I suspect there will be people who think I am talking about them in particular, and there will be others who think I am talking about other people and not them. However, I am talking about everyone in general and no one in particular. We all are susceptible to thinking we have the answers even though we don't fully understand the questions. Besides, even if we don't have the answers, we can have opinions that we don't fully understand.
And the loop begins anew.
The most enlightened minds will begin to challenge any new doctrine for flaws in logic or questions that lead to paradoxical conclusions for handling complex matters. It is fine if one cannot answer the challenge or reconcile the paradox. That is how the limits of understanding are pushed. We must examine that which draws on our moral and ethical limitations, and not for the sake of getting the answer right. Rather, for the knowledge gained by casting light to better understand that which is only seen as shadows. Knowing that something we may not have imagined is the source of those shadows does not mean that we have all the answers. It does, however, mean that we will never accept explanations that rely upon us not understanding the light we have seen and the sources for the shadows.
While seeing is believing to some, making others believe what they think they see is the key to success to both a magician and a pickpocket. Whether something is good or bad is as clear as sleight of hand, which can be good or bad depending upon the intention. If someone chooses to make an honorable living out of deception, that person may not need to use their skills untowardly. That is presuming, though, that they do not see the untoward use of their skills as good because it is personally more rewarding to them than deceiving people contractually.
There are a lot of possibilities. One of the least likely possibilities, though, is that two people doing the same thing will be doing that same thing identically or for identical reasons, and even less likely if the "or" is changed to "and." Language is important in conveying thoughts.
There will be those who will try to disprove everything I say because they want to disagree with me. It is as if I can see them trying to find people to gather with who also disagree with things I say. Once they are comfortable, they conclude that what they most agree upon is that my contention that thoughts are affected by gravity is incorrect, and because there are seven of them and only one of me, that they are right.
They will not be able to each write a sentence as to what that means and say the same things. When examined, they don't know how to answer the question because they don't understand the question. If any one of them says anything that sounds good, the others will offer it as their own opinion. Often, they do it without being able to paraphrase the opinion they claim to agree with. They will begin rebutting arguments with "yeah, but" statements that have the integrity of bumper sticker logic, which is a basic statement that we try to morph into meaning what we meant to say but didn't.
It all gets so confusing. It is okay to not have the answers to mental challenges that are intended to spur thought more than answer questions. In fact, to even try to answer a mental challenge without understanding the question seems like one of the most assured ways of coming up with wrong answers. It also misses the point that the factors that make the difference between good and evil are intentions and perspectives, and those are relative to the individual.
Jimi Hendrix once quipped that he had been imitated so well that he heard people copy his mistakes.
Some people will claim to know what I meant by putting that Hendrix anecdote there. My guess is they don't know, nor will the quote mean the same thing to them that it does to me. If we argue about it as if we know the answers, we will lose the meaning for the questions. If we examine the questions with our opinions and perspectives so we each understand the other person's points better, then there is the chance for a light to shine that will explain something that today we see only as shadows. At the worst, an honest conversation about the differences of opinions that is done respectfully at least ends with the knowledge that there are differences of opinions.
When the purpose for one person in the discussion is to prove the other person wrong, but does so through arguments that are logically flawed, it is not the same as saying "I am right" so much as it is saying "you haven't disproven what I said" to point out the flaws in the arguments.
Ultimately, I would hope that discussions would happen for the purpose of expanding our thoughts and understanding of the truth, but it is as natural as the sunrise for some people to short circuit their brains into an unnecessary and unproductive defense system of having an answer for everything just so they can know it all!
* * * * *
Other posts you may enjoy:
Welcome to My Nightmare
Is Not Caring Anymore a Mental Health Issue?
Firing My Shrink
Farley's Wit: The Story
From Hell to Purgatory: A Poem for the Children
Surviving in a Sea of Depression
