A Bit of A Question, A Question of Bits
This is a convoluted question/comment:
Have you ever noticed that, no matter what you say to someone, no matter how you say/write/edit it, no matter how you mean it, that which you said not only gets interpreted in the worst possible way, by the greatest number of people, but that no matter how benign, well meant, caring, or otherwise without guile or hurt it is meant, it will not only be distorted out of any and all proportion, altered in wording and meaning, but will result in one's demonization to anyone and everyone who hears/reads/encounters/etc. the updated version, without regard to the original?
This is most often found when the original is a statement (i.e. not written, but spoken, uttered, mumbled) and, much like the old game of "telephone" it gets distorted and embellished with each retelling until whatever event really occurred is beyond any possibility of reconstruction, evaluation, or proof (i.e. we humans are far too SUBjective to be OBjective).
This is experienced in the political arena, but is most often utterly, totally, damaging to interpersonal relationships. Unfortunately, no matter how we try, we humans are fallable-subject to fits of pique, anger, hurt, dismay, pain, love, passion, and an almost infinite range of other emotions. No matter what one "thinks", it is too often what is "perceived" which is acted upon, used as armour, and touted as absolute and whole truth to others, who believe it (or do not) as such without any benefit of examination, cross or direct.
Is it not true that most statements of "fact" are truly statements of "viewpoint"?
Is the group/person who holds, and is authorized to use (subject to fiduciary accountability) the checkbook/credit/funds in an account without control of said funds or any funds? Does accountability deny control?
For that matter, is control of ANYTHING an ALL or NOTHING situation, or is it (often and commonly) a SHARED concern?
Certainly it CAN be the former (0%/100%) but in most relationships (personal, political, financial, emotional, even sexual) there is a consensus of those involved, agreement-if possible-is desirable, compromise allows for give and take without any one person or group giving (or taking) everything.
We have all heard about the "all knowing computer" that was built to answer any question. When asked, "Is there a God?", it took but a couple of seconds to respond "There is ... Now." None of us mere mortals have the powers of omniscience or omnipotence. We all bear the burdens-and responsibilities-of fallibility, unreliability, and hubris. We seek-all too often-to protect ourselves from these foibles by making ourselves more than we are, as perfect as we can convince ourselves-and acquaintances-that we can be.
Faultless, fearless, without blemish, with absolute accuracy to attention, detail, truth and justice is what we claim for our cloaks. It is not permissable for us to show the rips or imperfections any more than to point out that the Emperor is naked.
Our hope for the future is in the astutenesses of the "children", those who have not been convinced by us, our societies, and pressures that we live in a world of ON/OFF, RIGHT/WRONG, and nothing else. More often than not to argue is to abuse, to win ends in loss, to debate is futile mental masturbation, and to give is treated as treachery or actively attempting control.
As adults we are expected to be perfect to the standards of other random people, and-alas-to the standards, desires, hopes, and dreams, of those we care for and love without question. If we fail to meet these expectations - no matter what we have invested, given, taken, helped, hindered, whatever (good or bad) - we are expected to simply give up and walk away, promises and threats, caring and hurt, love and hate, everything dismissed and forgotten.
Being imperfect beings, are we not therefore doomed to failure and loss, with nothing but the hope of occasional sparks of light which will, shortly, flicker and die?
If that's all there is...
Have you ever noticed that, no matter what you say to someone, no matter how you say/write/edit it, no matter how you mean it, that which you said not only gets interpreted in the worst possible way, by the greatest number of people, but that no matter how benign, well meant, caring, or otherwise without guile or hurt it is meant, it will not only be distorted out of any and all proportion, altered in wording and meaning, but will result in one's demonization to anyone and everyone who hears/reads/encounters/etc. the updated version, without regard to the original?
This is most often found when the original is a statement (i.e. not written, but spoken, uttered, mumbled) and, much like the old game of "telephone" it gets distorted and embellished with each retelling until whatever event really occurred is beyond any possibility of reconstruction, evaluation, or proof (i.e. we humans are far too SUBjective to be OBjective).
This is experienced in the political arena, but is most often utterly, totally, damaging to interpersonal relationships. Unfortunately, no matter how we try, we humans are fallable-subject to fits of pique, anger, hurt, dismay, pain, love, passion, and an almost infinite range of other emotions. No matter what one "thinks", it is too often what is "perceived" which is acted upon, used as armour, and touted as absolute and whole truth to others, who believe it (or do not) as such without any benefit of examination, cross or direct.
Is it not true that most statements of "fact" are truly statements of "viewpoint"?
Is the group/person who holds, and is authorized to use (subject to fiduciary accountability) the checkbook/credit/funds in an account without control of said funds or any funds? Does accountability deny control?
For that matter, is control of ANYTHING an ALL or NOTHING situation, or is it (often and commonly) a SHARED concern?
Certainly it CAN be the former (0%/100%) but in most relationships (personal, political, financial, emotional, even sexual) there is a consensus of those involved, agreement-if possible-is desirable, compromise allows for give and take without any one person or group giving (or taking) everything.
We have all heard about the "all knowing computer" that was built to answer any question. When asked, "Is there a God?", it took but a couple of seconds to respond "There is ... Now." None of us mere mortals have the powers of omniscience or omnipotence. We all bear the burdens-and responsibilities-of fallibility, unreliability, and hubris. We seek-all too often-to protect ourselves from these foibles by making ourselves more than we are, as perfect as we can convince ourselves-and acquaintances-that we can be.
Faultless, fearless, without blemish, with absolute accuracy to attention, detail, truth and justice is what we claim for our cloaks. It is not permissable for us to show the rips or imperfections any more than to point out that the Emperor is naked.
Our hope for the future is in the astutenesses of the "children", those who have not been convinced by us, our societies, and pressures that we live in a world of ON/OFF, RIGHT/WRONG, and nothing else. More often than not to argue is to abuse, to win ends in loss, to debate is futile mental masturbation, and to give is treated as treachery or actively attempting control.
As adults we are expected to be perfect to the standards of other random people, and-alas-to the standards, desires, hopes, and dreams, of those we care for and love without question. If we fail to meet these expectations - no matter what we have invested, given, taken, helped, hindered, whatever (good or bad) - we are expected to simply give up and walk away, promises and threats, caring and hurt, love and hate, everything dismissed and forgotten.
Being imperfect beings, are we not therefore doomed to failure and loss, with nothing but the hope of occasional sparks of light which will, shortly, flicker and die?
If that's all there is...