Posted on November 10, 2009 by: Shane Maru
Been ages since I left anything on this site, should start using it to get more involved in whats going on around Wainuiomata. Be good to see the website being used. Will try and see if I can resurrect it back to life.
Posted on November 10, 2008 by: Shane Maru
I like to think that every person is a fabulous artist, and we paint the most believable pictures around. It seems that in any situation where we do not know all the facts for certain, we tend to 'reckon' or assume we do know what has happened or is happening. For example, a husband is working late a lot, has blonde hairs on his suit (his wife is brunette) and jumps straight in the shower when he gets home. We all 'know',or have painted a picture about what is happening. Most of us would be 100% sure he was being adulterous, but we don't know for certain because we weren't actual witness to anything, it's just that's what it looks like to us based on what facts we do know. If the wife confided in us and asked for an honest opinion, it appears we would be of the persuasion that her husband was guilty of infidelity and inform her so. The overwhelming opinion of her peers would seem to be that her husband was cheating on her. We all have shown her our pictures (ideas) of what's going on, and from that is seems likely she would draw her own conclusions, or paint her final picture, and react accordingly. If this situation were a court case, and the jury found the husband guilty, the presiding Judge would overturn the ruling because it would be based on hearsay, not proof. It doesn't mean he is or isn't guilty, just that we don't have enough facts to convict, only opinions. There could be a whole host of probable pictures to explain the circumstantial evidence, but most are ignored because they don't fit with what we have drawn, with what pictures we have painted ourselves. If we knew all the facts, if we knew everything relevant, we could make an informed conclusion, but if we don't know all pertinent details, what we have is an idea of an idea, that we seem to take as fact. Is having an 'idea of an idea' the same as someone describing a painting you have never seen before, and then deciding we know exactly what that painting looks like? Our opinions seem to be based on what pictures we have painted, and a lot of our pictures seem to based upon a mixture of fact, feeling, and other people's paintings we have interpreted.
Sometimes it seems the husband would be deemed guilty even before a trial. For whatever reason, sometimes it's easy to be convinced of someone's complicity in an event regardless of contradictory evidence presented. Maybe the guilty verdict fits in or supports something we know or have experienced ourselves. Maybe it's personal and we refuse to acknowledge any pieces of the puzzle that don't fit the picture we have painted. Maybe we are taking only what we need to support our idea, and disregarding the rest. Maybe we relate the situation to us and make a judgement accordingly. Maybe we focus too much on the negative and rearrange everything else, so our view is unobstructed and we can keep an eye on it, just in case it is true.
Posted on November 7, 2008 by: Shane Maru
Have you ever been wrong? Have you? Most people will admit to having been wrong at some stage during their lives. They might look back at something they did, then look at the consequences of it, and decide that maybe it wasn't the best course of action after all. They might think back and regret their actions and think "Why did I do that? I wouldn't have done that if I knew then what I know now.". Which, it seems, is exactly it. Maybe we are 'wrong' only in retrospect. Maybe at the time of our actions, at that exact time we do something, we are right. It seems our actions at any one time are based upon what we know - what information we hold at that time. If we could foresee the future and discern an undesired outcome as a result of our intended actions, I doubt we would still go ahead. It seems we just 'Go with what we know'. Are you wrong for basing your ideas and opinions on what you know? Maybe you are wrong from someone else's viewpoint, but aren't you right from your own viewpoint, based upon what information you hold at that time? Maybe later you have an information 'update' and your opinion or viewpoint changes? Ultimately, empirically, or factually we may be incorrect, like a colour-blind person who may see a grey instead of red. The colour-blind person doesn't see a red colour, he sees grey, because that's what his eyes and brain are telling him. For all intents and purposes, and judging by what he knows, from his viewpoint, in his opinion, what he sees is grey. Is he wrong for seeing grey? It looks like grey to him, and from where he stands it IS grey. If you were him, would it be grey to you? What if no-one told you it was red not grey? How would you know? You wouldn't know. If everyone saw colours like you did , or if you saw colours like everyone else does, who would be wrong? No-one. It seems it's just a matter of opinion based on what you know.