PARADOXICAL

𝐖𝐡𝐨'𝐬 𝐖𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠? 𝐖𝐡𝐨'𝐬 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭?

It's simply amazing how the same incident could be looked upon by two groups of people so differently, as in diametrically opposite ways. We, Filipinos, are especially notorious for it. As a society burdened with highly diversified levels of fragmentation, I think we have a special knack for it.

I've seen this constantly while growing up around people who didn't share my background: those who were not Pangasinense (Tagalog vs non-Tagalogs), did not grow up in Manila (city person/coño vs promdi), not belonging to the lower classes (rich vs poor), not Catholic (Catholic vs Protestants mostly), not pro-Marcos (loyalist vs oppositionist)… I can't quite forget the fierce school rivalries, and the seasonal clash about the basketball teams one was rooting for during the Philippine Basketball Association games on TV. The most vitriolic of them all also happens to be the pettiest: Noranians vs Vilmanians. (Recall, for instance, the showdown between Allan K and Leonard Obal in the hit show "Si Velma at Si Nura" in 1992 at The Library.) Life in the midst of all that antagonism on account of various socioeconomic differences is a constant debate on who or what is right or who or which is better.

For every point you raised (thesis), it was sure to be met with a retort (anti-thesis). It's a world of Hegelian dialectics without end, if you know what I mean. If you're not careful, you’d get convinced that everything is subjective, and there's no such thing as objective reality. It such a world, everyone can be easily accused of being in denial, having cognitive dissonance, and a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect (or is that confirmation bias).

Once again, we are in the middle of such endless debates with no one willing to concede, what with the eruption of that meeting that transpired in the Oval Office between Trump and his so-called 'Make-America-Great-Again' (MAGA) gang. This was followed by an ex-president's arrest by the International Criminal Court. It is easy to get caught in the maelstrom of mudslinging between the two camps, the very much annoying divide between conservatives, often synonymous to Republicans, and so-called liberals, often synonymous to Democrats. Not to mention, the even more maddening divide back in home turf between the DDS ('Dutertards') and the Dilawans/Pinklawans. In each issue, who is telling the truth? Why, of course, the one you side with!

It's a crazy dystopic world out there, because there's no longer any debate at all. If no side is willing, or no longer willing, to listen to the contending side, or has already formed an opinion without even bothering to try looking at the other perspective, there’s no point in the exchange.

In one writing seminar of hers, I remember how a noted novelist once recounted how she had been invited to give a talk in a history convention of sorts. "History is no different from fiction," she said with a straight face and in front of rabid historians too. The historians didn't like what she said, she said, and I guess she was never invited again. But to prove her point to us, her writing class, she took note of the biggest news of the day, something about the First Lady, and pointed out how it was interpreted in opposite ways by two contending political parties. We in her audience laughed in unison. "See?", she said, implying how right she was.

I understand why the historians were aghast, though. If nothing is ever factual, if no interpretation of a given story is ever right and authoritative, then what is the use of studying history, what's the point of anything at all? As irked teachers of yesteryears would exclaim, "Let's just go home and plant camote!"

What kind of world is this when nothing seems valid anymore as long as it is contested by another party? ...when nothing holds water anymore just because someone is opposing it?

While it's true that humans will be humans, with weaknesses and blind spots, blind to bird's eye views (the big picture) and God's eye views (the complete picture), I'd like to believe that there is such a thing as objective reality, no matter whose viewpoint is questioned, no matter whose religious affiliation or political party is hurt. Fact is fact is fact. And opinion, even though it is just an opinion, must be based on fact for it to become a valid opinion. Otherwise, it would be plain nonsense.

Opinions are simply not equal because there is the reality of people getting confused and, worse, being dishonest and in denial, both deliberately and unconsciously. There are people who deliberately obfuscate things to advance a dubious agenda, withhold information resulting in missing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, exaggerate, and/or proffer an irrational or skewed interpretation of reality due to several reasons (a host of psychological issues ranging from trauma to neurosis, hallucination, drug use, other addictions, to psychopathy and psychosis). There are delusional (delulu?) individuals who needed to be shaken and woken up from stupor. There are people who are barefaced liars or downright hallucinating psychopaths.

