Truth and Transformation Only Exist In Agreement

In my blog of July 31, 2009 (“Our Worlds Are Created By Our Words – Part II”) I explained that our worlds only exist in language.   If you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, please do so as it will provide the needed background for this blog’s topic.

And, once you understand that everything that exists, exists in language, you can get to the understanding that everything exists as simply a series of conversations.   We ourselves are simply a network of conversations.   Our doubts, our fears, our desires, our abilities, our memories, and our inadequacies all exist in language as conversations.   And while some conversations are never spoken out loud to others (they’re really just monologues or memories of conversations that are in our heads), in order to produce lasting transformations in our lives, we must first transform the conversations we have about those things that need to be transformed.

You see, living inside of our heads never produces anything.   It is only in communication that we accomplish anything.   Why?   Because all of life is simply a series of conversations.   Money is a conversation.   Sex is a conversation.   Work is a conversation.   These conversations do not always have to be words communicated between two people.   A “conversation” (in its simplest form) can simply take place in your head.   However, for us to influence anyone else, or, for anyone to influence us, the conversation must live outside of ourselves; outside of our heads.   In other words, the conversation must live in words spoken.   Ralph Waldo Emerson said it this way, “Conversation is a game of circles.”   If we don’t like the way our life is in the area of finances, we should look at the conversation we have concerning money.   How are we related to it?   What would be a more empowering context to choose so that we can shift the conversation from one of lack to one of abundance?

For a conversation to become transformed into a reality (or a belief-set), it must have agreement.   For example, the U.S. monetary system is simply a conversation that has agreement.   A one dollar bill, in and of itself, has no intrinsic value with the exception of the paper that it is printed on.   However, because we agree that it has value, and we have built a system of trading and bartering around our monetary system, the one dollar bill has implied value.   (Yes, Fort Knox exists and still holds gold that’s in place to “protect” the value of our dollar but the value of that gold was long ago exceeded by the amount of money printed and owed by the U.S. Federal Government.)   In that same vein, a one hundred dollar bill has no more value than a one dollar bill.   Yet, because we agree that it has a value that is one hundred times the value of a one dollar bill, it has greater value to us.   This is how we create our mutual reality – through agreement (also called “agreement reality”). 

If you offered someone on the street a choice between receiving a one dollar bill or a one hundred dollar bill, he would undoubtedly choose the one hundred dollar bill.   Again, if the value of the bill were only the true value of the paper that it is printed on, the person wouldn’t care which bill he received.   But, because he agrees that the one hundred dollar bill has more value than that of the one dollar bill, he will choose the bill of greater value (the one hundred dollar bill).  

This same concept is used for everything that we believe – regardless of whether that belief is in a material thing or a metaphysical thing.   On an atomic level, protons and neutrons didn’t exist until the scientific community “discovered” them and there was agreement that they are real things.   (That isn’t to say that they weren’t real prior to discovery or that they really didn’t exist.   However, we had no knowledge of them; and, consequently no agreement within conversation about the realness of them.   Therefore, to us, they did not exist.) 

An atom only exists because we say that it exists and we have agreement.   On a subatomic level, a quark only exists because of agreement.   Few people have ever seen a quark – we everyday laymen of science certainly don’t see them.  We can’t hear or touch a quark.   It is not something that can be believed in through our five senses.   Yet, there is agreement that a quark is a “real” thing; that it has certain characteristics, and that it is one of the smallest particles of an atom, making up protons and neutrons.

It’s much easier to understand this principle with metaphysical things than it is with material things.   Stay with me now.   A tree on a hill only exists because of agreement reality.   If others agree with me that there is a tree on a certain hill, then it is/becomes “real” and it exists.   If no one agrees with me that there is a tree on a certain hill, then that tree does not exist.   For dog to exist there must be agreement between me and others that dog exists.   That does not mean that there aren’t truths that exist without agreement.   They’re just not commonly agreed upon truths and therefore they are not part of our shared agreement reality.

So, why does agreement reality make a difference to you and me?   Because of the conversations we have about our lives.   If I’m stuck in a conversation about my finances that isn’t working for me; in other words, it leaves me disempowered, then I need to disrupt my conversation(s) about money and get into agreement with others about what my finances look like.   This is more important for you than for the others that are involved.   While the power of 2 or 3 people believing something the same as you is greater than that of just you thinking it, the benefit is really in your putting your conversation “out there” rather than just keeping it “in here” (in your head).   Getting agreement from others involves your speaking your word, out loud, and getting others to buy in to it.   In order to do this, you have to have a greater belief in what it is that you believe.

Notice that if you’re timid about your belief or you’re unsure of something, you have a lot of difficulty speaking it out loud to others.   You would much rather hold on to those thoughts until you’re sure of them before you commit them to being spoken to another.   But, if you truly want to transform an area of your life, you’re going to be in a much more powerful position to do so if you commit your transformation to the spoken word and share it with as many people as possible.   The more people that you share it with, the more real your transformation becomes for you.   Just as the more the number of people believing in anything causes, through agreement reality, that thing to become more real in people’s lives.

