perspective & truth

“Beyond math, there are no facts; only interpretations” - Nietzsche

As a mathematician, I am tempted to agree with him. We only have the ability to learn so much in a limited life. We can only see the world through our own eyes. Everything we experience is merely our own interpretation; which cannot be universal as any connotations you have with something: the memories it inspires, the feelings you uncontrollably react with are unique to you. The same way your path is unique, as are the narratives you tell yourself. It’s crazy how small of a portion of the universe we see, across all dimensions: space and time. How restricted our viewpoint is. So, what do we interpret as truth?

Of course, we make certain assumptions so we can live functionally. By communicating, we can partner the viewpoints together, and build on each other to paint a fuller picture. When everyone’s interpretations line up, one can assume (if no one is lying) that is what happened (unless we are indeed living in the matrix). William James argues this is truth happening to an idea. In other words: nothing is inherently true, but they can be proven true in agreement. There’s truth in harmony, as long as nothing is interfering. And as long as truth comes in the mutual validation, it can leave when that harmony is breached. We are always learning. Do you remember when smoking was good for you, in the fifties? Until that truth no longer matched with scientific fact. It only gets tricky when other perspectives don’t match.

It’s important to have different perspectives, as long as once shared, others agree it to be either true or false (the value can be debatable), otherwise we would never grow. If the agreement never takes place, we end up in an eternal cycle of antagonism, both sides preventing the other from growing (as you can see in politics). The human race has developed in such a way because diverse people look at things and make new connotations, their minds flowing in opposite directions. When these ideas are combined and developed, we discover something new.

We need multiple confirming perspectives to provide relativity, and explain the world around us. The determining factor for a wheel to roll isn’t whether it is made out of wood or stone, it’s the shape. Placebos are required in science to determine what specifically caused the results. That’s all we really are able to analyse: the differences. For what is normal? It is merely the average of all the data. Or, sometimes it is what is considered right. That’s why gossip has been such an integral part of society as we’ve grown, particularly with travel and the internet. Suddenly, we have infinite brand-new perspectives clamouring for our attention. Voices that hadn’t before been heard. And, as we’ve learnt, in the end it is impossible for us all to agree, for we cannot be truly objective.

Anything we absorb, any input to our brain is done so in a way that we personally can make sense of it. We impose our own background, our experiences onto artwork, and our mindset at the time has a huge impact and will constantly always be associated with those new thoughts. We escape into the stories they tell whilst relating it back and, hopefully, learning something from it. It is a reflection of yourself. From here it’s where you can find great art, when it is so personally relatable to you but yet also beloved by millions. We are constantly changing, constantly growing with each new input.

It’s also the mindset you are in, the emotions running through you when you experience something (particularly that initial interaction will always filter your view). You are always remembering your previous opinions, on which new ideas develop as layers. But the foundation is always there, reflecting the person you were then. And all of those people you’ve been who’ve come into contact with it. Those emotions are your funnel, guiding your perception of reality. If you want to see something one way, you will look for evidence that support this hypothesis.

Finally, the source of the information matters: the context in which you are provided with it. Is it someone you trust, or not? Someone you like, or not? A few years ago, in 2011, a da Vinci painting was discovered. I remember the clamour that came with it, and if its authenticity was proved (which it was) it’s value would increase dramatically. But why should this value increase by so much when in the end you are still viewing the same piece of art? Perhaps it is because the stories behind it become so much richer and you know the thought and intelligence that went into it.

We choose to trust certain people we encounter (and their equally limited perceptions of the entirety of reality and removal from the truth), that what they say is correct; be it: teachers; doctors; parents; journalists; politicians. How many people do you think you’ve ever had a conversation with? A real conversation? Maybe a couple tens of thousands, a hundred thousand? I don’t know, something in that ballpark. There are over 7 billion people on this planet. Think about the amount of people who have existed throughout time. The billions of viewpoints that have been stitched together in frighteningly weighted narratives to produce what we know to be truth today. Think of the percentage of people that is, whose concept of truth has directly impacted your own (also weighed according to proximity and affection), compared to the number of people who’ve ever existed. Think about the number of overlaps involved. The weight of trust adding and adding until, maybe, one day someone manages to burst it. In the millions of concepts we take as truth, statistically speaking, there must be a handful that will be proven false, be it in 10 years or 10,000 years.

