Zorba the Hutt (zorbathut) wrote,
Zorba the Hutt

  • Mood:
sometimes it's the least expected people that help the most . . .

yeah. I'm better now (again, for now, but that's the way these things work.) I'm feeling okay - I'm sane. Well, mostly sane.

Well, sort of sane.

At least, I'm not insane in the bad way, and really, that's about all I can ever hope for.

I've been thinking. A friend of mine posted an entry that I found interesting, for a variety of reasons. Those who know some of my more recent history can probably guess them without much trouble.

The reason it got me thinking I only just realized, and it's one of my strengths in a situation like this. See, most people in a discussion will only see one side of it. Their goal is to win, not to be right. There's a very important distinction there. They're not trying to actually get the right answer. They're merely trying to make sure their answer seems right. As such, they'll make arguments against the other side that could just as easily be turned against their side. The truly bizarre thing is that the other person won't notice. Instead of saying "well, yes, that is a flaw in my answer, but see, the same flaw exists in yours" they'll invariably deny that their flaw exists. Even if it does.

Obviously the first stage to getting the right answer, and not merely winning, is to admit that you could be wrong.

Obviously the second stage is to actually seek out flaws in your argument on your own.

I'm not perfect at this. I'm not even close. I'm getting better, and I imagine I'll have to get better for quite a long time before I don't make mistakes. But I'm a lot better than most.

And that's the twist that I had to make to realize what was really bugging me about this. Okay. She's misrepresented. Maybe I could have done better with that. But maybe I am too. And if I'm misrepresented, doesn't that mean she needs to rethink her beliefs?

(Yes, obviously it means I do too, if in fact that is the case.)

There's where it breaks down, though. It's not a symmetric situation - at least it certainly doesn't seem like one. I'm willing to be friends, I'm willing to talk to her, and if she's trying for the same thing, she's got a really weird way of going about it. In fact, the same could be said for the other ex in my life :P And I'm constantly running these double-checks and triple-checks - some of them are destroyed, of course, I've mentioned that a few times. But a lot of them still aren't, and this is one of the areas that's still working properly.

I guess I just feel that if they wanted to get at the truth, they'd want to talk with me honestly, and therefore they would be trying to continue communications. They're not, therefore they don't - and if they don't want to get at the truth, how can I trust them?

Trust is a really big factor in my life recently . . . I still haven't decided if I give it too easily or not easily enough. A little of both, I think, seeing as how there are people who I still want to trust that clearly I shouldn't, and people that I should that I can't.

It all comes down to a deceptively simple series of questions. If someone breaks your trust, whose responsibility is it to fix it? What if they didn't mean to - are you still justified in not trusting them? And if two people break each other's trust, what do you do then?

I'm actually interested in answers to those, incidentally.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.