coming next. But my truth is that I must have a passionate connection with my partner.

It's a good, better, best kind of usage....if that makes sense...



Right. I think the problematic part is that many of us who use this phrase use it in different ways.

Yes, I think you've captured the gradation.

[tapu]

I'm starting to see that "This is my truth" plays a useful role in language today.

Of course, this is the source of much language change. There's a need to express an idea and out of that comes a new expression.

[dreadgeek]

One of the books I have on my Kindle is "Fear of Knowledge" which, as it turns out, deals with the issues under discussion here. I want to quote at some length to illustrate part of the problem:

"A belief is a particular kind of mental state. If we ask precisely what kind of mental state it is, we can find that it is easy to say. We can describe it in other words, of course, but only in ones that cry out for as much explanation as talk about belief. To believe that Jupiter has sixteen moons, we could say, is to take the world to be such that in it Jupiter has sixteen moons; or to represent the world as containing a particular heavenly body with sixteen moons; and so forth.

Although we may not be able to analyze belief in terms of significantly other concepts, we can see clearly that three aspects are essential to it. Any belief must have a propositional content; any belief can be assessed as true or false; and any belief can be assessed as justfied or unjustified, rational or irrational. Condier Margo's belief that Jupiter has sixteen moons. We attribute this belief with the sentence:

Margo believes that Jupiter has sixteen moons. That Jupiter has sixteen moons, we may say, is the propositional content of what Margo believes.

The propositional content of a belief specifies how the world is according to the belief. It specifies, in other words, a truth condition--how the world would have to be if the belief is to be true. Thus, Margo's belief that Jupiter has sixteen moons is true if and only if Jupiter has sixteen moons. As we may also put it, Margo's belief is true if an only if it is a fact that Jupiter has sixteen moons...We could equally say that the belief that Jupiter has sixteen moons is true just in case the entity referred to by the concept in the subject position--namely, the concept Jupiter--has the property denoted by the concept in the object position--namely, the concept has sixteen moons. Since the entity in question doesn't have the property at issue--Jupiter, it turns out, has over thirty moons--the belief is false.

I have just asserted that Jupiter has over thirty moons. Obviously, my saying it is so doesn't automatically make it so, otherwise there could not be any such things as a false assertion. If my assertion is true it is because, in addition to my saying it, it's a fact that Jupiter has over thirty moons. Well, let us suppose my assertion is true--that is, that the corresponding fact obtains.

Here's an interesting question: Does it follow from its being a fact that Jupiter has over thirty moons that it's a fact for everyone that Jupiter has over thirty moons, that it's a fact for all communities?

Well, it depends upon what one means by the phrase 'it's a fact for everyone." It certainly not a fact for everyone in the sense that everyone believes that proposition that Jupiter has over thirty moons. Some may never have considered the question; others may have come to the opposite conclusion. So, in the utterly trivial sens in which I may believe in a fact while others don't, some facts are facts for me but not for others.

But if what we mean is something more ambitious--that the fact that Jupiter has over thirty moons can somehow "hold" for me but not for you, that seems harder to comprehend. After all, my belief is not in the proposition Jupiter has over thirty moons for me but, rather, in the impersonal proposition Jupiter has over thirty moons. So, if we say that that belief is true, then it looks as though the corresponding fact has to obtain for everyone, whether they are inclined to believe it or not...In the case of Jupiter's having over thirty moons, we can go further: it's not merely that it looks to be universal, it also looks to be completely mind-independent: it would have obtained even if human beings had never existed. By contrast, the fact that there is money in the world is not a mind-independent fact--money could not have existed without persons and their intentions to exchange goods with one another.

(Paul Boghassian -- Fear of Knowledge)

Again, my concerns are not those personal beliefs that are interior but about those impersonal facts about the world. Those are the point of maximum interest because those are the points of greatest possible tension.

So I have a question for those who hold to the idea that we each carry, in our own heads, our own truth about the *impersonal* world; what is it that such a belief is supposed to 'buy' us? What benefit are we gaining from this belief that justify the cost of it? (And as I've said, the cost we pay is non-trivial)

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Right. I think the problematic part is that many of us who use this phrase use it in different ways.

Yes, precisely. I would feel better about the whole thing if people would designate or define what truths they are talking about when they speak of 'my truth'.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Jupiter has 30 moons can't be "my truth" even if I fervently believe it. It's something I could be wrong about and I know it, and even if I don't it has a different essence than "my truth": The way Jo (and others) are explaining "my truth," the determiner of what is true is internal to the speaker. It's not an empirical fact; it has an external truth condition.

Or something like that. :)

[tapu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJo View Post

Right. I think the problematic part is that many of us who use this phrase use it in different ways.
Yes, precisely. I would feel better about the whole thing if people would designate or define what truths they are talking about when they speak of 'my truth'.

Aj
------------------

Well, yes. But I see that as a side issue in the more formal discussion. I haven't seen anyone argue against the meaning captured by Jo's explication, from the beginning of the thread 'til now; only against the alternatives.

[Jett]

No matter how many times I hear it explained, I can't get past the idea that 'true', when applied to a statement, is supposed to be a measure of veracity. If it is not then 'tell the truth' and 'tell a lie' become empty phrases.

Take, for example, the old idea of a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Imagine that child explaining that for her it is 'true' that she wasn't told she couldn't have cookies before dinner. Since she wasn't told that (because it was true for her) then that means she could have a cookie and because it is true for her there is no grounds for punishing her for taking a cookie when she wasn't supposed to. Now, of course, the child's mother has her own 'truth' that she did tell her child not to eat cookies before dinner but if we concede that the child has her own truth and the mother has her own truth and if we decide that there is no reason to prefer one truth over the other, then the mother has no grounds for disciplining her child. I think we would all agree that if, for example, the child was demonstrably at school and the cookie jar fell off the counter and broke, it would be unjust--even abusive--for the mother to punish her child for something the child demonstrably could not have done.

Yet, if we concede that the mother can have one 'truth' (one where the child broke the cookie jar even if she was nowhere near it) and the child can have another (where she didn't break the cookie jar because she was at school) now we have to concede that if the mother asserts that her 'truth' is that her daughter broke the cookie jar then she is justified in punishing the child.

If you would concede that the only circumstances where it would be unjust to punish the child is when the child did not do that for which she is going to be punished, then we have now broken the link between what the child does and what she is punished for. It does not matter if she *did* the thing what matters is if her mother has as her truth that she did the thing. Whether it *actually* happened becomes functionally irrelevant.

The problem I have with the 'this is my truth' idea is that it breaks the linkage between our actions and our behaviors. I woke up at 4:30 this morning to be at the office by 6:00. Not because I wanted to but because I believed--correctly--that I had to be there by 6:00 and that failure to do so would be a 'career limiting move'. In other words, I behaved in a manner appropriate to the circumstances I held to be true--that my boss expected me to be in at 6:00 to be at a meeting with members of our organization in England.

Now, it may be that the link between the beliefs that someone holds and their actions is under-determined but I don't believe it is so. This means that if someone believes--holds to be true--that homosexual couples should not be allowed to be legally married because this or that divine being hates the very idea of homosexuals existing much less marrying then that person's behavior will be *very* different than one who, for instance, does not believe that the sensibilities of divine beings has no legitimate place in determining laws in a secular legal system. Perhaps it is because I grew up in an America where non-trivial numbers of the majority saw the color of my skin and determined, based upon that information, that their 'truth' was that I was an intellectual and moral inferior and that they should behave appropriately that I distrust the 'this is my truth' construction. I do not think it is benign and, in fact, I think it can lead to quite malevolent outcomes.

