My truth, your truth, our truth, their truth…
Subjective truth has become a common linguistic phenomenon in some groups.
“Your truth is your truth.”
“My truth is different than yours.”
“They have a different truth.”
“This is my truth.”
…
In the my truth/your truth linguistic programming, essentially, the term “truth” is replacing the terms “perspective” and “opinion”.
Perspective and opinion are inherently subjective, whereas the word truth arose in the search for the objective, the all-pervasive. We have usurped the search for the objective with the subjective through a totally unnecessary linguistic reprogramming. We didn’t need to mold truth to fit these contexts…we already had perfectly adept words for the subjective.
The etymology of the word truth can be traced back to the 13th century AD, through meanings of genuine depiction, to loyalty and honesty (trouthe), to triwwipō (promise, contract), to drū- (tree; to be firm, be solid), back to deru- (firm, solid; wood; be firm, hard, solid).*
Through this etymological tree, we can see that truth has always been meant as something definite, reliable, and solid; material, observable, and (in the language of polarity) masculine. Of course, our ability to discern what is true changes over time as we gather more data. Overall, this ability improves over time (at a cultural level).
However, individual experience is not necessarily so- for example, some individuals might live in a way that is increasingly dysphoric from observable truth, which will impair their evolutionary fitness and reduce their chances (and their offsprings’ chances) of survival. The ability of a culture, or species, to discern truth will improve over time or the species will die out.
This new language habit, replacing terms for subjective perspective with the word truth, ironically and detrimentally erodes the ability to seek truth. It also increases the challenge of using this word productively; because it has the opposite meaning of its original, people are more likely to misunderstand themselves and each other.
We were all subconsciously programmed, increasingly so positively correlated to age, to understand truth as something all-pervasive. We DISAGREED on what was true in the past, and we sought (ideally) to refine our perspectives on the public front.
This instinct to refine shrinks with this idea of subjective truth, and so decreases the strength of bonds in a community. If we are not collectively seeking a unified truth, we have no motivation to collaborate and compete with integrity, so that our expansion and progress can be increasingly refined.
I propose that one of the most fruitful benefits of the scientific method is its ability, over time, to discern increasingly reliable objective truth.
This is a separate but intimately related process from clarifying one’s subjective understanding (or narrative) of what is occurring in one’s experience.
We might call the first process the scientific method and the second process spirituality.
And, whether you seek to intertwine your understandings of the two or are totally content to keep them apart, they (the objective and the subjective) are both alive and well in each human’s experience.
Personally, I feel more and more harmonious as my spiritual lens and my scientific lens learn to play by the same rules. To me, this is how I land at optimistic realism: starting from what is while recognizing the abundant potential in each moment; being grounded in the material while in touch with what is yet to be materialized. In this, I surrender to what is outside of my control while living in the plethora of choice (and so, control) that is within reach.
Regardless, the importance of honoring that both the objective and the subjective exist cannot be overstated. If we are too stuck in the objective, we do not change when change is called for. If we are too stuck in the subjective, living in the abstract, our ability to build is hindered and meaning becomes meaningless.
Additionally, tossing out either objectivity or subjectivity is just begging for cognitive dissonance and resentment- it cuts us in half, forcing us to be less than what we are, individually and collectively.
Ask yourself:
How can I hold space for each individual’s subjective perspective, including mine?
How can I seek to know what is consistent in a complex system, including at levels of space and time that are beyond what I will ever directly experience?
How can I sit with the unknown while still using my abilities of observation, relational thinking, and communication to seek and refine what is knowable?
As a final point, on the possibility that we are living in a simulation (and this can apply to other such ideas that are possible but cannot be conclusively tested)-
Is it possible that we’re living in a simulation? Yes. But will my life be better served for living as if this is true? Possibly- this depends on the nuances of your belief system.
My point here is that, when in doubt, lean on the firm and observe the abstract. Don’t lean on the mystery.
Touch the mystery, contemplate the mystery, play with the mystery, yes yes yes!
And lean on the known, the material, the reliable.
Most importantly, let each play with the other. Refine your understanding of each and seek compatibility between the two. Resolve the paradoxes.
*This etymological tree is copied from the Etymology Explorer App (a great resource!) and corroborated with the Etymonline App.