It’s insane that there are these whole other viewpoints that we’ll never see: these completely alien ideas people believe, just as we believe our truths. We’re so dependent on our location in the space-time continuum to guide our beliefs: how different things could be. What would I have been preaching 200 years ago in Orthodox Russia; or 200 years in the future; or heaven-forbid now had I been raised as a Westboro Baptist in Kansas? I mean, who is to say me in my current form is correct? What will my grandchildren think about what I believe in, and who will be right? Will it matter if I am because I’ll be gone? As long as knowledge isn’t lost, the future will always bring humanity closer to the untouchable truth. And in learning from the past, one must stay aware that history is written by the winners; be that anyone, from the rich (smoking), to religion. What is the current climate you’re in?

Never forget: it is naïve to believe that you are correct over everyone else. We’ve all had a different journey to get here; who is to say which is the right one? Even if you are the leader in your field, you’ll know there’s always more to learn. Truth is a spectrum, and some things at the extremes may stay the same throughout your life, whilst other things may change. For example: until I was ten-years-old, I would’ve placed Christianity around 95% on the truth scale. Then, when I read more of the Bible, learnt about other religions, science, and feminism, I started to question – maybe down to 50:50. But I was still playing Pascal’s wager. Then I wondered, why am I placing my wager on Christianity, instead of any other religion? Of course, it was down to my western upbringing and my Christian friends; but this was merely the way the western world had interpreted the universe, before we had enough science to make other interpretations. Who is to say that we were right over anyone else? Because Roman Emperor Constantine saw a cross as he defeated Maxentius? Why is this the correct religion? Queen Cleopatra was born closer to now (2016) than she was the building of the Great Pyramid. Ancient Egyptian mythology (as we now call it) had been around for centuries and yet now we view it as fiction. Who is to say where we will be in another few thousand years?

By definition, religion is based off assumptions (here called beliefs). But it’s important to always remember how our subconscious influences everything we experience. The key is to be conscious of your assumptions and emotions when you make your interpretations. And be conscious of the assumptions and emotions of others.

Confusion arises when you assume different things, hence your perceptions of a situation aren’t aligned. You’re experiencing different truths. For example: when one person calls another a ‘bitch’ jovially, but the other takes it to heart. Or when someone is naturally very friendly, but sexual interaction is the last thing on their mind, they won’t even anticipate that the person on the other side sees them as a flirt, a tease. Different people assign different weightings. What is strong language to you, might be light to someone else. What is risqué to your grandma, likely won’t be to you. You may not mean to cause offense, but someone might still end up upset. Everyone sees the world through a different lens.

We have to be careful where we assign such importance. Breasts are only sexual objects because that’s what we’ve made them, we’ve sexualized them. Really, they’re just milk carriers for babies. Everything is what we’ve made it. Why should we be ashamed by them? Free the nipple. Women shouldn’t be treated like objects to be leered at. Showing your breasts shouldn’t be ‘asking for it’. Why should showing your breasts be inappropriate. It’s not the woman, it’s the viewer that has the issue. Just in the same way as wearing a short skirt does not mean ‘I want to sleep with every guy I see and this is my consent’ nor does it mean they are asking for it and it is their fault if they get attacked. Women have been over sexualized and seen as objects for men to do with what they will for too long. If women have to cover their breasts, so should men. People may argue that because breasts are something that displays the differences between men and women, and are an erogenous zone, that they are innately sexual however anything can be an erogenous zone for someone, and it’s not like people get offended when a man has a beard, another indicator of someone’s sex. Men have to allow the breasts to turn them on, in a way that society has conditioned them. That’s the narrative they’re writing.

Personally, I don’t allow a beard to turn me on every time I see one. I’d never get anything done! Similarly, if someone talks shit about me, I have to allow them to make me feel bad. I have to believe them. Trust them. I have to value their opinion. If you don't care it can't affect you. As Eleanor Roosevelt once said 'No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.' And we must always remember: bitching is just a reflection of your own insecurities.

Besides, why should I feel attacked if someone calls me a bitch or tells me to fuck off? They are just words, merely a string of letters that we have allowed power. But then, we must assign weight to some concepts otherwise certain emotions would go untranslated and kept inside, which is often not a good thing. Some things naturally carry importance, like water or gold; whilst others society has assigned them such, like a hundred-pound note, or some words.