I'm curious, is there anyone here who believes that if N-number of Republicans hold to be true that Barack Obama is a Marxist, Mau-Mau, Islamic fascist, socialist who was born in Kenya and hates America does that mean that, in fact, Mr. Obama is obliged to BE those things. If someone believes these things to be true and it turns out that he is none of those things, doesn't that mean that someone holds a 'false' belief? There are no sane worlds (sane here meaning not self-contradictory) where Mr. Obama was both born in Kenya and born in Hawaii. If it is 'true' that he was born in Kenya then he is not the legitimate President nor can he ever be the legitimate President since the Constitution is quite clear on the matter. If it is not true then one may not like him, his party or his policies but that does not mean he is illegitimate.

I understand that 'that is my truth' is supposed to be a way of promoting dialog and tolerance but it fails to do the former and actually gives aid and comfort to bigotry since, for instance, a bigot can assert that it is her 'truth' that I am her mental and moral inferior and the *only* counter I have left to me is that my 'truth' is that I'm not--but no one should expect me to accede to statements about my own inferiority so there's no way for someone on the sidelines to adjudicate that. Meaning that outside of a 'well, my truth is that I don't like racism' is the *best* stance you can make. Again, if my being black is held by someone to be prima facie evidence on my mental and moral inferiority it is *entirely* appropriate, given the 'this is my truth', construction for them to act in the most racist manner since they are not being 'racist' by their own lights but acting in accordance with what they held to be true. To promote, pass or enforce laws or social norms that make that kind of behavior out of bounds is to violate the bigot's truth for no *good* reason.

Is that really the world people want because that is the world that elevating an opinion--even an incorrect one--to the level of 'truth' ineluctably creates.

Cheers
Aj
Right I think someone saying something is "my truth" most certainly doesn't absolve them from error in that "truth" or error in the usage of the phrase.

But... I feel like "it's my truth" is meant to be used in a personal context rather than factual statement about, say for example, whether something's red or if it's blue... because the truth of what color something is, is clear and not really subject to personal choice or perspective . I feel like using the term that way is stretching it beyond what I understand it's (the phrase) essence to be.

So I really think it is more meant to be about and used in reference to things that are subject to ones perspective rather than things that have no room for personal opinion and are just plain facts. When I think of it, if I were to use it... and I have it would be in a context of my feelings about how I as a human perceive more abstract ideas and or internalize them and sort to arrive at "my truth". Less than concrete things, perhaps feelings of gender, labels etc. Like if someone were to put forth that Metropolis is a butch because I XYZ and ABC ... it doesn't matter, because how I feel about what I am is still MY truth, and correct for me.

It IS true for me... but may not be for others... we have different truths. I don't think the statement is meant to be used to say something is THEE universal truth, but a more abstract personal truth to or about oneself. I think if used to dispute indisputable facts about the outside world the phrase is just being used incorrectly in the first place.

[dreadgeek]

Right I think someone saying something is "my truth" most certainly doesn't absolve them from error in that "truth" or error in the usage of the phrase.

But... I feel like "it's my truth" is meant to be used in a personal context rather than factual statement about, say for example, whether something's red or if it's blue... because the truth of what color something is, is clear and not really subject to personal choice or perspective . I feel like using the term that way is stretching it beyond what I understand it's (the phrase) essence to be.

So I really think it is more meant to be about and used in reference to things that are subject to ones perspective rather than things that have no room for personal opinion and are just plain facts. When I think of it, if I were to use it... and I have it would be in a context of my feelings about how I as a human perceive more abstract ideas and or internalize them and sort to arrive at "my truth". Less than concrete things, perhaps feelings of gender, labels etc. Like if someone were to put forth that Metropolis is a butch because I XYZ and ABC ... it doesn't matter, because how I feel about what I am is still MY truth, and correct for me.

It IS true for me... but may not be for others... we have different truths. I don't think the statement is meant to be used to say something is THEE universal truth, but a more abstract personal truth to or about oneself. I think if used to dispute indisputable facts about the outside world the phrase is just being used incorrectly in the first place.

I have read the phrase (or one of its synonyms) used here in the problematic context (not wanting to reopen old wounds I will not go into specific details about the incidents I have in mind) which is what sparks my interest in the matter. If you are talking about your own interior landscape then 'this my truth' is almost entirely unproblematic. If that is what is at issue, then my question changes from what 'this is my truth' buys us to why anyone would take the statement "my truth is that tequila is yummy" as being at all problematic.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJo View Post

Right. I think the problematic part is that many of us who use this phrase use it in different ways.
Yes, precisely. I would feel better about the whole thing if people would designate or define what truths they are talking about when they speak of 'my truth'.

Aj
------------------

Well, yes. But I see that as a side issue in the more formal discussion. I haven't seen anyone argue against the meaning captured by Jo's explication, from the beginning of the thread 'til now; only against the alternatives.

For me, a problem arises if I sense that using this phrase means they are not willing to take a look at what is "true" for other people- or that we all see the world through filters/lenses that speak to our life experience.

This entire discussion has led me to the realization that when the word "true" or "truth" enters into things, we may be digging in our heels about something. Of course I have and do this sometimes. Yet, just considering what others are bringing to the discussion does make me more mindful of using these terms or the phrase.

I admit that I am just not at my best communication mode when I begin to feel stubborn. This usually means I am not listening to someone else.

[dreadgeek]

For me, a problem arises if I sense that using this phrase means they are not willing to take a look at what is "true" for other people- or that we all see the world through filters/lenses that speak to our life experience.

This entire discussion has led me to the realization that when the word "true" or "truth" enters into things, we may be digging in our heels about something. Of course I have and do this sometimes. Yet, just considering what others are bringing to the discussion does make me more mindful of using these terms or the phrase.

I admit that I am just not at my best communication mode when I begin to feel stubborn. This usually means I am not listening to someone else.

See, I think that the problem with using this construction of things being 'true' for people is that we aren't being clear about the subject matter domain. I think that, for instance, there can be multiple truths (within reason) about what makes a successful relationship. Even here I would have to draw a line. If a neighbor tells me that it is 'true for them' that beating their spouse makes their relationship healthier I'm not going to 'respect' that 'truth' and avoid calling the cops. If one is talking about your own interior landscape then sure, we all have our own truths but this observation still--even after a couple of days of sitting on it like a hen--strikes me as trivial to the point of banality and if that is what we are talking about I'm *still* confused why anyone would find that at all controversial.

My concern is not when people are talking about their own interior landscape but when they are talking about the world we all share. That is the more interesting (read problematic) use of the phrase.

Part of my problem in understanding what we are talking about, at this juncture, is that my use of the word 'true' is perhaps more constrained. For me, something is 'true' if the statement accurately describes the world in such a way the world is obliged to actually conform to that description. A couple of examples will, I hope, suffice.

1) Earth rotates on its axis every 24.25 hours and is tilted at 23 degrees relative to the plane of orbit.

2) Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States. George W Bush was the 43rd President of the United States. William Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States.

3) Ordinary (light) water is dihydrogen monoxide, meaning that it has two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.

4) Hydrogen has one electron and one proton.

5) All life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor and has diverged in the last 4 billion years by a process of mutation and natural selection.

You get the idea. My concern is not when people make comments about their interior landscape but when they argue that they get to have their own 'truth' relative to any of the class of ideas above. If we're *only* talking about interior landscapes then I return to my question of Monday--what about saying "my truth is..." interests people? If we're talking about the larger, more generic question of epistemology then I have to ask if the idea of each of us having our own 'truths' can even hold itself up under its own weight. It seems to me to be demonstrably false even by its own lights.

I say that because, for instance, if we each have our own truths and we need to treat those truths as valid then *my* own truth is that we *don't* have our own truths.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Philosophical arguments so often wend their way down to a paradox. :poc-angry:

[Corkey]

I think with sciences not being taught in schools we are going to experience more of this. I'm even more concerned with the kids being home schooled.
My internal truths are different from everyone else's, however the earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth and we did not just appear in this form 6,000 years ago. Science is not a god, but it can reveal many truths that mankind needs to see and hear. I think mans ego get in the way of real scientific truth.

[Corkey]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/man-name-sand-visible-space-190516989.html

This is precisely what I mean by mans ego.

