Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth.
Gandhi
I have been for some reason directed to the Gandhi this morning as I find myself pondering over a complicated issue that effects a loved one and his family.
He made a mistake, a big one, and as a result others feel in their heart that they can step in to take some of his paternal rights away for the sake of "safety". I am all for safety, and supporting and helping...as you know...but the argument I am given over and over again to convince me that safety is an issue, and that these loving and caring individuals have a right to step in, is very weak. It makes no sense what so ever to the scientific part of my mind. So respecting these individuals and wanting to remain open minded, I began hours of research to validate that this is indeed a safety issue. I looked through past data I had on this subject (I taught about this at one point), I scanned through pages and pages of new research findings related to the issues (thinking that maybe it was a new thing I wasn't up on), I spoke to many others about it, seeking a second opinion to validate this and there was absolutely nothing found to support this argument. I found myself in a conundrum.
Wanting to remain respectful to the personal and professional means that brought these individuals to this conclusion and at the same time seeing the breech of personal and legal rights it was imposing on my loved one...I did not know how to proceed. I did not want this to be about who was right and who was wrong...but that is what it became. I felt compelled to support my loved ones rights.
They were so "shocked" and "dismayed" that I did not automatically agree with their point of view...believing that our getting together to discuss this turned out to be a "waste of time" because I questioned the evidence and the fact that a safety issue existed. They seemed to be so caught up on the social connotation of this mistake, the "idea" of it that they could not see beyond it. Unfortunately it was something I was ripped open to the reality of many times in my personal life....so it didn't have that "shock value" for me. I just questioned, asking for more evidence, more explanation, more objective data to make me believe that what we were doing to my loved one on the trust and esteem level was warranted. The argument just kept going around in circles but no sustainal evidence or objective proof was provided.
When I looked over at him while we were arguing "over" him ( and yes I did get reactive, frustrated and even angry) ...my heart broke. I saw that all he wanted to do was "obey" in order to keep peace...not because he agreed...he meekly said 2- 3 times, when given the opportunity to express that he did not agree with their point of view.
So I backed off and agreed to be the one to do the intervention...just so peace within the family was maintained. I am still holding firm to my questioning if safety is an issue as I have not been convinced otherwise...and they are holding firm to their conviction that it is. I will support my loved one 100% regardless of what he did or didn't do or any notions of right or wrong. At the same tme I seek to see the "love" behind the others' argument and I base my decision to intervene on that.
I also see that I am feeling a little self-righteous....thus the quote. I did not remind these individuals who are simply concerned about safety out of love...that they or I have absolutely no legal rights what so ever to intervene. We can calloutside services... which we more than agreed to have done...but until a court proves otherwise, we have no rights. I tucked that bit of reality into my pocket as a means of self defense to use if needed in the future.
Yeah...I am feeling a bit self righteous right now and that can quickly replace my desire to stay open and compassionate here, if I am not careful. I see people lost in a conviction that is not fully supported by objective data, failing to see the whole pciture, assuming they have rights when they do not. I have my own disdain for attachment to conviction...fearing such adherence to conviction to be one of the dangers of social life. I believe that all terorist attacks, war, riots, persecution and genocides have taken place in this world because people got so hung up on conviction they did not see the harm they were doing.
But am I any better? Part of me still wants to be "right". To convince others I am. To do so I have to make the other "wrong". If that becomes my motivation and my goal ...than we will get nowhere with this.
So I stepped back , turned to my loved one and asked, "If you are surrendering to their point of view because of your desire for peace , would you rather have me intervene and be the one here with you?" He said yes.
So I agree to do so for peace and support for those I love....not for any conviction I may have.
Then...just to complicate my decision to surrender... I am reminded of these other words from Gandhi. I am now wondering if I should not argue more. If fighting for a sense of right is not the best option?:
A ‘No’ uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
Man, this living thing is complicated sometimes, isn't it? :)
All is well.
Gandhi Quotes: https://wisdomquotes.com/gandhi-quotes/
No comments:
Post a Comment