The Myth of Tolerance

OK, maybe I overstated things a bit with this opening. But then again, maybe not.

How does tolerance that isn’t tolerance show up in today’s society?

Everyone knows that people see the world differently from others, leading to different beliefs and practices. Natural though such differences are, the outcome of their intersection is often unpleasant at best, and horrifying at worst as each party seeks to prevail over the other---the classic zero-sum game.

Reflecting the “I-win, you-lose” philosophy, some people engage in hostile encounters with those they disagree with or dislike. Additionally, and adding a distinctly unhelpful component to the animosity, they associate with others who feel as they do. The group then self-righteously congratulates itself on its wisdom and moral uprightness, further cementing the separation from those “others,” and giving yet more impetus to the hostility. The political differences between left and right are a classic example of both the zero-sum-game mentality and the animosity.

OK, so what about the myth of tolerance?

I know lots of folks who believe that they are tolerant, but they have a peculiar meaning for the word and its attendant behavior. Individuals, groups, and issues they like or agree with are accorded tolerance. The views they disagree with, or the people who they dislike, are actively and often hostilely attacked, and are accorded no tolerance. The silliness, and more to the point danger, of this view is easily demonstrated. Imagine a man on the right who is a hunter saying he is tolerant of the NRA. Or, imagine a person on the left who says he is tolerant of gay marriage.

When confronted with the challenges to their positions, folks assert that those people they are castigating, often with rude ad hominem characterizations and comments, are wrong or, worse yet, evil, and thus deserving of punishment. That means they can claim moral superiority (“I am tolerant”) while acting intolerantly. The principle of tolerance is thus not a principle at all, but simply a cloak covering one’s prejudicial nakedness. The problem, of course, is that the cloak is transparent, a fact of which these folks are blissfully ignorant.

So, we have tolerance of concept bound up with intolerance of behavior, a position held only with outright denial of the hypocrisy and considerable cognitive dissonance. It is my sense that the latter is clearly visible in such “tolerant intolerants” when their rage surfaces, which it nearly always does. A person cannot live “lunch free” in cognitive dissonance, and rage is often the outcome of the attempted repression. The dissonance is getting to them, but the denial obstructs a healthy resolution. Naturally, that rage must be directed outward.

More usefully, and certainly more humanely, tolerance means being able to accept, if not like or admire, the views, behavior or life-style of another person or group. We may actually disagree heartily with them. But we accord them the respect of real tolerance, not the pretend variety, in our discussions and any time we are talking about them. The most important point for us to keep in mind is that I may have a level of intolerance (it is a continuum for all but lunatic extremists) for an idea or a life-style, and yet treat the person with that idea or life-style with the greatest respect. When we conflate the person with the idea---your belief is evil and thus so are you!!---we do huge personal and societal damage. When we can separate those, we have a chance at real tolerance, conversation and respect.

Tolerance as I am using it does not come easily. It requires discipline and practice, often for a very long time because our disrespectful behavior patterns are ingrained after so many years of facilitation. Naturally, those folks mentioned above who falsely see themselves as paragons of virtue see no need for change. They will continue in their destructive ways, both for themselves and for society. But others want sincerely to be consistent and respectful, and to embody tolerance in the most humane way. Practice is difficult and nearly endless. It must be done in every situation in which we start to see another person or group in a negative light. The most helpful way to deal with this thought is to accept its existence---trying to deny its presence is self-defeating. After acknowledging, we can channel our thoughts to a more positive view of the person or group. The key is that this simple exercise must be done hundreds, but more likely thousands, of times in order to begin changing our views and adverse habits. It also helps if we dissociate ourselves from those with negativity, the “tolerant intolerants.”

After a while, tolerance and respect become natural and second nature, just as the opposite was true earlier. We then move more closely into compassion for others, no matter what our levels of disagreement. They know they can trust us not to harm them, as though, regardless of differences, we hold their well-being with great care in the palm of our hand.

Is tolerance a myth?

Open and Closed Systems, Political Belief, and (In)Civility

Whether a system is open or closed refers to whether it exchanges information with its environment. Systems can refer to almost anything, including physical ones, such as chemical reactions, or more complex ones, like organizations, human societies, or the human body. A closed system is one that does not interact with its environment, like an unopened can of pop, while an open one does.

