The Myth of Absolute Truth

10 Myths to Live Without

---

The Myth of Family Bonds
The Myth of Fairness
The Myth of No Consequences
The Myth of Sex Equalling Intimacy
The Myth of Absolute Truth
The Myth of Altruism
The Myth of "Shoulds"
The Myth of Right and Wrong
The Myth of Scarcity
The Myth of a Soul Mate

---

The Myth of Absolute Truth

It's said that Einstein made all of his significant discoveries by the time he was in his early 30's. From that point on, he spent his time frustrating himself, trying to discover what is called the "Unified Field Theory." To quote Compton's On-Line Encyclopaedia,

In their work some physicists have tried to construct a unified field theory that would describe all fundamental forces in nature and the relationships between elementary particles in terms of a single theory. So far, all such attempts have failed, though experiments and tests of several hypotheses are still under investigation. Gravity has not yet been accounted for in a unified field theory … In physics, forces can be described by fields that mediate interactions between separate objects, such as between planets or between electrons…in the early 20th century, Albert Einstein developed general relativity, his field theory of gravitation. Einstein and others later unsuccessfully attempted to construct a unified field theory in which electromagnetism and gravity would emerge as different aspects of a single fundamental field.

Human beings hate loose threads. It's almost pathological. Because of our conditioning as infants, we are "used to" being told how to view things. And the way that message comes across is that there is one way to see things - the way our parents, tribe and later educational system sees things. As I've said before, for many people, this never changes.

Now, some will argue that some do change in adolescence. Adolescents are notorious for having opinions that are (supposedly) totally unique. This is, of course, crap. Adolescence is a time of trading one "herd" for another. The main thing is "belonging," and to belong is to accept the "Absolute Truth" of the group to which one belongs.

A silly little example. Dar and I took our favourite niece clothes shopping. Dar decided to work on her "back to school" wardrobe at the same time. She was trying on a blouse. In walked the sales clerk. She said, "Do you like that top tucked in?" Dar nodded. Sales clerk: "Because no one is wearing anything tucked in." Because it's a rule, you see.

We play this game so that we don't scare ourselves. We don't want to even contemplate how "different" each of our world-views are - going there is so blasted insecure. We desperately want "people" to "get it." The "it" we want them to "get," is how we see the world. Many people continually frustrate themselves over how stupid other people are.

The other ploy is what is called, in psychotherapy lingo, "field dependency. (FD)" Dar's small group from Phase is e-mailing on this topic, and it's a key concept from Phase. FD is defined as adapting one's self and one's view to the "field," to people around us. It's what we're describing above, under adolescence, but broader. Often, it is captured in the line, "What would people think?" What is happening is a desperate attempt to find a common understanding or way of being. The FD person will move mountains to fit in.

So, what we end up doing is going off in two directions. We attempt to become the people we love, and we attempt to create universal rules, applicable to everyone, which happen to be what we already believe to be so. The stronger the latter belief, the more arrogant the person becomes. And the more closed.

The solution to this "myth" is to "get over yourself." The getting over involves letting go of thinking that there is a "Unified Field Theory of Behaviour." If there is one, it is this: "Everything is changing and nothing is true."

Here's a long quote from Brad Blanton, author of Radical Honesty, on this topic: (pg. 239f)

How Things Are

None of us are ever really looking at how it is out there. I have my view of "how things are." You have your view of "how things are." We have to depend, in case of disagreement, on another nut like ourselves (a friend, therapist, or judge) with some other view of "how things are" to arbitrate for us. And it's no accident that "arbitrate" comes form the same root word arbitrary. The truth is, none of us ever know what is going on. We just agree to have beliefs in common as a way of keeping things together. It's amazing how we copy each other's views so well that we can have such organized living. It's pretty amazing how groups of us are willing to defend to the death our interpretations against other groups' interpretations, or punish "crooked" interpretations within our own groups. It's amazing because there is really no way to tell if "out there" is out there or not. But whatever it is, it's all created by individual beings, who then get together and agree what to call it. Assuming that seeing, hearing, smelling and so on are chemical reactions in organisms, then each individual organism, as I argued in Chapter One, is the creator of the world. We have to see if our creations agree with each other by doing a lot of cross-checking in the course of growing up. Even then, just at the perceptual level, it's hard to get agreement among people about what the world really is and what it is like. Science is a formal attempt to agree on the criteria we are willing to accept as a basis of agreement, in advance of any agreements. In that way the laws and agreed-upon assumptions of science are just like the laws and agreed-upon assumptions of the U.S. Constitution. We humans have spent a lot of time and energy for the past several thousand years trying to get clear on our agreements about perception and our agreements about value.

People kill each other by the minute over what it all means. The solution probably won't ever be just having everyone believe the same thing. Instead of working toward commonality of views, we need to work toward common acceptance of the principle of variety. We need a variety of ways to look at how things are, because ultimately we have a better chance of supporting each other with a lot of ways of viewing things. It may feel less secure than if everyone agrees on what is true, but feeling of security is just that - a feeling, not the real thing. Less secure is often more reliable. If there is not enough variety preserved in the gardens of illusion about "how things are," then some version of 1984 totalitarianism will come true. This scenario is almost as bad as the more tragic one of being blown away or dying of poison. I think communal acceptance of variety of illusions, with less murderous defence of belief, is a better solution.

Please note that I am not declaring Blanton's view "true." His idea fits well with Into the Centre, and says what he says in a different way. He invites us to question everything, to recognize that our "answers" are provisional, and that anything and everything is in a state of flux. And, that this could include everything that we believe to be "absolute."

In each of these myths, I'm trying to get you to stretch your mind into the idea of simply letting go. Of noticing how your beliefs, and your beliefs alone, have the power to keep you stuck. As a therapist that does Bodywork, I have faith that "answers," such as they are, often reside in the body - in the perception of experience. That I experience something is significant. Why I experience something is a head game with no helpful outcome. Such head "answers" change all the time, if we are honest, and absolutely do not tell you anything about anyone else.

Notice your absolutes. You'll find them by listening for "everyone" or "no one." Beyond "everyone is born and dies," (and other biological absolutes) there is nothing "everyone or no one" does. Social consensus is simply that. We used to be into slavery, remember? When it comes to behaviour, anything and everything is possible. The only authentic question is, "is this behaviour accomplishing something I want to accomplish?"

It's scary, and it's all about choice.