[dreadgeek]

I think with sciences not being taught in schools we are going to experience more of this. I'm even more concerned with the kids being home schooled.
My internal truths are different from everyone else's, however the earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth and we did not just appear in this form 6,000 years ago. Science is not a god, but it can reveal many truths that mankind needs to see and hear. I think mans ego get in the way of real scientific truth.

Your next to last sentence really illustrates what I try to communicate about science, its power and its beauty. I think science gives us a ground for what I call the least common point of agreement. By that, I mean that despite whatever differences we bring to the table we can all agree that, for instance, Earth has one moon and that gravity holds the two bodies together. We can agree that the very same force that holds the Earth-Moon system together causes that system to orbit the Sun. We can agree that the very same force that causes all of that orbiting round gravitational centers of mass holds you to the chair you're sitting in and reading these words. It doesn't matter that you are Native American and I am Black, the same force effects us both. It doesn't matter if I am conservative or you are liberal or vice versa, Newtonian physics effects us the same way.

While these might seem really trivial they are not as trivial as might be revealed on first glance. The reason why is that the same general methods of thought that allow us to understand why the Earth-Moon system works allows us to *also* realize that you and I are members of the same species. Regardless of how easily we fall into the mental habits of xenophobia, racism--just a special case of xenophobia--will find no quarter in biology. Even if it did, we can reason our way past whatever haven it might offer--however, again, biology offers no harbor for racist ideas.

In our modern society we focus on the differences yet, despite those places we differ, we live in the same physical world, we are subject to the same physical forces. Climate change will not effect just people in Europe while leaving people in South America unscathed. Starvation kills people in China just as easily as it does people in Somalia.

This is not to say that science can give us a moral system per se. I think the life sciences (and here I'll include psychology as it moves more toward grounding its hypothesis in the biology of the brain) can point us toward a common human nature which can provide us with guideposts for what kinds of societies we *can* build and how easy or difficult it will be to create those societies.

Cheers
Aj

[Glenn]

This is not to say that science can give us a moral system per se. I think the life sciences (and here I'll include psychology as it moves more toward grounding its hypothesis in the biology of the brain) can point us toward a common human nature which can provide us with guideposts for what kinds of societies we *can* build and how easy or difficult it will be to create those societies,

Cheers
Aj[/QUOTE]

Here is where the scientific human ego begins to worry me by utilizing the laws and truth of this "Force" in our brain to control us and societies, not knowing for certain the source of this Force,or the further damage for good or evil that can be created by duplicating it in a laboratory. Can Neuro or Behavior Science possibly know with flawless precision the deeper moral and spiritual truths of human evolution that took thousands and thousands of years to spiritually and morally evolve simply by knowing what buttons to push in the brain for the common good of us all?

[dreadgeek]

This is not to say that science can give us a moral system per se. I think the life sciences (and here I'll include psychology as it moves more toward grounding its hypothesis in the biology of the brain) can point us toward a common human nature which can provide us with guideposts for what kinds of societies we *can* build and how easy or difficult it will be to create those societies,

Cheers
Aj

Here is where the scientific human ego begins to worry me by utilizing the laws and truth of this "Force" in our brain to control us and societies, not knowing for certain the source of this Force,or the further damage for good or evil that can be created by duplicating it in a laboratory. Can Neuro or Behavior Science possibly know with flawless precision the deeper moral and spiritual truths of human evolution that took thousands and thousands of years to spiritually and morally evolve simply by knowing what buttons to push in the brain for the common good of us all?[/QUOTE]

What 'force' are you talking about? You don't define what force you mean. What *I* am talking about isn't manipulating a 'force' in our brains, it is rather, working on some commonalities of human psychology. I'm not talking about moral or spiritual 'truths' (whatever that might mean. I am talking about certain features of the human brain.

For example, it is a fairly safe bet that if you had a choice in the matter you would very strongly prefer that you not be enslaved and treated as property. If this holds true for me (and it does) and it holds true for you (and it almost certainly does) we can then infer that chattel slavery is a morally indefensible way of organizing an economy. Not because of some mysterious 'force' but because human beings appear to prefer self-determination, self-ownership and not being treated as mere ends to some means defined by someone else. The *principles* that I am talking about have nothing to do with a 'force'. Rather, it has to do with the idea of hypothesis formation, observation or experiment, and then articulation of a theory which is subject to further refinement and falsification.

Take, as another example, rape. All women appear to resist rape strenuously. We should, in fact, expect precisely this kind of behavior because women have a vested interest in bodily integrity and in choosing the time, place, manner of their sexual activity as well as with whom that activity will occur. We should then be *very* suspicious of any claims, made by anyone, that marital rape isn't rape or that women 'enjoy it after a while' or any of the other completely unsupportable things that have been said about rape over the years.

Taking one last example, in the middle part of the last century several collectivist schemes became all the intellectual vogue. In various places, peoples tried to create societies where, for instance, people did not raise their own children but rather they were raised in creches or people lived in very utilitarian buildings, or ate in communal dining halls. Every single one of them were spectacular failures. Again, a political theory grounded in human nature, might have spared us these needless social experiments. Parents will prefer their own children over the children of strangers--we should expect that. People want privacy and they want to choose the company with whom they break bread. Again, we should expect this given human psychology. This isn't about creating utopias. In fact, my argument is that human nature should warn us, in loud tones and garishly colorful flags, that we are in the presence of dangerous ideas whenever someone comes up with a scheme to create the 'perfect' society.

Again, NONE of this requires a 'force' in our brains. If you can find me a society where parents do *not* prefer their children over those of their neighbors, if you can find me a society where people do *not* expect some level of bodily autonomy, where people do *not* mind being treated as mere ends to a means for the benefit of someone else, I'm happy to listen. However, even then I think that the outlier would only serve to throw sharper light on the fact that it IS an outlier. I will also tell you that any society where one or more of those social structures is enforced will be a profoundly less free society.

When I was talking about gravity I was not saying that there is some force, like gravity, that can be manipulated. Rather, I was stating that in the same way that a systematic asking of questions lead us to realize that the same force that causes apples to fall, for us to stay in chairs, and for the Earth-Moon system to orbit the Sun a similar process can lead us, not to a utopia, but can warn us away from schemes that will not work with human psychology, given how it operates. If nothing else, it will tell us what kind of effort it will take to achieve some end we might find desirable. Getting people to, for instance, eat sweets, have sex, or leave their worldly accumulations to their children is easy, pretty much just this side of effortless. Getting people to, for instance, eschew pleasure today for payoff tomorrow, or leave their worldly goods to some random stranger or to refrain from sex is quite a bit harder. Not impossible, mind you, but quite a bit more difficult and may have to be enforced by restricting certain degrees of freedom.

I am not sure what force you are talking about and I'm not sure what you think behavioral science or neuroscience can or will do as far pushing buttons but it is not what I'm talking about.

cheers
Aj

[imperfect_cupcake]

I just got into an argument with someone because they used it. They were mixing together a)things that were true about their personality and b) assumptions they were making about something they hadn't experienced but I had. Ending it all with "this is my truth"

I tried to call attention to the assumptions that were wrong, not their personality traits, by repeating my experience and asking why are they were calling their assumptions about an experience they've never had, a truth?

they got upset that I was questioning their personality. Which I wasn't. I was trying hard to call attention to the error they were making in thinking what something would be like. sort of like "I don't like strawberry's because they appear to taste read, I'm sure they taste red and I don't like red. that's my truth."
"actually when I tasted strawberrys they weren't red tasting at all. in fact they tasted purple, I know many people say they taste purple. I'm confused why you are telling me it's a truth that strawberries taste red when you've not tasted one?"
"why are you telling me to taste a strawberry??! I don't like red, I don't need red and that's that."
"but I'm not telling you to taste a strawberry... *loses will*"



I think it can get very confusing to use it.

[Licious]

This is a fun thread, on one of my favorite current topics (okay several of my favorite subjects are embodied in this thread, to be accurate)

In a society where I want to see change and affect change, discussions of logic, people's individual belief systems, what kind of verbage produces results counter-productive to individual civil rights - are of great interest to me.