Humans are generally open systems. Our bodies and minds interact with the outside environment. Those interactions can be mainly physical, as when we inhale and exhale, exchanging gases. Or they can be interactional, as when we engage with others, which could include boxing or conversation.

While our bodies cannot help but be open systems, our minds (and emotions) may not always be open. When we strongly need to believe something, or to have a particular outcome, often only information that accords with our view or goal will be allowed in. Studies show that this attitude, known as confirmation bias, is wide-spread in Western societies. In fact, among the most important studies have been those in which political partisans of both sides held verifiably false views about the other side. Even when the correct information was provided, not only did the partisans reject the information, they actually hardened into their original incorrect ones.

A classic example that is in part responsible for the highly unpleasant behavior of some people today is the absolute belief that their political party has a lock on moral and practical correctness. This view is clearly wrong, for the simple reason that nothing in life is perfect or even near it. Normally sane people will accept this latter aspect in nearly all things…except where it involves their political views. The latter, being of a MUST HAVE nature, means that such folks are off-balance. They are not in accord with the way the world is. They have constructed a scenario that is false (their political party is just as flawed as the opponents’) but which cannot be acknowledged. They will suffer anxiety, frustration and often considerable anger because they will encounter others who do not share their rigid view. Naturally, those others must be punished severely for their “false” beliefs, the antithesis of a civil exchange. Interestingly, often the people seeing their party as nearly perfect are the very ones who argue for more civility. They are oblivious to the hypocrisy---the apotheosis of a closed human system.

All such views are held with death-grip intensity (or should I say “insanity”). The folks holding them could no more give an example of their party’s views being incorrect, or even incomplete, than they could cut off a finger. Leftists give have many examples of bad behavior on the right, and the latter does the same to the left. Both fail utterly to see that they have actually condemned themselves and their party, which usually does precisely the same thing for which they are criticizing the other party. Even when I encounter folks who tell me they are open-minded, I find that they would not know the meaning of the word if it was eating them alive by inches. They never question the legitimacy of their own views, values or actions, which are held absolutely. This rigidity then defines the barriers to any information that is not in accord with what the person believes and wants to be true.

The actions and motives of their elected officials are defended nearly to the death, even though a balanced appreciation of any position or action and its consequences might easily show incompleteness and mistakes, if not outright lies and manipulation. Partisans are more than capable of such criticism of the other party, often carried to highly irrational levels by their closed-system “thinking,” and nearly totally incapable of it regarding their own party or representatives.

An open-system’s posture requires the processing of information that may be distasteful and the willingness to examine it in a truly fair light, an action virtually impossible for true believers. The really open and healthy human being not only accepts and deals fairly with disconfirming information, she actually seeks out such information as a way to learn and grow. She has no fear of challenging information, and thus finds it very easy to see others’ views and to be compassionate even when she disagrees. Most of us want things neat and tidy, and certain, really certain. This leaves us in a constant state of fear that such tidiness, a fabrication impossible to achieve in the real world, will unravel, which it nearly always does. True-believer partisanship is all about fear, evidenced in large measure by the amount of emotion present.

Once we MUST HAVE a view prevail or an outcome result, we have closed ourselves to vital information. We have become prisoners of the need for certainty, with the result that our well being will be compromised, as will that of others with whom we interact (unless they agree with us). We are attempting to create a defined order inside ourselves---and often with others of a like mind---that is contradicted by reality, an effort that means bad outcomes both personally and societally.

It is not that people disagree, which is normal. It is that they disagree disrespectfully, trashing the others and often lying about or mis-representing into the bargain to bolster their position. Incivility does not arise because people differ in their political views. It arises because one person, or both, cannot stand the thought that another has a different view. I am not suggesting that all views have equal weight. It is clear that some are more or less correct than others, and certainly some are dead wrong as indicated above. The trouble is that political true believers cannot conceive that someone with a different view could be even partially correct. In this regrettable scenario, my view is not only correct---it is also sacred, and that is really scary because it means only one thing---destroy the other’s position and, metaphorically, the person holding it. It is insufficient to simply counter the argument, a legitimate action, but ad hominem attacks must be made. The other must be demeaned and humiliated. Try and reconcile this with a culture of civility. Or a culture of objective thought.