That's right. Some opinions are invalid because people being people, anyone of us can easily get caught up in various shades of untruth.

These days, there is the wretched reality of reportedly paid troll farms manipulating social media 'reacts,' making every content online highly suspect when you are gauging for the genuine pulse of the masses.

Who's wrong? Who's right? Truth doesn't seem to matter anymore in the ensuing cloud of confusion. I can understand it if it's a matter of partial truths coming together as in the Johari window or the four different versions of the same incident seen from various angles, as depicted in Akira Kurosawa's movie, "Rashomon." But distortion? Manipulation? Deception? And fake news? I'd say, heck, no way.

It is, therefore, hoped that history will always be the one to vindicate the truth in the end, the one to reward the brave truth-tellers and all those who sided with them. But alas, by then, all of us on the opposite sides of the fence would have been long gone by the time we could afford to gloat at our hard-won triumph or else weep upon our bitter defeat due to our mistake in perception. Fortunate then are those who would live long enough to enjoy that luxury in an ocean of the deluded, the fork-tongued, and kings and queens of the Nile.

Happy is the day when truth-twisters of all stripes will get their comeuppance in the unflinching, impartial judgment of time.

Then again, what are historians but mere human just the same, hardly immune from blinders, and therefore can be the most contentious lot? Just notice the lack of consensus in a lot of historical issues. Bias is everywhere, even in media, where history is constantly written in a hurry.

Fortunately, for me, I have been writing long enough to know that my reading or take on any subject matter could be wrong at a given time. I am greatly humbled by the discovery that the more things I know, the more things I know I don’t know. (Try to read that wonderful paradox on human knowledge again.)

And I am also fortunate to be at that age when my need for outside affirmation is close to nil. Having eaten humble pie many times through time (as a 'Marcos baby,' I used to be rabidly pro-Marcos -- just ask my high school classmates), I no longer derive satisfaction from engaging people in hot but fruitless debates on anything, unless I feel compelled to by circumstances or encounter really open-minded souls. On the other hand, since I no longer have a strong need to be right, I feel a lot more relaxed and a lot more free in saying anything I want because I am no longer coming from a direction of needing to repair something in the ego, but instead (or so I’d like to believe) simply want or choose to stick to what is honest and true and good for all.

In the face of popular contrarian opinions like these days when I am surrounded by -- nay, swamped by -- people on the other side of the political fence (I actually have a big problem with both sides), I can feel calm and confident in my own thought as long as I know it is well thought-out and based on hard evidence, while finding great consolation in this G.K. Chesterton thought --“Division is better than agreement in evil.” – on top of Carlo Carretto’s admonition: “Forgiving all (everyone and everything) is the apex of our life’s journey.”

I've learned that it is a lot easier to tolerate someone with an opinion different from mine by exerting an effort to follow their logic, to understand where he or she is coming from. Because of that, though I have not exactly developed a thick hide, I have become extremely tolerant of views opposed to mine, and am capable of being friends with people who don't share my beliefs. Compared to my compulsive younger self, I can now even admire people brave enough to air contrarian opinions, especially when it is not fashionable, especially when going against the grain, and most especially in this era of cancel-happy culture because I know how it feels.

I am presently at a place where I will never get tired of pursuing the truth (as I see it), no matter what (I hope), because for me, that's the only right thing to do, the only thing in life that matters. Why? Because God is truth himself. (On the other hand, it’s good for us to recall whose epithet "father of lies" belongs to.)

Pursuing truth and embracing it, then, is life's greatest enterprise and, in this apocalyptic nightmare of a world we now live in, as preternaturally described and dreamed up in detail by the likes of Orwell, Bradbury, and other secular prophets of doom, it’s the greatest adventure of a lifetime.

posted by Resty Odon  # 5:42 PM 0 Comments