The Little Purple Notebook On How To Escape From This Universe
Copyleft � 1998 by Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.
Subscription Information: Maria Loren
[email protected]
Website:
http://transmillennium.net/pnohteftu/
Viewpoints, Tolerance, Compassion and Truth
In an often quoted (and commonly misattributed) example, Gotamo presented
the story of blind-folded men examining an elephant. As can be expected,
the man touching the foot comes to fundamentally different assertions about
the nature of the elephant than the other men who examined the ears, tusks,
and other parts separately. The paradoxical situation arises where all men
are contradicting each other even though their individual observations are
not apparently incorrect.
However, while the observation of a situation will yield as many different
results as there are observers, one can still expect an agreement about
certain basic circumstances provided the viewpoints of the observers are
close together.
In the example above, two men examining the right foot within a small time
frame should arrive at similar evaluations.
Part of a comparison between differing concepts should therefore be an
estimate of the divergence of the viewpoints involved and an honest effort
to duplicate viewpoints that are noticeably different from one's own.
If such a comparison does not yield in finding common ground, however, the
question arises whether one should just leave the other's viewpoint alone
or if one should insist on the truth (or one's own perception and/or
formulation thereof).
In an extreme case, if the other's viewpoint would seriously impact the
conditions of other people or oneself, the decision whether the tolerate
the perceived untruth or not may become a considerable problem.
We have hit a major paradox:
How much intolerance can be tolerated without sacrificing tolerance
itself?
Telling the truth may not be advisable in situations where it would cause
more harm than good. In an individual situation, this will always be a
judgement call. Typically, this judgement call is based on true compassion
(in Gotamo's sense), depending on the circumstances of the partner in the
dialogue. 'True Compassion' in Gotamo's sense is a mental state rather than
an physical emotion. In such a state an evaluation can take place whether a
dialogue partner would suffer more by not knowing the painful truth than if
the truth would not be announced at all.
In a book, however, as in every written and widely distributed statement,
the audience is not present at the time the statement is made. An estimate
of the impact of an assertion is much more difficult, if not completely
impossible.
This circumstance is creating an impasse. Should an author not speak up
because some time in the future a reader may look at a text and, not being
ready for it, may get hurt?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyleft � 1998 by Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.