This gargantuan craziness (let’s all pretend that we on our side are rational and the other guys not only insane, but evil as well) will only begin to recede when the left holds its own accountable, and not for being inadequately left, and the right does the same, and not for being inadequately right. This accountability does not require a person to change allegiance to a party or set of political views. It does require that we acknowledge within our party, among our preferred office holders and, often worst of all, TV and radio commentators, the existence of mistakes, incivility, anger, mis-representation, lies, manipulation, assertions of moral superiority, and, not least, negative labeling. It further requires that we make an honest effort to change those destructive elements, both in ourselves and in others.

We must have the courage to be a real open system, permeable to news that we may not like but which is invaluable for real thinking and for personal growth. This may be too much for many people, but it is one of the very few real options for a better society. We can only hope that some will have the courage to start debunking their and their party’s received liturgy of perfection and begin anew to really think.

As William James said, “A great many people think they are thinking when all they are doing is rearranging their prejudices.”

What About Relativism III?

The last two posts focused, respectively, on why relativism exists and is a necessary part of life, and what a few of its challenges are. I want to briefly address what may be one of the most sensitive issues among relativists and non-relativists alike---cultural relativism.

Cultural relativism argues that one culture’s morals or norms cannot be judged from the standpoint of another’s. Relativism sees all cultures’ views as having the same value, and one cannot be better than another. Sensitivity to cultural differences is a legitimate concern because judging another culture as deficient may mean denigrating both the culture and its people, and perhaps even taking action against that culture.

Understanding cultural relativism means establishing a context. We know that nothing exists in a vacuum, that everything and every view has a context which helps explain it more fully. The smallest context in human societies is the individual, a culture of one. The following shows increasingly broad contexts (cultures) as we go down the list. The list is oversimplified at the individual level, for just one, since any person actually belongs to many sub-sub-sub cultures simultaneously.

·       Individual

·       Family

·       Neighborhood

·       City/County

·       State

·       Nation

·       World (nations, tribes/clans)

Many relativists say that all critiques within and among the first 6 categories are acceptable, since they are all part of one “culture,” but no individuals or groups within the 6 can critique cultures or societies in the last one. Thus, the members of any culture (really nation for the most part) can critique internally but may not do so externally. The relativists have drawn a line, but in my view there is no logical basis for that line. Internal versus external is as much a matter of geography as anything else. For example, while cultural differences do exist among many developed, Western societies, we might argue that the Western world is becoming more like one big culture, even while national boundaries persist. What is internal then?

However, line or not, even the strongest relativists I know will not hesitate to criticize another nation in a moment, say Israel for not being sensitive enough to the plight of the Palestinians---fair enough. At the same time they will also criticize Boko Haram, an entity not exactly tribal, but in the ball park, for its vicious and barbaric behavior---also fair enough. So, then, what meaning does the view that we cannot judge other cultures have?

To demonstrate what looks to me like a bizarre and confused state of affairs for relativists, let’s ask a few simple additional questions. We assume a New Guinea native is allowed under relativism to critique his tribe, and also to critique his national government. But can a New Guinea native criticize a Rwandan Hutu practice he does not like? May a resident of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (once Belgian Congo) criticize Belgium for its awful treatment of the Congolese while it was a colonial power in the late 19^th century? Further, may a Chiapas (Mexico) peasant criticize honor killings of women who have been raped in Afghanistan? May a Saudi Mullah condemn those? May I?

The “clear” line of relativity is fuzzy if not opaque.

Some relativists think that if a culture believes that what it is doing is right, then it is right for them, even if it looks very wrong to us. Do the motives and justifications that a person has (Hitler for one, who seemed to believe he was doing the right thing for Germany) mean we cannot criticize his actions, or even take action against him? Or, is it the effect on others that matters most? Hitler and his cronies were judged at Nuremberg from the latter view, but relativism may see things from the former view. And likely the leaders of Boko Haram think they are doing good for themselves and their world view. So what meaning does what a person or group thinks have? None by my view.

