For me the problem is that trusting oneself is very tricky, since we are so highly defined by our upbringing. That closes one off from facts that conflict with what one has been taught, even though all of us have been taught some falsehoods. The problem is that falsehoods gain force if they're repeated enough times.
Relying on oneself can lead one to accept one's own beliefs as normal and correct without testing one's beliefs. To identify truth, IMO, one has to questions one's motivations, upbringing, and prejudices in light of facts, the opinions of others, the identifiable motivations and prejudices of authorities, and more. One has to identify and validate one's assumptions. One has to question and validate the ideas of the authorities one accepts. When the bulk of a profession agrees on something, they're likely to be correct - 'likely'. not 'certain.'
IMO, objectivity is crucial to making good decisions, but objectivity is an ideal that can't be achieved in the real world. That doesn't mean, however, that we can decide as if there are no facts to help us discern truth. Observation has taught us a lot - for example, that people tend to believe lies if they're repeated often enough, that eating certain plants will have dire consequences, that the best predictor of SAT performance is parents' income, etc.
Facts help determine opinions. As a former politician taught, we're all entitled to our opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.
Would having this perception, awareness, change how we engage with our WSs "truths"? Would we even need to engage with those aspects? Would it make things easier if we just didn’t? Would it make it more difficult for our WSs to stop recreating "truth"? (Good grief, haven’t most of us experienced that mulberry bush as nauseum??). Are we really searching for truth…or are we really just trying to force our WSs to acknowledge the truth? Like they don’t already know it or something??
I started out thinking that the truth would give me a necessary understanding of my W's A. In the end, I realized nothing would do that, but giving me honest answers showed that my W was a good candidate for R. Honest answers showed she took responsibility for her actions. Each answer created a tiny bond that grew with each additional honest answer.
So truth from a WS is of critical importance, but in unexpected ways.
I ask myself what would it take…like, literally, what would it take? And I realized - at least for me - that answer is simply trusting in myself. Not that I have it all, not that I’m simply right, not that I can’t grow beyond what I currently believe and believe something different. But simply, at the moment, this is not true to me. And THAT is MY truth.
What is any truth worth if I don’t believe it? If it doesn’t create that sense? And why in the hell would I try to force myself to?? How could that possibly get me any closer to it if doing so fundamentally requires that I don’t believe myself?
Are you suggesting that truth is a work-in-progress? If so, I agree with you. Presumably we learn as we grow, and that learning gets us closer to the truth. Sometimes that results in taking on new beliefs that are 180 degrees from one's starting beliefs; sometimes not.
What is any truth worth if I don’t believe it? If it doesn’t create that sense? And why in the hell would I try to force myself to?? How could that possibly get me any closer to it if doing so fundamentally requires that I don’t believe myself?
That could be a big problem for you and for people you influence, IMO.
Again IMO, it's best to keep in mind that beliefs are subject to change in the light of new info. Also IMO, it's also best to keep in mind that one can always - ALWAYS - be wrong. We know that in many cases nicing a WS back into an M usually has negative consequences. We don't know that it always has negative consequences.
We know rug-sweeping a problem usually lets a problem grow bigger. We also know that some problems disappear on their own. We don't really know how to distinguish the problems that need action from those that don't. We can make some informed guesses, but we don't have knowledge.
*****
I'm an IT/historian-type of human being. If I were a philosopher, I might say you've identified an epistemological problem - how we know what (we think) we know. There are, no doubt, books on epistemology, but I don't know any to recommend.
[This message edited by SI Staff at 7:55 PM, Saturday, December 2nd]