Can you Create Understanding Among Disagreement?

Of course this doesn't apply for every circumstance - one might argue if this should be an acceptable defense, for say, a murderer. But maybe we could play around with the idea that if they followed these principles to begin with then maybe those circumstances wouldn't be an issue.

I feel like there's no use beating around the bush here - so I'll get straight to the point. I've been talking to people on all sides of this jab equation. And what I am seeing is the following.

There are a two ways (maybe more, but this is what I'm noticing as of now) of interpreting our own views in relation in reality; the reality of our own and the reality of others.

There are those, on either side, who ''know'' that they are right. Now, there is a difference between absolute knowledge and knowledge based on present information. I don't feel that either side's knowledge is necessarily absolute considering the nature of reality - it is still unfolding as we speak, so we can't fully know all that there is to know. Perhaps that is needless to say, but nonetheless I think it's still an important distinction to make; anytime our minds go into all-knowing, we must moreso look at it as now-knowing, as I feel that is more accurate representation of what is actually correct.

These people may experience the extreme of right-wrong. self-other. us-them. A completely polarized dichotomy. From this perspective, the perception of the 'other' isn't even a possibility in one's mind - as in, they are literally unable to fathom it. But that in and of itself should be an implication of the fact that their truth isn't the entire truth. I feel that this perspective is based more off of ideology - there is an underlying foundation of beliefs for other beliefs rest upon, whether it is ''X can/can't be trusted.'', "I have/haven't experienced this.", etc. This generally creates circumstances where people are either imposing or forcing their beliefs onto others, unwilling to look at information which supports the opposing perspective, etc. And this usually is limited to one-sided conversations where one is trying to convince the other that their perspective is ''right'' and the others is ''wrong''. Meeting them with a wall of judgement. Which is oftentimes a wall of needing your perspective to be validated by the other through an attempt to prove them wrong.

And then, there is the second way of going about this. To have your perspective, rightfully so, based off of whatever experience, data, etc., that you have acquired, while still being open to new information as it comes along. Being able to have conversations with people who have different perspectives with more curiosity. Asking questions instead of making assumptions based off of our current understanding/knowing. Not being so identified with our reality that we our fear of being wrong is greater than our quest for truth . This is a big one, and I think this is also what makes it difficult for people to be open to information which is different from their current perspectives - because I mean, ego-death, much?

The truth doesn't really need to prove shit to anyone. This doesn't mean that It may not need to defend itself at times. But there is a different between STANDING-UP for the truth and FIGHTING for the truth. And sometimes, it's a fine line - you must use your own discernment to determine where to draw that line based off of your current life circumstances and conditions.

I just know, that right now, there are many of us who could serve best if we started expanding our consciousness to hold multiple truths simultaneously, while still being anchored in the current truth that is ours. This is the way to stay centered while also engaging with those who think differently than us (if that's what we choose/need to do).

Think of it like a non-virtual real-life metaverse; there are literally people living in their singular existence among multiple realities all co-existing in the same (perceived) physical reality. Can you get outside of yourself for a moment long enough to wrap your head around that?

It isn't unilateral, it is layered. Horizontally and vertically. And the more we can exist in more than one, while staying anchored and embodied in our own, the more we can experience and embody more unity as a whole, instead of separation.

I know this isn't for everyone. We all have our own unique roles.

This is for those who resonate. Know you're not alone. And the world needs you. To speak up, to share your perspective, to hold space. And to sometimes, be a bridge.

This doesn't mean you are not on any side. It means you can still have a side without being divided.

Allow yourself to see from a wider scope.

Because at the end of the day. We're still "in it" together.