Among the strong relativists is a small group saying that you cannot judge anyone for anything, what we might call arch-relativism. Naturally, acting this out leads directly and inevitably to anarchy. But, like some other relativists, these extremists are so in name only. They make pronouncements about not judging, but have their own sets of rules regarding who gets judged and who does not, and these will cross all sorts of “lines.”

Lastly, muddying the waters considerably is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is fully supported by all the relativists I know. The important phrase in the Preamble says that these rights are “…rights of all members of the human family….” This clearly implies a set of judgments about what are human rights, and that those human rights are universal, applying to all nations and tribes/clans. That position further implies a judgment of which states (or other entities) are not abiding by those rights, thus subject to cross-cultural criticism, and perhaps even action. How can a relativist support this view of the human family when he also views the values and behavior of other cultures to be inviolate? Troubling, indeed.

What About Relativism II

In the last post I raised the issue of relativism, defining it and emphasizing that relativism exists as a function of being human and is thus an important aspect in our lives. I want to make clear that the comments below do not mean or imply I am opposed to relativism, because there are many aspects I agree with and follow, as noted in the last post. Now, however, I want to examine some of the challenges of relativism. I will touch lightly on only a few of relativism’s challenges. But for those wishing a real shock about relativism’s troubles, I recommend The Book of Absolutes: A Critique of Relativism and a Defense of Universals, by William D. Gairdner.

I want to emphasize that there are what I call strong and weak relativists. The former accept, from the last post, my definition and its action implications completely (even if they do not practice it fully). But the latter may have reservations about such totality of acceptance. I am a weak relativist.

At the macro level relativism has a significant philosophical problem: The idea that there are no absolute truths, norms or values suffers from an unfortunate internal contradiction---the assertion itself is an absolute truth, creating a rather awkward logical situation. Academic though this may appear, this challenge is quite important because it can cause considerable trouble, as will see shortly.

The heart of relativism is that judgment is a bad thing. We cannot judge others from our standpoint, and in many ways this is quite reasonable. You lack an appreciation of a film that I like. I prefer large cars to small ones and my wife prefers the opposite. You have occasional experiences of transcendence and I do not. These statements express a preference, and they are ripe for judging. I say that my view of the film is better than yours, or that your transcendence is nothing but an illusion.

Relativists accept that we all hold different views about nearly everything, but they object to saying that one side has a “better” view or one side has a lock on the truth. But weak relativists understand that judging something as better or more proper than another has a place, in the sense, for example, of a teacher correcting a student’s paper. The trouble for other relativists is that even in this proper setting for judgment, standards are implied or stated. Standards upset many relativists because they imply a hierarchy of correctness or truth that they think may lead to criticism or demeaning of some views deemed inappropriate or incorrect. While they may be correct at times in the assumption of criticism, it is clear that standards are needed in many aspects of our lives.

Stemming from the philosophical problem I mentioned is another, one in which relativism is applied selectively, and by my view inappropriately, to meet personal preferences. For example, some relativists will not hesitate to condemn in very strong ad hominem terms someone, say a religious person, who has a more absolutist view of the world than they do. Relativists, like many of us, take their opinions, values, norms, goals, and actions seriously---so seriously that it amounts to a form of absolutism and judgment, the very things they say they wish to avoid. Thus, the above-noted internal contradiction plays itself out in ways detrimental to the relativist’s own position and to others who are on the receiving end. People and groups they like are not to be judged, but ones they do not like are fair game. This speaks of hypocrisy.

Yet a third challenge, of strong relativism at least, is that it compels the practitioner to avoid criticizing anything. If no values or standards are better than any others, including those held by the relativist himself, how can he in any logical sense critique anything? He cannot, but we know that many relativists are undeterred by their lack of consistency and will criticize whatever and whomever they want in the most absolute terms, all the while telling others that they cannot do what the relativist does. The further implication of the view that “no one system or value set is better than another” is that it has to preclude progress, which is often based on extensive criticism and turning old systems and ideas upside down. Obviously relativists do not avoid such critiques, and are thus stuck once again with challenging inconsistency.