Sharing your new possibility for transformation in any area, is key to developing agreement reality with others, and to cementing your own transformation, not only in your beliefs, but in reality.

Sympathy and Pity

Before going into my thoughts about sympathy, I’d like for you to take a look at the definition of sympathy.  The Merriam-Webster online dictionary provides one definition for sympathy as: “3a : the act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings or interests of another b : the feeling or mental state brought about by such sensitivity <have sympathy for the poor>.”

Feeling sorry for someone is a completely disempowering conversation.  It not only disempowers you, but it also disempowers the person for whom you feel sorry.  When we are disempowered around someone, we have no place from which to stand in order to be of help to them or others.  Possibly, our only thoughts are of comforting that person by holding them, stroking them, or simply offering words of understanding or care.

[Please understand this in the light from which I’m speaking.  I’m not saying that there isn’t a time when holding someone isn’t the appropriate action to take.  Possibly after getting really bad news, learning that a loved one has passed away, or receiving a life-threatening diagnosis, people need to grieve.  They need to be with the hurt, the pain, the sadness, and the possibility of losing someone, something, or the possibility that they might die.  (A person must first accept his circumstances as they are before he can powerfully take action to transform those circumstances.)  These are times when a person appropriately needs to be comforted.]

However, leaving someone in that state or condition for any length of time serves no purpose for us or them.  If we really are living to serve others, we know that there is a need for us to help an individual who is in despair to see that there is hope available and provide him with a place to stand in order that he may make a difference in his life or the life of another.

Maybe you’ve had the same experience that I have when seeing a homeless person who has physical problems and limitations; or, someone who is sleeping on the streets, begging for money, and possibly doesn’t seem capable of caring for him or herself.  Maybe you, like me, have turned away so that you didn’t have to look at him or her.  Or maybe you stole glances when you thought it wouldn’t be too obvious to them.  In that experience, how did you make a difference for that person?  (I’m not putting anyone down here or trying to make you feel bad.  I’m just pointing to something powerful that I want you to see.)

Consider this [and please, again, understand this in the light in which I write this]:  we’ve seen millions of dollars poured into third-world countries in order to fight or eradicate hunger, pestilence, disease, and lack of shelter.  In that outpouring of money, have we [the world] made a difference for those countries?  Aren’t they in pretty much the same condition as when we first knew of their condition(s)?  Is it possible that throwing money at a problem is not the solution?  Could it be possible that changing our way of thinking about these issues and taking different actions might make a difference for these peoples and these countries?  (Albert Einstein said that the definition of insanity is: “Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.”)

Simply put, sympathy provides us with no place to stand powerfully for others or for their transformation.  When we are operating out of sympathy, are we not simply disempowered persons trying to comfort other disempowered persons?  What will the result of this always be – two persons left disempowered!  How is that going to help the other person?  How is that being of service to him or her?

Instead of taking on the disempowering context of sympathy, our minds should be set on thinking about things that would make a difference in the lives of others.  Consider what would happen if we changed from being a sympathetic people to a people of compassion.  The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines compassion as: “sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it” [underline added].  So, we see that compassion is needed instead of sympathy.  And with compassion comes a desire to alleviate the state of affairs with which we are concerned.

Going back to our past way of being; as a nation it’s become habitual to simply throw money at situations of need which require transformation.  Money, to my knowledge, has never transformed anything.  If anything, consider that money is a magnifier - actually magnifying the issue(s) that it’s intended to “fix.”

I can’t help but look at the countries into which we’ve poured millions of dollars through government aid and countless charitable organizations in an effort to alleviate poverty, starvation, disease, etc. and I still see the same issues continue on with no signs of a slow-down of growth in sight.  One simply needs to look at the nation of Africa and its AIDS pandemic.  Money has been thrown at the problem, funneled in from many varied sources, and has provided AIDS related drugs to prolong the life-expectancy of those living with AIDS.  Did the money stop the spread of AIDS, or lessen the death-toll of AIDS related deaths?  Absolutely not!

There’s an old saying; a very wise Chinese proverb that reads, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”  Looking at this paradigm, I’m suggesting that giving money for the purpose of food, medicine, shelter, clothing, etc., doesn’t solve the problem – it only creates more need in those areas.

What does make a difference is education.  Provide sex-education to the nation of Africa and school them on sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS prevention.  Provide education to impoverished countries teaching their people to fish, farm, make clothing, and make crafts and other things that can be sold.  Teach them of the services they can provide for others in order to make money.  What works – and I state this by observation of things I’ve seen in this country – is to provide people with a vision of a state of wealth, a state of health, a state of self-sufficiency.  Our focus on the need has created an endless reliance of others on our welfare.

In a nutshell, I’m saying that we have been responsible for creating and maintaining welfare states throughout the world by the acts of our charities.  We’ve focused on giving – but we’ve been giving the wrong thing.  Remember that seeing things through an eye of compassion seeks to alleviate the need – not create a dependency upon the hand that feeds.