Was on the mrt today and while standing near the carriage connector, a random thought popped into my head. Which eye do i trust?
You see, i was standing where one eye was in close proximity with the wall of the connector, while the other saw a more significant depth of space before another wall further back. So it’s sort of those times when you see two images, because one image is too close for the other eye to see, or see from a particular angle. Anyways, so this was the thought: which eye do i trust? The left or the right? Or do i trust both eyes enough to make a clear judgement of what im seeing. If you know me, you’d know my mind doesnt stop there. Heh. The question brought more possibilities and perspectives for thought.
In the context of relationships with others. This could mean when getting to know a person, or knowing a person, does one rely solely on the account of one person, or does one take in the views of more people? Take for example, i hear about someone from a close friend and hear something slightly different from another person whom im not close to. There are many ways to react to such a situation. Firstly, do i just take the word of my close friend, based on the fact that there is an existing rapport of trust. In other words, do i totally shrug off the view of the other person whom im not close to? Which eye do i trust more? Which perspective is more reliable or less biased for that matter?
Secondly, to take things to another level, why not consider: to what extent can we really believe the accounts of people (since after all, all humans are prone to error in their perception and judgement and are inevitably biased)? That could also be valid; in other words, one would rather believe one’s own eyes. Which brings me to my next point, though in a milder voice.
Thirdly, one can also say, it is purely subjective and it all boils down to one’s direct interaction with that person. This may lead to the rejection of anything that seeks to be the absolute truth about anyone, but rather just accepting and relating to the person in response to that person’s actions towards oneself. After all, isnt each relationship that is established between two people unique; one may relate in one way to person A, but differently to person B, though person B may be similar to person A? That being said, would one take everything into consideration, after trusting both eyes (the accounts of both people) so to speak, and come up with a perspective that seeks to put it all into place. Take my situation on the mrt for example, i trust in both eyes enough to believe that they are both simultaneously true in their perception (though they may both be flawed at the same time, since im myopic and need specs…haha, but nonetheless, believeable). As a result, from my experience with both eyes (knowing how they work), i come up with my own judgement of the situation to come to the conclusion: one eye is too close to the wall of the connector, hence the other eye cannot see clearly from that angle, resulting in a divergence in accounts. In the same way, one can take into consideration the accounts of both people and from one’s experience with everyone involved, come up with a perspective that seeks to reconcile the divergence in accounts, and try to put it all into place.
In the context of relationship with God. This could be more tricky. Do we believe the testimony of one person, or the collective account of a group of people who come from different backgrounds? Can we really believe our own perception; can our human eyes be trusted with anything pertaining to the things unseen? God is unseen, so what can be considered to be evidence of his presence or works? Like the previous context, one can choose to believe the accounts of people. One can hear from friends the truth about who God is. One can also choose to reject any account as absolute truth about God and rely on one’s own perception of things and about who God is. (Sounds abit like siddhartha: to reject all doctrines and teachers, to reach one’s goal alone, or die. OWTTE. Though it may not be totally anti-establishment, but rather, with the knowledge that humans are inherently biased in their accounts. So, it concurs that everyone may speak some truth, but not truth in its fullest or most absolute.) Or one can also choose to react in the third way: take everything into account and try to come up with some sort of a reconcilation of the divergence. Personally, i dont think there’s a right way per se. One can believe in sermons, one can believe in testimonies, one can believe what one perceives/understands of the Bible, one can listen to everything and come up with one’s own belief, one can choose to relate to God directly and understand that each person relates differently to God and vice versa.
Just to bring more things to light and throw more things to confusion.
Hmmm.