I realize this is not contributing to the topic at hand, rather, I am here to cheer you all on as I read and reflect.

If I have something intelligent to add, I will chime in as the thread progresses.

Thanks everyone!

:cheerleader:

[dreadgeek]

Normally I don't quote articles or op-ed pieces in their totality, but in this case I thought it might be useful to put forth this entire piece in yesterday's



Relativism about morality has come to play an increasingly important role in contemporary culture. To many thoughtful people, and especially to those who are unwilling to derive their morality from a religion, it appears unavoidable. Where would absolute facts about right and wrong come from, they reason, if there is no supreme being to decree them? We should reject moral absolutes, even as we keep our moral convictions, allowing that there can be right and wrong relative to this or that moral code, but no right and wrong per se. (See, for example, Stanley Fish’s 2001 op-ed, “Condemnation Without Absolutes.”)[1]

Is it plausible to respond to the rejection of absolute moral facts with a relativistic view of morality? Why should our response not be a more extreme, nihilistic one, according to which we stop using normative terms like “right” and “wrong” altogether, be it in their absolutist or relativist guises?

Relativism is not always a coherent way of responding to the rejection of a certain class of facts. When we decided that there were no such things as witches, we didn’t become relativists about witches. Rather, we just gave up witch talk altogether, except by way of characterizing the attitudes of people (such as those in Salem) who mistakenly believed that the world contained witches, or by way of characterizing what it is that children find it fun to pretend to be on Halloween. We became what we may call “eliminativists” about witches.

On the other hand, when Einstein taught us, in his Special Theory of Relativity, that there was no such thing as the absolute simultaneity of two events, the recommended outcome was that we become relativists about simultaneity, allowing that there is such a thing as “simultaneity relative to a (spatio-temporal) frame of reference,” but not simultaneity as such.

What’s the difference between the witch case and the simultaneity case? Why did the latter rejection lead to relativism, but the former to eliminativism?

In the simultaneity case, Einstein showed that while the world does not contain simultaneity as such, it does contain its relativistic cousin — simultaneity relative to a frame of reference — a property that plays something like the same sort of role as classical simultaneity did in our theory of the world.

By contrast, in the witch case, once we give up on witches, there is no relativistic cousin that plays anything like the role that witches were supposed to play. The property, that two events may have, of “being simultaneous relative to frame of reference F” is recognizably a kind of simultaneity. But the property of “being a witch according to a belief system T” is not a kind of witch, but a kind of content (the content of belief system T): it’s a way of characterizing what belief system T says, not a way of characterizing the world.

Now, the question is whether the moral case is more like that of simultaneity or more like that of witches? When we reject absolute moral facts is moral relativism the correct outcome or is it moral eliminativism (nihilism)?

The answer, as we have seen, depends on whether there are relativistic cousins of “right” and “wrong” that can play something like the same role that absolute “right” and “wrong” play.

It is hard to see what those could be.

What’s essential to “right” and “wrong” is that they are normative terms, terms that are used to say how things ought to be, in contrast with how things actually are. But what relativistic cousin of “right” and “wrong” could play anything like such a normative role?

Most moral relativists say that moral right and wrong are to be relativized to a community’s “moral code.” According to some such codes, eating beef is permissible; according to others, it is an abomination and must never be allowed. The relativist proposal is that we must never talk simply about what’s right or wrong, but only about what’s “right or wrong relative to a particular moral code.”

The trouble is that while “Eating beef is wrong” is clearly a normative statement, “Eating beef is wrong relative to the moral code of the Hindus” is just a descriptive remark that carries no normative import whatsoever. It’s just a way of characterizing what is claimed by a particular moral code, that of the Hindus. We can see this from the fact that anyone, regardless of their views about eating beef, can agree that eating beef is wrong relative to the moral code of the Hindus.

So, it looks as though the moral case is more like the witch case than the simultaneity case: there are no relativistic cousins of “right” and “wrong.” Denial of moral absolutism leads not to relativism, but to nihilism.[2]

There is no half-way house called “moral relativism,” in which we continue to use normative vocabulary with the stipulation that it is to be understood as relativized to particular moral codes. If there are no absolute facts about morality, “right” and “wrong” would have to join “witch” in the dustbin of failed concepts.

The argument is significant because it shows that we should not rush to give up on absolute moral facts, mysterious as they can sometimes seem, for the world might seem even more mysterious without any normative vocabulary whatsoever.

One might be suspicious of my argument against moral relativism. Aren’t we familiar with some normative domains — such as that of etiquette — about which we are all relativists? Surely, no one in their right minds would think that there is some absolute fact of the matter about whether we ought to slurp our noodles while eating.

If we are dining at Buckingham Palace, we ought not to slurp, since our hosts would consider it offensive, and we ought not, other things being equal, offend our hosts. On the other hand, if we are dining in Xian, China, we ought to slurp, since in Xian slurping is considered to be a sign that we are enjoying our meal, and our hosts would consider it offensive if we didn’t slurp, and we ought not, other things being equal, offend our hosts.

But if relativism is coherent in the case of etiquette why couldn’t we claim that morality is relative in the same way?

The reason is that our relativism about etiquette does not actually dispense with all absolute moral facts. Rather, we are relativists about etiquette in the sense that, with respect to a restricted range of issues (such as table manners and greetings), we take the correct absolute norm to be “we ought not, other things being equal, offend our hosts.”

This norm is absolute and applies to everyone and at all times. Its relativistic flavor comes from the fact that, with respect to that limited range of behaviors (table manners and greetings, but not, say, the abuse of children for fun), it advocates varying one’s behavior with local convention.

In other words, the relativism of etiquette depends on the existence of absolute moral norms. Since etiquette does not dispense with absolute moral facts, one cannot hope to use it as a model for moral relativism.

Suppose we take this point on board, though, and admit that there have to be some absolute moral facts. Why couldn’t they all be like the facts involved in etiquette? Why couldn’t they all say that, with respect to any morally relevant question, what we ought to do depends on what the local conventions are?

The trouble with this approach is that once we have admitted that there are some absolute moral facts, it is hard to see why we shouldn’t think that there are many — as many as common sense and ordinary reasoning appear to warrant. Having given up on the purity of a thoroughgoing anti-absolutism, we would now be in the business of trying to figure out what absolute moral facts there are. To do that, we would need to employ our usual mix of argument, intuition and experience. And what argument, intuition and experience tell us is that whether we should slurp our noodles depends on what the local conventions are, but whether we should abuse children for fun does not.

A would-be relativist about morality needs to decide whether his view grants the existence of some absolute moral facts, or whether it is to be a pure relativism, free of any commitment to absolutes. The latter position, I have argued, is mere nihilism; whereas the former leads us straight out of relativism and back into the quest for the moral absolutes.

None of this is to deny that there are hard cases, where it is not easy to see what the correct answer to a moral question is. It is merely to emphasize that there appears to be no good alternative to thinking that, when we are in a muddle about what the answer to a hard moral question is, we are in a muddle about what the absolutely correct answer is.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/the-maze-of-moral-relativism/?pagewanted=all

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Philosophical arguments so often wend their way down to a paradox. :poc-angry:

"It is always a good idea to ask how some very general view about truth, knowledge, or meaning applies to itself; and few things could be more damaging to a view than to discover that it is false by its own lights. (Paul Boghossian)

The type of relativism that concerns me (which may not be the type of relativism being discussed here although I'm not sure that it isn't) falls apart under its own weight which is what I was hinting at with my statement that if we all have our own 'truths' then my 'truth' is that we don't have our own truths.