When writing this I am being careful about the words I use. Like truths, words exist on a spectrum of potency and emotion. Each word is full of different connotations, different ideas are evoked by using slightly different synonyms. These instruments steer the dialogue, so we have to use them wisely. Each word provides a label, and in defining it this way you lose its uniqueness: it becomes grouped with all others that were defined by that string of letters. In order to claw back that originality, you search for the ideal combination of words, to somehow translate the thoughts and emotions you are trying to convey.

That’s why studying linguistics is so important in conveying new ideas across cultures. You can’t translate languages word-for-word, given the different stories that led to their creation. The anthropology behind it is fascinating: what brought that language into being, that structure. The enunciations that give that word character, power. The way humans have twisted the word into their daily vocabulary. The way that the same word can mean different things in different countries. The way that the language someone uses will immediately affect your perception of them.

When you meet someone, you are only seeing what they want you to see, and interpreting it to your own accord, which, of course, they have no control over. It’s the same way as when you see someone’s social media account. That isn’t who they are but it’s how they want others to view them (and in some ways this is far more telling). It’s only when you become close enough with someone to break down all the filters their thoughts go through before it comes to you that you can get close enough to who they actually are. When you fall in love with someone, you are falling in love with the idea of them in your head, and only time will tell how accurate that was. It’s like having rose-tinted glasses, and gradually the tint starts to fade.

Before you meet someone who you have mutual connections with: perhaps you’ve stalked them online; or heard about them through a friend; (and to a lesser extent: when you first meet someone and first impressions; or to a greater extent: celebrities), you have an idea of them in your head. Let’s say all your friends have said person X is beautiful. They are a god amongst men. It can either go one of two ways, either that idea infiltrates how you view them and you see them as more attractive to match social perception, they are more wanted and therefore that makes them attractive in your eyes, or you have such high expectations that when you meet them you are thoroughly disappointed. In the same vein, would you rather be photogenic or more attractive in real life? In one sense you achieve immortality looking the best you can but then others will often be disappointed when they meet you. It’s like that fear when you meet with someone from Tinder that they will be disappointed because you chose the best photos of yourself to initially lure them in. Who you are depends on, not only who is asking, but also who is answering. After all, it is a two-way street, the transfer of information; and both the source and the receptor matter as to how it comes across.

Ultimately, you can’t control how you are perceived, but you can control how you perceive the world. Your narrative is there to be written, just be careful who you trust, as your story unfolds. And it can change at any time, as you keep on learning.

Would the little catholic girl I was at seven years old approve of me now? Probably not. My truths have changed as time has passed. You are a different person having read this to the one who started it a few minutes ago. Adapting to the fresh ideas you may not have thought about before and hopefully changing your perceptions of things that may have just been on your periphery. You in turn, will interpret this differently to anyone else. In a conversation, in fact any interaction you have with anyone you will experience a different moment to that of your partner, both relating the interaction to different memories, different thoughts you have previously had. No one can follow the same path as you, and no one can have the same experiences. One day, the weight of belief will burst some of our truths, but hopefully the important ones will maintain their truth status.

If you are hunting for truth, then as Nietzsche said: maths is the closest thing we have to fact. It’s everything. It has all the answers and yet none at the same time. It’s magnificent and complex, but also the purest thing one can find. It strips everything bare. You make a couple of logical assumptions and then the rest is fact, not subject to perspective. It’s the derivative of everything. And when you least expect, it will surprise you with the most perfect pattern or solution, that has no reason to be so perfect, it just is. For the beauty of it. It almost makes me believe in an active God. Why should the pieces of the puzzle fit together like that? How does the rest of the puzzle fit together? Maths is the secret to the universe. But the more we know, the more we realise we don’t know, and so we are stuck on a never-ending hunt for a satisfaction we will never find. But that’s what leaves the desire behind.

It would scare me, this lack of fact, were there anything I could do about it. The most you can do is meet as many people from as many different backgrounds and learn all about their truths and their bubbles and then once you have as much information as possible, come to your decision. Now I cannot say what drives this decision, be it reason or emotion - for in the end it does not matter, but it is the closest you will come to satiety.

Your emotions are your funnel, guiding which truths you search for. The ones that you’re desperate to know. Who you are depends on what and who you decide to take at face value, and those you deem important enough to delve further. What will bring you the most happiness?

If you are interested, I’m now agnostic. I don’t believe in organized religion (whilst acknowledging I could one day be proven incorrect - hopefully not at my death, losing Pascal’s wager). I do, however, believe in a higher power, that silently guides our every move.

I believe in that untouchable, eternal truth; silently guiding our every move.