It has been a while since I wrote the blog “Is it Necessary? I had meant to follow it within a week and then write the final part the week thereafter, but life intervened! When I first heard the Buddhist admonition, “Is it necessary? Is it the truth? Is it kind?” I got the first and last parts easily, but the truth part was tougher for me.

Surely, if what I needed to say was necessary, it was also the truth! Insofar is it might possibly be the truth for me, sure, but is it really The Truth? Is what I “know” to be the truth really the truth for someone else or for anyone, including me? Let’s take heavy people; I can say they are heavy, but I have found some think they are and want to loose their weight, but do nothing about it. Others think they are heavy and like it that way and then others don’t even think they are heavy. Which is true?

Of course, I can get on my researcher cap and claim that any number of studies point to a person of a certain age and height are overweight when they exceed a certain amount of poundage. However, like my cholesterol being statistically “high” at 220, I know that I eat correctly and exercise several times a week and still my cholesterol level never comes down. I also remember seeing a fellow on the television that runs marathons, he looked like a beach ball with a head, arms, and legs; no matter how any miles he ran or how healthy he ate, he never lost weight! So is it true my cholesterol is high or that he is overweight?

Just like I mentioned in the last blog, what we think of as the truth has been defined by our upbringing. I picked weight in the last paragraph because I was brought up in a family where my dad exercised constantly (very unusual for the sixties!) and my mother was Roman Catholic, which looked down on slovenly and gluttonous “sinners.” Hence, many times my truths on folks that seem overweight were simply judgments. The last time I remember reacting to this judgment was in my Master’s program when a fellow stood up to share and I harshly judged him in my mind as obese. He then went on to tell of a traumatic childhood that caused him to over eat, his efforts to reverse the trend, and having lost over 300 pounds. Now, in the span of seconds, I was impressed with him, but which of my judgments were the truth?

For Truth, I am going to default to the work of Byron Katie and say neither one was the truth, nor would anything I come up with be the truth; if I don’t even know which truth was really the truth for me in the example I just gave, how could I ever suppose I know the truth for another? Katie calls her work the four questions and the turn around, I just call it the five steps.

When confronting a thought, first ask if it is true, the answer is almost always “Yes, of course!” Younger folks would probably add a “Well, duh!” since why would we have the thought in the first place unless we thought it to be true? So then Katie asks, “Can you absolutely know that it’s true?” Sometimes I still get a yes from clients, so I say, “Can you absolutely, positively know that it’s true and how would you answer if there was a gun to your head?!? Usually they acquiesce to maybe, just maybe, they don’t actually know it to be the truth!

Katie’s third question is “How do you react, what happens, when you believe that thought?” Well, we saw how I reacted to my first thought of the fellow sharing and then an opposite reaction to the second! Finally she asks, “Who would you be without the thought?” This usually evokes an “I would be happier” or “I would probably like that person.” In my case, and usually for others, until I really examined my thoughts, the answer that does not come is “I would not be a judger.”

Ouch, that hurts. Almost everything we say is only a judgment based on our past; how can we know it is not an observation and is a judgment? The thought usually has an emotional content surrounding it. To state, “That person appears to weigh about 300 pounds” can simply be an observational fact. To state, “That person is over weight” is a judgment. One of Katie’s examples when I first found her work was people saying, “She should not have done that.” Not only is this a judgment, but also non-factual as she just did it!

Katie’s last step, the turn around, points to what psychologists call transference and is sometimes difficult for people to understand. When I mentioned that a judgment has an emotional component, it is because it is something we judge in ourselves. Think about it, if we have no emotional involvement in a situation, statement, or issue, it is because we have not encountered it in our own lives. If we have not encountered it before, we might be curious or baffled, but we would not be angry, upset, or defensive. This is somewhat simplistic, but if a person has never been called “ugly,” she or he will not react to being called that.

