As far back as history can reveal to us, people have gathered in an effort to make their views known. These demonstrations have carried many names through the years but they normally fall under one of the three “R’s”; a rally, riot or rebellion. Whether peaceful or hostile they have usually been an effective method of grabbing the attention of the decision makers while helping to sway the minds of others who may not be aware of the problem or the area of concern.
In years past, the reason for the gathering was usually a clear central message; slavery is immoral or women’s right to vote are good examples. The participants all desired the same outcome, held the exact same view and personified a unified truth. I fear that those days are gone; in today’s environment a central truth is no longer the case.
One of the principle detractors to this phenomenon is the make up of the crowd. The crowd sizes have grown substantially due a number of key factors. With wide spread availability of immediate communications, mass and speedy transit and instantaneous worldwide media; the days of small assemblies of like minded people restricted to their own concerns are gone.
We are also experiencing dynamic shifts away from the purity of a single shared message to one of a multitude of diluted points of attention. These larger assemblies are promoted to, by and on behalf of an assorted number of factions either in support of, opposition to, or in search of the outcome that prompted the exhibition. The problem with this lack of clarity is that the “truth” that each faction holds in regard to the projected outcome may only be partially true as it pertains to the group’s reason for gathering. Another interesting thing is that each of the participating individuals of these groups would swear that they are supporting the stated truth and that what they believe is right, just, and true. The fact of the matter is that they cannot all be on the side of truth.
Whenever a group of the people is involved in anything, some will legitimately be trying to make a positive difference while some will want to have a negative impact and the rest will just be following a leader; not even understanding or caring about what is right or wrong. The larger the crowd, the larger the diversity of the true message will be.
You might be thinking, “How can this be?” Is it possible that some of these various factions do not care about the truth but rather have their own agenda?
It has been documented that depending upon who an organization is addressing; whether it is their membership, their opposition, or the public at large; the message they espouse can be radically different. They allow for a glimmer of truth to stay embedded while still championing their unique cause or stance regardless of the audience. In the “selling” of their messages, even if in reality it only remotely supports the truth, they will make sure that the verbiage portrays the message as the truth because they know that every just person wants to believe that their thoughts, words and deeds rest on the side of truth.
And there lies the problem; a truth can never be a lie and a lie can never be a truth; for both realities are constant. This problem was solved almost three thousand years ago by Aristotle in the Law of Non-Contradiction yet still today we, as a people, fail to grasp the meaning of this simple law.
Take as an example the women’s right movement. The single and undeniable truth is that women deserve the exact same human rights as men. All people should be treated equally under the laws of the land. No rational person should dispute this truth.
Worldwide, there are literally thousands of association, groups and organizations that support aspects that fall under this truth; Planned Parenthood, Catholic Charities, and the National Organization for Women, just to name a few. These three women groups cannot be more fundamentally different yet they each were founded for the betterment of women’s rights. When a nationwide women rally is held there is likely to be women from many different organization, companies or associations in attendance all believing on some level the above basic truth but their definition of individual rights will vary greatly. Some of these organizations believe that it is a right of a woman to be able to have an abortion while others do not see this as a right at all but instead sees this as an attack on their rights. Once again, they cannot both be true. Can they?
Those that don’t condone abortion believe another truth; that it is not just to kill an innocent life in the absence of a crime or danger to the mother.
Does one truth over ride the other?
Another truth that always gets lost in these discussions is the fact that men and women are different. After years of scientific and psychological research the experts all agree that male and female genders pose physical, mental and emotional differences in our species. These truths are indisputable yet seem to not matter to some of these groups. Even with these differences the truth remains that as a human we share the need for equality under the laws of the land.
Without a doubt, we are a unique and interesting species. Humans will always fine bad reasons for good ideas and good reasons for bad ideas. This is the sole reason why ethically minded people as well as morally supportive organizations struggle to find common ground on ideological differences. The individuals associated with a group usually find just enough information to either agree or disagree with the cause yet they do not necessarily care or wish to dig deep enough to learn about the truth in question.
The Truth gets lost in the mix of individual’s thoughts, words and deeds because it all hinges on trust. Trust is a powerful force that influences how people think, what they say and propels them to action regardless of the leader’s position toward the truth. When people trust someone, they are less likely to question the correctness of the leader’s position. This is very evident during the teenage years with the power of peer pressure. That is why good parents will go to any measure needed to teach their children who they should entrust as a friend.
As a society, we have to figure out how to accept that an individual’s reality may not reflect the truth without judging the individual’s character while at the same time acknowledge that the people who are living on the side of falsie should have no weight in swaying others away from the truth; only then will we be able to live in worldwide peace. When we accept that the Truth remains constant regardless of our individual Thoughts, Reasons, or Ideals then we will have no need for these divisive plagues of disagreement.
If this is my last post, I want all to know there was only one purpose for all that I have written; to have made a positive difference in the lives of others.
Anthony “Tony” Boquet, the author of “The Bloodline of Wisdom, The Awakening of a Modern Solutionary”