Cheers
Aj

[Gemme]

I was listening to one of my current favorite songs and this thread came to mind.

zRFD4IIJMcc

"Cuz I'm living my truth without your lies"

:cheesy:

But what if someone's truth is that their thoughts don't lead to hurtful actions or if they do the person's hurt are not inside the circle of moral concern. Then what? Since there is no reason to *prefer* non-hurtful actions as a touchstone if someone holds a truth that leads to harm, all we have is 'I don't like that so please don't". That seems a flimsy basis upon which to build any idea of justice. What we *can't* do is argue that the person holding the truth that leads to malevolent action is wrong because it's their 'truth', so it *can't* be wrong. It can't be wrong even by our own lights since your truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong and my truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong and Ebon's truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong but *of course* we would say that. We all have a vested interest in it being wrong. But since we have conceded that if you believe something is true then it IS true--for any reasonable definition--then all someone has to get around the codicil that it can't lead to harm is for that person to say "racism doesn't hurt people, of course those on the receiving end will *say* that it hurts them but what else would you expect 'those people' to say?" Now, they've stated that their 'truth' is that racism doesn't hurt people. If you insist that it does then they can even concede that it might but that the targets of racism are beyond the circle of reasonable moral concern and the same way you wouldn't, say, crash an airplane with 300 people on board in order to save the life of an ant, one should not force society to roll into the circle of moral concern people who are clearly beyond that circle--it is their truth after all and there is no reason that anyone can give as to why *your* truth is preferable to *their* truth.

Cheers
Aj

This is interesting. You took me saying that I wished more people were about letting people do their own thing, as long as it didn't hurt anyone....it's been a long time but I do believe I had those who perpetuate against homosexuals and our community in mind when I said that....and somehow turned it into me saying something about a system of justice? I'm sorry. I am just not following.

Of course anyone can say that something is their truth. A pedophile might say that their truth is that children like to be touched by them. Would I believe that? As a survivor, I would say absolutely not. But I will not take their right away to say it. I may argue it with them but I won't say that they can't say it because I don't agree with it.

To me, if that line of thinking is truly what they believe, then I believe...in this particular instance...that they are more dangerous than other pedophiles who believe that their victims do not like their touch.

But, I can't say that that isn't truth. They may, indeed, believe that. For them, that is a reality.

So "my truth" means, more or less, "my experience"? I think your explanation of the meaning is excellent, Jo. Now, since there has to be a way to express that otherwise, I'm trying to think what it is so we can arrive at the beginnings of a definition.

Yes. Also, my "truth" may be exchanged with "perspective". Basically, this says to me that this is how I, or you, or anyone else sees things or a particular situation....whatever the discussion is about at that moment.

That use of 'my truth' is, more or less, unproblematic since it really does not effect the world the rest of us live in. If that were the *only* way that people use that phrase, I wouldn't be concerned (and probably wouldn't be involved in this conversation). My concern is that people don't draw a distinction (presumably because they do not see one) between the following kinds of statements:

1) If there is not some kind of intellectual meeting-of-the-minds I am not going to be happy in a relationship.

2) If we allow marriages between two men or two women, we will have to allow marriages between father and daughter or a 50 year old man and an 10 year old girl etc.

The problem isn't statements of type-1, the problem is statements of type-2. I think we should not evaluate the 'my truth' idea on the basis of type-1 statements but on the basis of type-2 statements.

Cheers
Aj

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. People are going to think what they are going to think, regardless if they preface that thought with 'this is what I think' or 'this is my truth' or whatever.

Right....I could say "in my experience" or "in my case" and those would both work. I use those as well. I think I tend to use "my truth" when it's a stronger, more fundamental, more visceral usage.

So......in my case I prefer my coffee black. My experience is that "surprises" generally don't turn out well for me, so I prefer to know what's coming next. But my truth is that I must have a passionate connection with my partner.

It's a good, better, best kind of usage....if that makes sense...

Right. I think the problematic part is that many of us who use this phrase use it in different ways.

Yes, exactly.

Yes, precisely. I would feel better about the whole thing if people would designate or define what truths they are talking about when they speak of 'my truth'.

Cheers
Aj

:blink:

Their own truths.

It could be anything from how they see a political situation to whether their son was really out or if the umpire made a poor call.

Jupiter has 30 moons can't be "my truth" even if I fervently believe it. It's something I could be wrong about and I know it, and even if I don't it has a different essence than "my truth": The way Jo (and others) are explaining "my truth," the determiner of what is true is internal to the speaker. It's not an empirical fact; it has an external truth condition.

Or something like that. :)

Yes. It's completely internal and may or may not match what others see externally.

I have read the phrase (or one of its synonyms) used here in the problematic context (not wanting to reopen old wounds I will not go into specific details about the incidents I have in mind) which is what sparks my interest in the matter. If you are talking about your own interior landscape then 'this my truth' is almost entirely unproblematic. If that is what is at issue, then my question changes from what 'this is my truth' buys us to why anyone would take the statement "my truth is that tequila is yummy" as being at all problematic.

Cheers
Aj

For myself, using your specific example, I wouldn't. I find no issue with someone thinking that tequila is yummy. It's my truth that it isn't.

See, I think that the problem with using this construction of things being 'true' for people is that we aren't being clear about the subject matter domain. I think that, for instance, there can be multiple truths (within reason) about what makes a successful relationship. Even here I would have to draw a line. If a neighbor tells me that it is 'true for them' that beating their spouse makes their relationship healthier I'm not going to 'respect' that 'truth' and avoid calling the cops. If one is talking about your own interior landscape then sure, we all have our own truths but this observation still--even after a couple of days of sitting on it like a hen--strikes me as trivial to the point of banality and if that is what we are talking about I'm *still* confused why anyone would find that at all controversial.

My concern is not when people are talking about their own interior landscape but when they are talking about the world we all share. That is the more interesting (read problematic) use of the phrase.

Part of my problem in understanding what we are talking about, at this juncture, is that my use of the word 'true' is perhaps more constrained. For me, something is 'true' if the statement accurately describes the world in such a way the world is obliged to actually conform to that description. A couple of examples will, I hope, suffice.

1) Earth rotates on its axis every 24.25 hours and is tilted at 23 degrees relative to the plane of orbit.

2) Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States. George W Bush was the 43rd President of the United States. William Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States.

3) Ordinary (light) water is dihydrogen monoxide, meaning that it has two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.

4) Hydrogen has one electron and one proton.

5) All life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor and has diverged in the last 4 billion years by a process of mutation and natural selection.

You get the idea. My concern is not when people make comments about their interior landscape but when they argue that they get to have their own 'truth' relative to any of the class of ideas above. If we're *only* talking about interior landscapes then I return to my question of Monday--what about saying "my truth is..." interests people? If we're talking about the larger, more generic question of epistemology then I have to ask if the idea of each of us having our own 'truths' can even hold itself up under its own weight. It seems to me to be demonstrably false even by its own lights.

I say that because, for instance, if we each have our own truths and we need to treat those truths as valid then *my* own truth is that we *don't* have our own truths.

Cheers
Aj

I do see that it's the word 'truth' itself that is the hang up.

I think that we all have a need, at some point or another, to express ourselves and our opinions to others. Using 'my truth' just emphasizes that that particular opinion is how we know things to be and maybe we use it because it's close to the vest for us. I know that I tend to use it when talking about things that are more on the personal and/or intimate side of things.

I would not say 'this is my truth' when talking about donuts. Not seriously, anyway. I would probably use it when discussing my childhood or a cause that I find worthy.

It's one thing to wonder why people say the things that they do, but it's another altogether to ruminate on the validity of that person's choice of using that particular word or phrase. That's where I get squinchy....when someone casts judgement upon me for saying something as simple as 'this is my truth' just because it doesn't sit well with 'them'.

And so, I'm back where I began with this months ago.

*shrug*

[Cin]

People are going to think what they are going to think, regardless if they preface that thought with 'this is what I think' or 'this is my truth' or whatever.

Yes, this makes sense to me.

I can really only understand clearly my use of the words “my truth.” I don’t know how other people use it. I am almost positive that if I were to use the phrase “It’s my truth” I would be clutching my pearls. Metaphorically speaking, of course, since I don’t actually have any pearls. But I do tend to use words, especially in writing about something that I feel passionately toward, for dramatic or emotional effect. However, I don’t believe it is a favorite word combo for me. I’m sure it isn’t something I would ever say without thinking. My use of it would be purposeful. And it would be about MY personal truth.