If we, as I pointed out above, state, “He should not have done that,” it is because we have not only done the very same thing but have felt the shame or guilt associated with doing it and having it done to us. This is the same reason cruel jokes (see an earlier blog) makes us laugh, we resonate with both the protagonist and antagonist. Katie’s turn around involves “finding at least three specific, genuine examples of how each turnaround is true for you in this situation.” This means turning the example into an “I” statement, such as “I should not have done …”

So now we have an inkling of the complexities of finding the Truth. We come close to the Truth when we stick to “I” statements, “I feel sad,” “I am hungry,” or “I want to extract myself from this situation.” These are Truths for us in the moment and can foster authentic communication, both with ourselves and with others, and point to solutions in the present moment.

This blog may be covering something that has been in existence since man began to speak, I may be more sensitive to this issue as I have grown older, or both! The title of this blog may be recognized as a Buddhist admonition before speaking or writing something for others to read. Due to the length of what I want to say about this concept, I will be breaking this statement down into three separate blogs.

Unfortunately, I find the question, “is it necessary” to usually not even be in the realm of consciousness, much less utilized. We have all run into people who are either talking to themselves out loud, such that it can be heard by those within several feet around them, or to those who seem to talk incessantly about anything that comes to their mind. This latter point reminds me of a wonderful saying I heard a couple of summers ago, “Your mouth does not have to repeat everything your mind thinks!” I am not really blogging about these folks, but all us “normal” people.

While I will go into what the mind thinks in further detail in the next blog, we have to keep in mind (pun intended!) it as not a free thinker. Our bodies, emotions, and thoughts are all a product of our past experiences in life. No one is born a racist, abuser, liar, cheat, etc., these and everything else that we think and feel are all learned first in our home, at school, and then as we interact with everyone in the world.

The mind is a meaning-making machine. Unfortunately, all of the initial meanings that we place on our experiences early in our childhood are done with a child’s simplistic mind. The mind then looks at every subsequent experience to determine if it is something new or fits into a paradigm that has already been set up. Our ego then, in order to validate what we “know to be true,” seeks like-minded companions or sets about convincing everyone else they are wrong.

Hence, we speak and write about things that are not necessary. When others speak or write, we do not usually listen or read to really understand the other’s point of view, we almost immediately begin to form a reply. Not only have we not use the mind’s ability to possibly integrate new ideas; we do not even use its ability to thoughtfully reply.

Further complicating this lack of true communication is laziness. It takes time and effort to truly communicate effectively with others, constantly perception checking, and engaging in an unemotional dialogue. Speaking what is necessary in short sentences is hard for many of us and I’m not even addressing those people we know who go on and on and on so they don’t even have to hear the other persons ideas. Speaking even three separate ideas in a short statement tends to engender a response to only one of the ideas, meaning the other two truly were not necessary.

Perception checking means the listener repeats back what they think they heard and asked is this what the speaker meant. Talk about making for a stilted conversation! However, I am always surprised at how even seemingly easily understood statements can be heard incorrectly. Finally, we rarely engage in an unemotional dialogue. Now, of course, I am not suggesting that we should not be passionate about what we discuss. What I am talking about is when someone inadvertently gores one of our beloved ideas causing us to become angry. That anger automatically engages the limbic brain, shutting off the prefrontal cortex, and rendering our higher cognitive functioning useless.

It is this latter emotional state that we so assiduously try to avoid and drives us into like-minded groups. Unfortunately, doing this locks us into a closed system. That is where the feedback we want is fed back to us, which we think then validates what we just said, convincing us that, naturally, we were right all along!

This can be accomplished by only talking to like-minded friends, reading only those magazines and books that support our ideas, and watching or reading news sources that agree with us. It is both scary and hard to truly listen to an opposing point of view, not make any comments at that time, and to contemplate its validity.

This blog came about when to friend on Facebook posted some talking points on liberalism. I took exception, as the liberalism of today does not match up with the liberalism I grew up with. Back then, we welcomed and even defended divergent speech, even when it was offensive (ACLU) and we did not try to stifle speech. We were civil in the face of intolerance, trying to educate a racist, not calling them one, much less throwing that ugly word around for political gain as seems too often to be the case today. Liberals read William F. Buckley and listened to Barry Goldwater as well as Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal, not booing and creating disturbances to keep those whose ideas that did not match ours from giving speeches.

