I dedicate this blog to Krithika Venkatraman, with whom during the course of a particularly long conversation, it dawned on me that truth is the convergence of reality, narration and perception.
The only person who can ever know the complete truth and nothing but the truth has to be the person(s) who experienced an event. When he narrates it, he tells his version of the event or what he wants to talk about the event. Perception of the listener relies on the accuracy of the narration, willingness of the narrator to tell everything, the neutrality of narration and finally the idea that he wants to leave the listener with.
Why is it necessary to make this distinction? I feel we go through multiple incidents and listen to multiple incidents, taking sides based on what we hear or what we want to believe. There is something to be said for " Don't judge until you put yourself in the other person's shoes". True, everyone is entitled to judgements and opinions and their own thoughts, but let it not be the be- all, end- all decision in classifying a personality. After all, what you heard was what he told you about what happened.
Every coin has two sides and when you want to know the coin in its entirety, you flip it back and forth and also look at its sides. Likewise, every situation has multiple views and even further views that are blurred by narration and perception and repeat- narrations. It is extremely intriguing, that we could complicate the simple concept of truth into multiple dimensions. How do we ensure that truth is passed in its entirety? Is it possible at all?.
Since the reason for communication is to inform others of our views, perceptions and experiences, it turns out that the absolute truth is not passed to the receptive ears. It is colored by what we believe, how we reacted, and what part of our reaction/ experience that we want to portray. Sadly, truth is not what you believe it is. It is one dimension or a view of the absolute truth that we hear. What you see, you can believe and what you hear, take it with a tad bit of salt.
The only person who can ever know the complete truth and nothing but the truth has to be the person(s) who experienced an event. When he narrates it, he tells his version of the event or what he wants to talk about the event. Perception of the listener relies on the accuracy of the narration, willingness of the narrator to tell everything, the neutrality of narration and finally the idea that he wants to leave the listener with.
Why is it necessary to make this distinction? I feel we go through multiple incidents and listen to multiple incidents, taking sides based on what we hear or what we want to believe. There is something to be said for " Don't judge until you put yourself in the other person's shoes". True, everyone is entitled to judgements and opinions and their own thoughts, but let it not be the be- all, end- all decision in classifying a personality. After all, what you heard was what he told you about what happened.
Every coin has two sides and when you want to know the coin in its entirety, you flip it back and forth and also look at its sides. Likewise, every situation has multiple views and even further views that are blurred by narration and perception and repeat- narrations. It is extremely intriguing, that we could complicate the simple concept of truth into multiple dimensions. How do we ensure that truth is passed in its entirety? Is it possible at all?.
Since the reason for communication is to inform others of our views, perceptions and experiences, it turns out that the absolute truth is not passed to the receptive ears. It is colored by what we believe, how we reacted, and what part of our reaction/ experience that we want to portray. Sadly, truth is not what you believe it is. It is one dimension or a view of the absolute truth that we hear. What you see, you can believe and what you hear, take it with a tad bit of salt.
No comments:
Post a Comment