If I were to use the phrase ‘my truth’ it would be to explain who I am and how I move through the world. For example I’m a butch, a woman, a feminist, I’m left leaning, I’m monogamous, I try to always take responsibility for my actions and on an internal level I believe in fearlessly and openly examining the motivations behind my actions so that at the very least I can remain honest with myself and at best I can change direction if I find my motives suspect. This is a part of my truth. That is, if I were interested in defining it as a truth of any kind.

The problem would be if I were to attach some moral relevance to my truth or develop a hierarchy of behavior with my truths positioned firmly at the top. If I am unable to distinguish my truth from THE ONE truth for all right thinking people then I believe it is very problematic. However, if this is my process, if I tend to confuse "MY truth" with "THE truth", I doubt semantics is the problem, nor would changing the phraseology have any effect on the actual issue. Because the problem isn’t my language selection it is how I actually think. And whether I call it "my truth" or "my one eyed, one horned flying purple people eater" the results of this type of thought process will be the same.

Another problem with “my truth” is it legitimizes the possibility that there is more than one. So people feel comfortable using “it’s my truth” as a way of not accepting a universal truth. But again the usage of the phrase is not the problem. The idiosyncratic ideology is.

Whether I believe the phrase “my truth” will attract as users people who cannot tell a personal truth from a universal moral mandate or as an excuse to ignore reality is irrelevant in my opinion. Because really if they don’t say it’s my truth, they will say it’s just my opinion or it’s my beliefs or whatever. I suppose the operative word is MY and how it is really standing in for THE ONE.

I certainly can’t control if and when and to what end people use words. And apparently, as with many words in language, there are ways in which the meaning of my truth is not concrete or universal. Still though for me more problematic is that there are things that people view as truths that have nothing in common with the definition of truth as I understand it. And if someone is thumping their chest or shaking their fist while going on about their truth then I can be pretty sure they won’t be changing their mind any time soon.

I think a better use of my time might be how do I break down or break apart the bundle of core beliefs that allow a person to believe that something is any kind of truth when there are volumes of evidence that proves otherwise. Or beliefs that are central to a person’s make up that cause them to decide moral rightness for others. For example they believe in monogamy so then monogamy is the only right and true course for everyone.

I remember clearly when I first realized that being unarguably right won’t stop others from arguing with you and all the evidence in the world won’t convince them of the truth. The reality is sometimes simply pointing out evidence to support your belief will be futile regardless of what is true. I can’t tell you who I was with or what the argument was about, although I do remember it was a central relationship. What I remember most is the feeling I had when it finally dawned on me that it doesn’t matter one whit that I am positive I’m right, that I have a plethora of proof to back me up, and that I am able to articulate my position perfectly. It doesn’t matter that there is no logical way anyone would not be swayed by the evidence. I was truly gobsmacked. I felt a sense of regret and defeat as I tried to imagine how anyone can ever understand anything in a world where the truth could not only be subjective but could actually be a lie. But I also felt something click into place in my brain. This was an important piece of information that I had been missing for years. Imagine my surprise. No matter how right I think I am or even how right I actually am and no matter how easily I believe I can prove the truth with my facts, if the other person has an attachment to the lie, whether consciously or unconsciously, whether it is part of a core belief or an emotional investment, the other person can and often will completely disregard my compelling argument as so much bullshit. Bullshit that they feel I insist on spraying all over their feelings.

That was my first experience with the realization that truth for many is not actually a reality or fact based thing, it is more a subjective, feeling type experience that isn’t locked into what is concrete but more about what they wish it to be. And they have no qualms about calling that truth. I don’t know what anyone can do to change that. I’m aware there are techniques for changing people’s minds. I know there’s ways purported to break through core beliefs. I know that often creating dissonance will result in a person reevaluating their ideas and this could make it possible for them to change what they believe. In my experience though the more attached someone is to their belief the more likely presenting conclusive and undeniable evidence and proof to the contrary will only succeed in polarizing their beliefs and make it very difficult for them to hear you. Trying to create dissonance so a person will rethink a core belief can be unrewarding, fruitless and in some cases even hazardous to your health. Yet it is necessary to try I think. Challenging lies and misrepresentations of reality are a part of "my truth".

[macele]

i've never used this phrase. very interesting.

i take it as meaning, it only pertains to them. "my truth" is not or doesn't have to be universal truth to them.

"this is my truth", ... telling it like it is.

"this is my truth", ... this is my reality.

"this is my truth", ... to thine own self be true.

i'd rather use the phrase, "the fact is, the truth matters." but that's a whole nother box of shoes.

[Chancie]

'This is my truth' is not an expression I would use, because the word 'truth' means something different to me.

But, I think that when people say, This is my truth, they are claiming their right to express their feelings, even in the face an audience that is disinterested in their deep feelings and concerns.

I do have a friend who believes that DNA is a triple helix; she is just about positively sure of this. <-- not the kind of personal meaning I usually expect

[Nat]

I'm tutoring a very advanced English language learner who is a scientist. She aced out of the GED prep manual for English, so we are working mostly on increasing her vocabulary, tweaking her grammar and punctuation, increasing her listening/word-recognition abilities (she says she often misses the meaning behind stories and jokes because she misses a few critical words). Anyway, I'm having her listen to Ted talks and write down the parts she doesn't understand. The last one she chose was a talk by Isabel Allende who started out her speech with a question: what is truer than truth? Her answer was "the story."

My tutee did not understand how this question made any logical sense. In fact, over and over again, she has known the literal meaning of the word, but not the figurative ways in which the same word can be used. I don't know if this has more to do with her scientific brain or if her 1st language (Farsi) is more distinct in the words used to express literal vs figurative stuff. So I am constantly challenged to try to explain stuff that I haven't ever thought twice about - to a person far more intelligent than I am. It's an enjoyable challenge.

Anyway, in trying to explain Allende's question, this was pretty much the answer I gave her:

In the science world, truth is based on facts. So in your work-life I imagine most people will speak about truth meaning factual, actual truth.

But in English, there is another idea of truth that's not necessarily related to facts. So especially when you are listening to non-sciency people, you may hear "truth" used more to mean something personal or something from your heart or an abstract idea. It might be a religious idea or it may be related to the idea that there is a truth at a deeper level than facts can reveal.

But I didn't get into the, "this is my truth," conversation. I wish I'd thought of it. I don't have trouble with most, "this is my truth," statements and I have probably used the phrase a few times myself. My understanding of, "this is my truth," is that it's an attempt to acknowledge that we have each had our own life experiences which have shaped for each of us how we view and interact with the world. I think it's a statement that tries to set a tone which doesn't impose one's own thoughts, beliefs, filters, lens, what-have-you on others - and in that way I see it as a respectful and humble way to begin to express something possibly unpopular. But I have also seen it used as a defensive way to plug one's own ears in the face of challenge, as a way to deny or escape accusation of prejudice or ignorance.

When it comes to evidence, science, math - I don't believe in personal "truth." When it comes to defense against actual knowledge, defense against learning, I don't believe in personal "truth." But in matters of personal experience, in the realms of the heart and of the spirit, I believe very much in personal truth and I think there's enough room in the world for anybody to acknowledge having one.

The other day, I mentioned aquatic ape theory to AJ and she said there were a lot of holes in it. I wouldn't say "aquatic ape theory is my personal truth." it's just a theory that catches my fancy. I'm neither a scientist nor a mathematician, so I live more in the world of figurative individual truth than I do in the world of factual truth.

I'm not down with that triple helix ish though. My personal truth is that she needs to be held down and corrected.

[Cin]

Nat's post got me thinking about something that happened this morning. I guess it's a little off topic but if you tilt your head and think figuratively rather than literally it might fit okay.