It seems to me that if we would apply this first section, “is it necessary?” to all we say and write, we would all enjoy respectful, well thought out, and interesting ideas no matter where on the spectrum they fell.

First, this blog, in general and this specific one, is not about politics and if it were, it would be so out of date. This specific blog is about being ethical in our behavior and being impeccable with our words. Second, notwithstanding my protestations to the contrary, it may seem there really are some political leanings underlying this blog and that I am “picking” on Democrats; I am and I am not. I am because until recently, I was a registered Democrat all my life and so I am attuned to its candidates and leaders and then most disappointed when they do not live up to what I considered to be their potential. It is not because, although I do not remember the names of any specific Republicans except Bob Packwood, I know they have had their fair share of unethical behavior too.

A few of weeks ago I read an article in the Houston Chronicle by a columnist named Peggy Fikac in which she deemed Wendy Davis’ campaign narrative a “misstep.” For those of you who do not know, Wendy Davis is the new “darling” (or as we say down here, darlin’) of the Texas Democratic party and is running for governor. The “misstep” is about Davis’ assertion she was raising her daughters in a mobile home after a divorce, got on her feet again, went on to Harvard Law School, and then “making” something of herself. It has been asserted that there are chronological errors in her story and, while the story maybe be technically true, actually fosters a narrative of a tougher road than she actually encountered.

My interest in this narrative lies only with the wording and the intent or, one might say, lies of commission and omission. Another disclosure, I am a recovering liar. I used to convince myself that I learned to lie to try and give my mother the answer she wanted, both to keep myself out of trouble (mom never had a volume switch when it came to punishment or it was stuck on maximum!) and because I was so codependent that I did not want to disappoint her. Unfortunately, it was a trait I leaned from her and then continued into my adulthood where I was an equal opportunity liar. I made a commitment in my forties to stop, which I did, and then honed my truthfulness in my fifties, eliminating even the possibility that my words could be misconstrued.

In conversation, while thinking on our “feet,” timelines and specifics can easily get muddled; they cannot in a biographical disclosure. So my first issue is with Ms. Fikac’s nomenclature, Ms. Davis’ actions are not a misstep, the campaign may have “misstepped,” but Ms. Davis’ words are a lie. Again, it does not matter if they were intentional or “just” trying to put the best spin on Ms. Davis’ past. I know, I know, it is not deemed appropriate to judge folks these days; I am not judging. Judging is never appropriate, but I find too many people misapply this word these days. Pointing out a lie is not judging, it is observing and naming a falsehood.

To be kind, I guess I might say that Ms. Davis is just sloppy, but do we want a sloppy governor? Also, as I have gotten older, I now know this to be a cop out, we know when we are being unethical, our bodies react in a way to let us know, we just choose not listen to what our bodies are saying most of the time. I could also say she is somewhat a political neophyte, but that would make Ms. Davis incompetent. Does she not know about and did not learn from several of her predecessors, Lena Guerrero and Henry Cisneros, both real up and coming Texas Democratic stars back in their day that got caught lying?

Lies are lies and it does not matter if they are “white” or “black” lies. Every lie erodes our energy, our self-esteem, and our confidence. One of Don Miguel Ruiz’s four agreements from the book of the same name is to be impeccable with your words. He reminds us that words have the power to do both black magic and white magic. This is somewhat a double entendre; words can be used as black magic to hurt others, but they also hurt the speaker and those around us. Ms. Davis has been harmed, and just not politically. I would also offer for her consideration that her children have been harmed. They have now had to endure, at best, reading the opposition using “black magic words” on their mom and, at worst, been the recipients of folks belittling their mom in their presence.

One of Don Miguel Ruiz’s quotes is “Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.” There is no middle ground; there is no wiggle room with our words. We must either consciously and mindfully choose to live ethically and with integrity, in truth and love, or we choose not to do so. Additionally, simply not applying ourselves to this high standard in every waking moment is also a choice, it is passively choosing to not live with integrity.

One final disclosure, I am an eternal optimist that probably borders on fantasyland; I expect my representatives to be honest. Bummer, I seem to be continually living with disappointment.

