Back 2 Basics (XIX) Do you swear to tell the truth? Sure... if you can define what truth is.
In a courtroom setting, a solemn consistent action occurs prior to each witness taking the stand. A bailiff brings a bible and stands before the witness and asks them to either raise their right hand or to put it on top of a bible. Both actions are a public declaration of the witness's intention to tell the truth. Interestingly enough, history states that the raising of the right hand was used an an admittance of guilt to previous crimes. In earlier times a criminal would be branded on the palm of their right hand with a letter representing their crime. So when they lifted up their right hand all could see if there were found guilty of any previous convictions . You read more about that here. As for swearing on the bible, the fear of god and his judgement was the premise for it was believed that a liar could easily lie to another person but would think twice of consigning his soul to hell. All this protocol for what? To ensure the truth is spoken? The question that haunts me is... what is truth?
First off let's look at the definition for truth by Merriam-Webster:
Truth is the body of all things, the facts or events. That sentence really resonated with me for who sees all the facts? We discussed earlier in our post that we are conscious of only 2000 of the 4 billion bits of information that bombard our mind in a single second. That's a small fraction of the amount presented most is discarded before it reaches our consciousness. So can we honestly say those 2000 bits constitutes the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Doubtful. It's been scientifically proven that we have filters in place to feed our consciousness exactly what we want to see.
Do you see what I see?
My hubby and I experienced this when we both sat down and watched Apple's Christmas commercial in 2015. The video was an excellent representation of facts being presented and left up to interpretation. The story of the commercial surrounds a socially awkward looking young boy that is seen standing on the outside of all his family gatherings. You see him looking down at his phone instead of interacting with his family. At the end of the segment he surprises everyone with a cool video of all the experiences he videotaped and was applauded for his creativity. The commercial ends with looks of love and pride for the young man while he is being hugged by various family members. What interested me was the interpretations my hubby and I had for they were completely different. I saw a young outcast trying to find someway to connect with his family; doing whatever it took to belong. My hubby saw that the young boy was asked by his family to make a film for the family gathering so that request required him to be the outside observer. He never saw him as an outcast; instead he saw him as a reporter.
How could we both see the same segment and have completely different takes of what the events were? Quite simple, our past experiences completely filtered the events of the film to fit our already pre-determined understanding of similar situations. I always felt like I didn't belong and the outcast so when I saw the beginning of the commercial it triggered those memories for me. My hubby on the other hand has a journalism degree so his mind was triggered by events that resemble fact taking and story building. So which one of us saw the truth? Both of us or neither one? What amazed me was that we both may have not got the jist of the commercial from the producer's perspective. What did they want us to take away from the film? It was a brilliant approach for everyone who watched it created their own version to connect with the story.
Our past is full of many commercials where we took our own "spin" of what events were presented. Each event we witnessed had many different versions of what the incident could mean but we decided upon one that suited our understanding. If we first believed we were unloved, unwanted, unworthy or a failure then we would sort through all the information of the event and grasp onto the parts that justify what we believe. We then see more and more of the "evidence" until we have convinced ourselves that it is truth. But if we are only looking for one consistent pattern of thought and their corresponding actions are we seeing the whole picture? What happens if we decide to open up our mind to seeing different perspectives and truths?
Who is the Common Guru? Here is our introductory article
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook
Pictures courtesy of Pixaby
Indeed! What is swearing "to tell the truth" but agreeing to share our perception of an experience, an event, a person, a fact? Everything we experience-- from waking up in the morning to being involved in an accident-- is filtered through our personal lenses of experience and perception.
Wanting to see outside of our perspective is both a necessity and a challenge. Each day I am presented with another perspective in my paradigm that needs to be questioned. Sometimes I experience the "rabbit hole" feeling and it's a little uncomfortable but bring to mind exactly what you said here because I yearn to see more.. Thank you for your excellent response.
You can affirm or chose some other religious book, but there is something strange in that the court asks you to swear on the Bible (which contains the New Testament) whic states: Matthew 5:34-37 King James Version
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
So there you have it!
I had always wondered about the contradiction of the action in accordance with that quote. It's unfortunate that the adage of"let my word be my bond" has lost its potency. Excellent response thank you.