People have often told me that I’m literal. They say things like you take things too literally or you need to stop being so literal and so forth. I have steadfastly refused to accept their observations. Instead I have always maintained that I am simply taking people at their exact word in an attempt to get them to be accountable for the actual words they say rather than me trying to interpret what they could mean by what they say. I have always believed this is a fair and clear way to communicate. And I have always had a need for clarity. I don’t believe I’m incapable of figurative thought. I have always been able to understand the possible meanings and interpretations behind a statement or an action. I just prefer to take people at their word.

Besides that I have always believed being literal means lacking the ability for abstract thought or lacking imagination. I conflate it with seeing the world in black and white. I looked up the meaning of literal today and this is what I found:

Literal
1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.
3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.
5. (of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.

I still want to refute the claim that I am too literal. But something happened this morning that is making me rethink my position.

Me: “You want some yogurt for breakfast.”

A: “Sure bring me a small bowl.”

Me: “You mean those tiny ramekins.”

A: “No, in a regular cereal bowl.”

Me: “Well, they only come in one size.”

A: (with a sigh, cause life with me is quite exhausting between my need for clarity and my literal interpretation of things.) “Just put a small amount of yogurt IN the bowl.”

Me: {with wonder as light dawns on Marblehead) “Oh I get it, you used ‘a small bowl’ to refer to the quantity in the bowl. Like a small portion or a small piece.”

A: Yes dear, that’s right. That’s EXACTLY right.”

I don’t know I guess maybe I should reconsider my position on whether I am literal or not.

[DapperButch]

Nat's post got me thinking about something that happened this morning. I guess it's a little off topic but if you tilt your head and think figuratively rather than literally it might fit okay.

People have often told me that I’m literal. They say things like you take things too literally or you need to stop being so literal and so forth. I have steadfastly refused to accept their observations. Instead I have always maintained that I am simply taking people at their exact word in an attempt to get them to be accountable for the actual words they say rather than me trying to interpret what they could mean by what they say. I have always believed this is a fair and clear way to communicate. And I have always had a need for clarity. I don’t believe I’m incapable of figurative thought. I have always been able to understand the possible meanings and interpretations behind a statement or an action. I just prefer to take people at their word.

Besides that I have always believed being literal means lacking the ability for abstract thought or lacking imagination. I conflate it with seeing the world in black and white. I looked up the meaning of literal today and this is what I found:

Literal
1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.
3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.
5. (of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.

I still want to refute the claim that I am too literal. But something happened this morning that is making me rethink my position.

Me: “You want some yogurt for breakfast.”

A: “Sure bring me a small bowl.”

Me: “You mean those tiny ramekins.”

A: “No, in a regular cereal bowl.”

Me: “Well, they only come in one size.”

A: (with a sigh, cause life with me is quite exhausting between my need for clarity and my literal interpretation of things.) “Just put a small amount of yogurt IN the bowl.”

Me: {with wonder as light dawns on Marblehead) “Oh I get it, you used ‘a small bowl’ to refer to the quantity in the bowl. Like a small portion or a small piece.”

A: Yes dear, that’s right. That’s EXACTLY right.”

I don’t know I guess maybe I should reconsider my position on whether I am literal or not.

Yes, my friend, I think that maybe you should. :|

However, I do not think that if one is literal in their communication means that they do not have the ability to think abstractly. Nor do I think it means that they lack imagination.

I am pretty darn literal. It can be frustrating to others. Not as bad as the above example, but....I guess for me I have always seen it as being very specific. Hmmm...I will need to ask tantalizingfemme what she thinks about this one.

Anyway, I have no problem with abstract thought. I do not think that I have a lot of imagination, however, but I don't think this has anything to do with me being literal.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

LOL. I can certainly see how the "small bowl" conversation could be exhausting if you're having them all the time. On the other hand, unless her hands are broken or something, she could always just get her own damn yogurt and avoid the conversation altogether. :)

I very briefly dated a guy years ago who used to get mad at me because I wouldn't do what he wanted until he told me what he wanted. He didn't want to have to say "I don't want to do that, I'd rather do this." Instead, he wanted to say "Oh, well, okay. I guess. *sigh*" and then have me just know that meant he really didn't want to do the thing I'd just suggested and instead wanted to do something else. The relationship didn't last long. Personally, I'm a fan of literal thinking.

[Cin]

LOL. I can certainly see how the "small bowl" conversation could be exhausting if you're having them all the time. On the other hand, unless her hands are broken or something, she could always just get her own damn yogurt and avoid the conversation altogether. :)

I very briefly dated a guy years ago who used to get mad at me because I wouldn't do what he wanted until he told me what he wanted. He didn't want to have to say "I don't want to do that, I'd rather do this." Instead, he wanted to say "Oh, well, okay. I guess. *sigh*" and then have me just know that meant he really didn't want to do the thing I'd just suggested and instead wanted to do something else. The relationship didn't last long. Personally, I'm a fan of literal thinking.

You know that’s a good point. I hate it when people won’t verbalize their wants and needs and try to get others to do what they want without them having to own it. I always wonder what that’s about. Is it maintaining deniability or something? Like they can always claim “I never said I didn’t want to do that, you just assumed that’s what I meant.”

But I’ve also noticed people don’t want to be asked to explain the intent behind a word they use. If your meaning can be misconstrued because of ambiguous word choices, then I believe the onus is on you to clarify your intention. This is a sticking point with most.

And perhaps it would be easier for my wife to just get her own yogurt. But luckily for me, easy isn’t likely to be her preference. I do back off quicker than I used to though. If somebody says “stop being so literal”, I do. In the past I would spend a good deal of time pointing out how the problem wasn’t about being too literal but about ambiguous word choice. Now I figure that response must mean they don’t care whether I am clear on what they are saying and my quest for clarity is just going to piss them off. So I let it go with a “I’m not too literal” mumbled under my breath.

And it's so nice to see someone saying they are a fan of literal thinking. Makes me think it's possible it might not be such a bad thing after all.

[Gemme]

Me: “You want some yogurt for breakfast.”

A: “Sure bring me a small bowl.”

Me: “You mean those tiny ramekins.”

A: “No, in a regular cereal bowl.”

Me: “Well, they only come in one size.”

A: (with a sigh, cause life with me is quite exhausting between my need for clarity and my literal interpretation of things.) “Just put a small amount of yogurt IN the bowl.”

Me: {with wonder as light dawns on Marblehead) “Oh I get it, you used ‘a small bowl’ to refer to the quantity in the bowl. Like a small portion or a small piece.”

A: Yes dear, that’s right. That’s EXACTLY right.”

I don’t know I guess maybe I should reconsider my position on whether I am literal or not.

Actually, from what was said, I would have thought she was talking about the size of the bowl itself too. If I am talking about the amount of food to go in the bowl, I would say something along the lines of "cupful" or "half full" or "a few spoonfuls".

[Cin]

Actually, from what was said, I would have thought she was talking about the size of the bowl itself too. If I am talking about the amount of food to go in the bowl, I would say something along the lines of "cupful" or "half full" or "a few spoonfuls".

Well that was my original thought. So are we too literal or are others too vague? There certainly seems to be no shortage of those willing to play fast and loose with the meaning of words. I never should have turned in my Clarity Police badge :fastdraq:

[tantalizingfemme]

[QUOTE=DapperButch;438523]I am pretty darn literal. It can be frustrating to others. Not as bad as the above example, but....I guess for me I have always seen it as being very specific. Hmmm...I will need to ask tantalizingfemme what she thinks about this one.[QUOTE]

Are you literal? Yes....literally. :insane:

[Ginger]

'This is my truth' is not an expression I would use, because the word 'truth' means something different to me.

But, I think that when people say, This is my truth, they are claiming their right to express their feelings, even in the face an audience that is disinterested in their deep feelings and concerns.

I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but instead of "This is my truth," I would say, "This is my experience."

I find it useful to at least be clear with myself on what I've experienced, and not let anyone try to force me to experience something I just don't experience.