When I checked Facebook today, I noticed an advertisement whose headline read, “Repeal THEIR health care!” sponsored by Credo Action. When I checked, Credo Action seems to be a fairly liberal group and the gist of this petition is that the top Republican Senate and Congressional are hypocrites to want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obama Care. As is usually the case these days, in what I see as a deterioration of our ability to effectively communicate, I’m not sure the author truly understands the definition of hypocrisy. Mind you, I would generally agree that most politicians, Democrat or Republican, are hypocritical most of the time, but not in this case. The argument the Republicans are making is that the majority of Americans, depending on how the question is worded (a whole other communication blog!), seem to want the bill repealed and the recent mid-term elections seem to reflect this. Therefore, voting the way their constituents demand while keeping their own government health care is not hypocritical. Unfortunately, and I say this a long term registered Democrat, the name of the bill is definitely hypocritical, even if the intentions were honorable. Further, if Congress’ health care is so great, why can’t we, the voters, receive the exact same deal? Why did the Democrats have to gin up something different? Why reinvent the wheel? Just extent Congress’ health care to the rest of us. As long as I am beating up on my fellow Democrats, Speaker Pelosi’s statement about running the most ethical congress in history and then letting Representative Rangel skate for so long and President’s Obama’s statements regarding transparency and inclusion are more hypocritical than the Republicans wanting to repeal the bill, but keep their own health care. I would term this action more unethical than hypocritical and it pains me to this day that it was Newt Gingrich and his ilk, rather than the decades of Democratic congressional session prior to his becoming the speaker, that actually introduced a bill forbidding Congress from passing a law and exempting itself from having to follow what they were forcing the public to do. Talk about hypocritical! Finally, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, better known as Card Check, is absolutely hypocritical. Whenever we hear the words “free and fair elections,” secret ballots come to mind. Besides the name being patently false, the hypocrisy comes in because the internal union elections are still by secret ballot. While I have mainly detailed current bills introduced by Democrats, I know that this problem is rampant across party lines; these are simply the latest, and therefore, those example that quickly come to mind. How about both sides stop with spinning words and facts and pledge to be up front, honest, and forthright?

As you will learn as I add to this blog over time, I am very interested in the words people choose and pondering what they really meant! Of course, I could always simply ask or I might make a counter statement, but for now I am most comfortable with simply reflecting. The other evening, my wife, daughter and I went out for our traditional Christmas Eve dinner at a wonderful restaurant, The Bay House, in Lincoln City, Oregon. As always at The Bay House, the food and service was excellent and after we finished, our waiter snapped a few pictures of us out in the foyer. After having two pictures taken, I requested a third, but I tied my hair back to make it appear that my hair was shorter. While tying it back, I stated that this picture was for my Dad. As an aside, I have worn my hair very short for the majority of my five decades, but after seeing a picture of Sam Elliot on last year’s December cover of a glossy magazine, Cowboys and Indians, I decided to see if I could look like him! Two other couples from another table were there getting their coats and one of the fellows said something like “You would think at your age you wouldn’t care what your dad thought.”

While realizing that this apparent judgement had everything to do with this gentleman’s relationship with his father and absolutely nothing to do with my relationship, I nevertheless pondered the dual message it sent to me. If he thought I was tying my hair back because I would be intimidated or threatened in any way by what my Dad might say to me, he would have been absolutely wrong. I know my Dad’s comments would be dripping with disapproval and enhanced with colorful language and a derogatory analogy or two. That, however, was not why I chose to tie my hair back. Since he isn’t particularly thrilled with long hair, I gave him the illusion that my hair was once again short for the Christmas picture of his family. It will bring him happiness, if only until he sees me again. So, in truth, I did tie my hair back because of what my Dad would think! My decision had nothing to do with fear and everything to do with love.

Who knows, one day soon I might actually cut my hair just to please him. Or maybe it will be just because I find it fairly annoying (How do people ever get used to wearing what feels like a mop on top of their head!!!). However, that choice, whenever I make it, will be made from love and not a fear based position.