We have heard that "the truth shall make you free" so many times that we believe both that we know what that means and that it is valid. So, as I did in my first blog, we "tell the truth." We believe we "owe it to ourselves to tell it to the world." But is "freedom" really earned by such self-exposure, especially if we are made vulnerable by such exposure? I think shame or guilt only follow such an act when it is somehow not the way it actually is to us, when we still hide a part of it that waits to be exposed. Revealing ourselves allows us to be free of having to be that particular aspect of ourselves; of course, there is always more. We probably reveal only what we feel is finally "safe" to say, to admit. Such honesty may actually help others to reveal themselves, and, perhaps more importantly, allow them to see themselves and to hear themselves, to respect themselves as they are, at least a bit more. I don't have answers so much as I have questions. I state them here for both myself and for anyone who might read this. Would I read this if I were not me? I might, for I have an interest in how others think and how they see things; sometimes they actually give me something new and different to consider.
I relate a bit of my journal: He felt he was getting closer to "the truth of it" (by his revealing his "secret"), while simultaneously becoming more aware that there wasn't even such a thing as "the truth of it." He was understanding that it wasn't "knowing the truth" that mattered so much as being able to take in whatever happens, as having an ability to be "properly impressed." Perhaps a presence of "the truth" figured into such an ability to "properly" receive what events befell one, but "the truth" in itself is indecipherable in fact and intent. According to Bohr, clarity is inaccurate, and accuracy is unclear. Nothing real is understandable or to be understood. Rather it is to be taken in well, i.e., in all humility and attention. How do I receive? How do I experience? I must realize not only that I do not know anything, but that nothing is known. It is only my belief (and the cultural belief for the most part) that I know anything. Even what is "known" is both partial and by agreement. Yet we glibly speak of "finding the truth."
Continuing journal: The real thing, then, is in the story told, in our telling it and our hearing it, and not in whether or not it is "true." Do we listen to a story because it is true? No, we listen because it is "real" to us, because it "speaks" to us, because it resonates with "that which is true" within us, which even we do not know and could not know or "find" even if it could be known, which it cannot. If it could be, I don't believe we would even exist or have a need to exist, though, if we are "all things," I may be wrong; we may be and also not be.
Continuing: I seem to be just bantering words about, engaging semantic argument, but I believe it is more omenic argument, for I am speaking of the reality of omens, i.e., of the power of that which is impressed upon us, which is at least partly up to us and our ability and willingness to receive, though the omen may reach us in spite of or in addition to ourselves. Isn't that how "God speaks" to us--not because we consciously want to but because we unconsciously (which can be "God") want to?
I relate a bit of my journal: He felt he was getting closer to "the truth of it" (by his revealing his "secret"), while simultaneously becoming more aware that there wasn't even such a thing as "the truth of it." He was understanding that it wasn't "knowing the truth" that mattered so much as being able to take in whatever happens, as having an ability to be "properly impressed." Perhaps a presence of "the truth" figured into such an ability to "properly" receive what events befell one, but "the truth" in itself is indecipherable in fact and intent. According to Bohr, clarity is inaccurate, and accuracy is unclear. Nothing real is understandable or to be understood. Rather it is to be taken in well, i.e., in all humility and attention. How do I receive? How do I experience? I must realize not only that I do not know anything, but that nothing is known. It is only my belief (and the cultural belief for the most part) that I know anything. Even what is "known" is both partial and by agreement. Yet we glibly speak of "finding the truth."
Continuing journal: The real thing, then, is in the story told, in our telling it and our hearing it, and not in whether or not it is "true." Do we listen to a story because it is true? No, we listen because it is "real" to us, because it "speaks" to us, because it resonates with "that which is true" within us, which even we do not know and could not know or "find" even if it could be known, which it cannot. If it could be, I don't believe we would even exist or have a need to exist, though, if we are "all things," I may be wrong; we may be and also not be.
Continuing: I seem to be just bantering words about, engaging semantic argument, but I believe it is more omenic argument, for I am speaking of the reality of omens, i.e., of the power of that which is impressed upon us, which is at least partly up to us and our ability and willingness to receive, though the omen may reach us in spite of or in addition to ourselves. Isn't that how "God speaks" to us--not because we consciously want to but because we unconsciously (which can be "God") want to?
No comments:
Post a Comment