I'm sorry, I'm probably being confusing.

I mean, two people can be in the same place at the same time, they can be the only two people in the room and the only two people interacting, but have a different experience or interpretation or memory of what that interaction was all about.

This is a challenge in relationships, but I've found that if I just stick to being honest about what MY experience is, I at least feel grounded in that. It's a place to start.

And just as you notice that people "claim their right to express their feelings," I notice that I claim my right to express what my experience was, which often involves feelings, as in, That felt reassuring, or That felt like an attack.

The other person might not have intended to be reassuring, or attacking—but that doesn't mean it didn't feel that way.

Ah, intention. That's the root of expression, I guess. Or the root of understanding.

Jeez I can't believe I said that, "the root of understanding," LOL. But I meant it.

[Medusa]

I liked what you said, IslandScout!

I also agree with you that intention is the root of expression.

I think that when we post here or interact with another person that we generally know our own intention. Maybe we intend to just relay an experience or maybe it's about finding common ground. I'd like to think we try to get our intention across by being really thoughtful about the words we use and how we frame our position.

There are, of course, people who say or do things who are not in touch with their intentions. They might say "I didn't intend for that to feel ugly to you" and truly mean that but it might be a scenario when they said something like "That skirt you're wearing is the ugliest thing I have ever seen".
While they didn't intend for that to feel ugly (maybe they thought they were being helpful), I might wonder if they are really out of touch with how their words affect other people. Something about insensitivity maybe?

And perhaps this might fit in the "Duplicity" thread. If a person says or does something that feels really ugly, and perhaps it's something really overtly ugly, but the person is so out of touch with how what they do affects others, is it duplicity? Or are they just an insensitive, self-centered asshole?

[Kobi]

I liked what you said, IslandScout!

I also agree with you that intention is the root of expression.

I think that when we post here or interact with another person that we generally know our own intention. Maybe we intend to just relay an experience or maybe it's about finding common ground. I'd like to think we try to get our intention across by being really thoughtful about the words we use and how we frame our position.

There are, of course, people who say or do things who are not in touch with their intentions. They might say "I didn't intend for that to feel ugly to you" and truly mean that but it might be a scenario when they said something like "That skirt you're wearing is the ugliest thing I have ever seen".
While they didn't intend for that to feel ugly (maybe they thought they were being helpful), I might wonder if they are really out of touch with how their words affect other people. Something about insensitivity maybe?

And perhaps this might fit in the "Duplicity" thread. If a person says or does something that feels really ugly, and perhaps it's something really overtly ugly, but the person is so out of touch with how what they do affects others, is it duplicity? Or are they just an insensitive, self-centered asshole?

I might have to rethink this some but to me, duplicity is a deliberate attempt to be deceitful.

People, including ourselves, can say many things that may make others feel badly. We might say it nicely and sweetly and only nick their ego a bit. Or we might say it with brutal honesty which may feel more like being hit with a 2x4.

Communication is a 2 way street. It is not only what and how something was said, it is also how it was received. And there can be complicated aspects playing into both things.

For example, if I am feeling rushed for time or have a lot on my mind, I tend to be more direct. If I am in a relaxed mood, I can be more gentle and cautious with the words I use. If I dont recognize someones mood i.e. if they are feeling insecure or something, a direct answer is likely to lead to a bad place. If they are just unsure, a direct answer might be reassuring. Tricky stuff.

Using your skirt example, it would feel like duplicity to me if I didnt think the skirt was flattering to you and felt forced to say wow that is lovely. That, to me, would be deceitful.

That make sense?

Like Tick, I am quite used to being told I am too literal. Seems to happen when people use words or phrases in ways that are unfamiliar to me. Thus, I am confused as to what they really mean.

[Vivacious1]

I have never used it, but, to me it would mean, what holds true for me. My beliefs, the way that I live and the things I live for. :blueheels:

[girl_dee]

I think that when we post here or interact with another person that we generally know our own intention. Maybe we intend to just relay an experience or maybe it's about finding common ground. I'd like to think we try to get our intention across by being really thoughtful about the words we use and how we frame our position.

There are, of course, people who say or do things who are not in touch with their intentions. They might say "I didn't intend for that to feel ugly to you" and truly mean that but it might be a scenario when they said something like "That skirt you're wearing is the ugliest thing I have ever seen".
While they didn't intend for that to feel ugly (maybe they thought they were being helpful), I might wonder if they are really out of touch with how their words affect other people. Something about insensitivity maybe?

And perhaps this might fit in the "Duplicity" thread. If a person says or does something that feels really ugly, and perhaps it's something really overtly ugly, but the person is so out of touch with how what they do affects others, is it duplicity? Or are they just an insensitive, self-centered asshole?


This is truly food for thought. Are we out of touch with how what we do affects others??? ....

We live in a world where we are writing words 99% more than speaking them.(Texting primarily ) If we do speak them, it's not in person, its via a phone call. We cannot see how the person is taking what we are saying. DO we even care anymore?

The written word carries some vibration but there is no tone to match. Maybe our intent is not to hurt them, but does one care how the other person receives it? i would hope so, but i fear we are becoming completely insensitive. Do we forget there is someone else on the other end of the screen?

Sometimes our words carry a huge weight with them, a vibration, and it can really sting to the receiver, no matter what the intention. Is it just their problem? Do we get to hit send and be done? It feels so callous.

Maybe someone is having a bad day, but is the receiver aware? How could they be? If i have normal interactions with someone, then i become short with them because of something going on in my life, i at least let them know that i am dealing with something, so they aren't left to feel they have done something to offend me. i hope i do anyway, maybe i don't.

i am learning to get a thicker skin and try not to take things personally, but its tough. i wish i didn't have to do this. Maybe i am always thinking its about me, maybe i am too sensitive. Whatever the case, it's just hard.

Is it too much to ask that people put some thought into it before they hit send?

i am not a fan of digital communication in today's world.

That's my truth

[Femmewench]

This is truly food for thought. Are we out of touch with how what we do affects others??? ....

We live in a world where we are writing words 99% more than speaking them.(Texting primarily ) If we do speak them, it's not in person, its via a phone call. We cannot see how the person is taking what we are saying. DO we even care anymore?

The written word carries some vibration but there is no tone to match. Maybe our intent is not to hurt them, but does one care how the other person receives it? i would hope so, but i fear we are becoming completely insensitive. Do we forget there is someone else on the other end of the screen?

Sometimes our words carry a huge weight with them, a vibration, and it can really sting to the receiver, no matter what the intention. Is it just their problem? Do we get to hit send and be done? It feels so callous.

Maybe someone is having a bad day, but is the receiver aware? How could they be? If i have normal interactions with someone, then i become short with them because of something going on in my life, i at least let them know that i am dealing with something, so they aren't left to feel they have done something to offend me. i hope i do anyway, maybe i don't.

i am learning to get a thicker skin and try not to take things personally, but its tough. i wish i didn't have to do this. Maybe i am always thinking its about me, maybe i am too sensitive. Whatever the case, it's just hard.

Is it too much to ask that people put some thought into it before they hit send?

i am not a fan of digital communication in today's world.

That's my truth


On the whole my truth thing - isn't there your side, my side and the truth? I don't use the phrase mainly because it holds no meaning for me. "I believe" suffices. I wonder if it's simply a variation on "xyz holds true for me?" I don't attach a deeper meaning to it than if someone used "I believe." And when all else fails, I go to the dictionary which to me indicates it's unnecessary as "believe" is defined as: "accept as true...feel sure of the truth of'"

Communication - that should be its own thread. It's hard enough sometimes to explain face to face where you have all the cues you can receive and not have some miscommunication going on. I can read a T/F question five times and come up with six answers. I'm also a literal person; I don't get poetry for that very reason. If you want me to understand something, use clear language.

What I think is clear language and what you think is clear language may very. And thus miscommunication.

[JDeere]

My truth.....

I truly want to stay out of touch with the world and stay in my own bubble, however I do not have that luxury, at all!