Beyond this very important issue of judging is another one related to standards and the hierarchies they express. As implied above, in the view of many strong relativists one person’s view on something is as good as another’s. Hierarchies of authority or knowledge are considered inappropriate. For example, if I, totally untutored in music, make a pronouncement on the quality of a particular composition, it is the equal of an observation by a professor of music, or by a noted critic. My pronouncement is considered valid simply because I hold it. Thus we have people of all walks of life making statements about things of which they have little or no knowledge, yet are convinced that their view is “correct.” Those who hold a different view, perhaps experts in the field, have no better claim to correctness than I do.

Regrettably for the relativists, this belief is false on the face of it. It can be demonstrated with a bit of delightful absurdity when it comes to qualifications involving something significant that is at stake for the relativist. Imagine that you, a relativist, need a spine operation. I tell you that my method is as good as the Harvard doctor you are consulting who has 30 years of experience.

Think only for a second about letting me near your spine with a knife.

Relativists may be intentionally confusing one’s right (or I prefer opportunity) to state an opinion with whether that opinion has any value or correctness. As is clear to anyone who wants a spine operation or, more mundanely, to have her car repaired, hierarchies of knowledge, experience, and utility definitely exist. There are some views, values, and norms that are more simply effective or more correct than others. There is no avoiding it.

Next post the bugaboo of bugaboos: Cultural relativism.

What About Relativism?

For nearly 50 years I have been hearing the phrase, “everything is relative,” usefully applied in many situations, but sometimes applied in contexts that puzzled me. To think more clearly, and to better understand our world and our connection with others, we should look into the degree to which this statement is true.

If we are talking about Einstein’s theories of relativity we are on safe ground. But what the great scientist meant has nothing to do with what we can describe today as relativism. Einstein’s view in his General Theory was, putting it very simply, that there is no absolute motion---a very specific application of the concept. And, interestingly, he was quite disturbed when, in the 1920’s, “…the belief began to circulate, for the first time at the popular level, that there were no longer any absolutes: of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value.” (Modern Times, Paul Johnson). More on this in the next post.

What exactly is relativism? First, it is the belief that anything---such as beauty, morality, meaning, and even taste---is dependent on its particular standpoint. What I think is beautiful you may see as bland or ugly. I look upon your house as unclean and my own as pristine, while a third observer may easily see mine as filthy. All humans, regardless of culture or country, bring different views to many things, from animal sacrifice to drug use. Even identical twins can have differing perceptions. Divergent views are natural and part of being human, and they are clearly relative to one’s view of the world.

Second, relativism denies that a particular viewpoint is better than another. Since our views are relative to our unique personal world, the relativist reasonably asks how one view can be better  than another. How can one be more correct or valuable? Relativism says there are no ultimate values or moral systems that apply to all humans. And some relativists will also argue there is neither right nor wrong in any overriding sense applicable to all people, everywhere.

It is easy to see that relativism has wide-ranging validity. It is most, and often irritatingly, evident when we encounter people whose views are different from ours, something that happens constantly throughout our lives. Consider the following words (of thousands): cloudy, energetic, open-minded, fair, and low, none of which has an absolute definition. If we look at the word “low,” we see that it is clearly relative to something else---something that is high. What is low to me may be high to you. Or, consider the divergent opinions people have in areas such as politics, education, or religion. Each person’s view is relativistic in that how words or concepts are defined and used are subjective determinations that each person makes based on his/her perception of the world. Think about how much room for interpretation exists for words like equality, justice, and love.

Understanding that people have different perspectives is very important for everyday functioning. Being able to appreciate where another is coming from, even if we disagree, is vital to successful connections with that person. Many disagreements involve perceptual differences that require us to think clearly and act helpfully. Connecting well with others in such situations obviously involves an appreciation of relativism because we have all experienced people whose views or values are so rigid that there is no room for useful discussion or accommodation---my way or the highway, a view that is clearly harmful to interpersonal relations.

Compassion in the broad sense requires that we accept that others see the world differently than we do. But more than accept, it asks that we ensure our differences with them are not carried out disrespectfully. If we fail in that, even people who understand and operate from a strong relativistic view may well behave inappropriately.

Most conversations start out with an exchange of viewpoints. Regrettably, most of them never get beyond this. Obviously, a quality conversation must begin with us accepting and embracing the relativism of our differing views. Enacting this view means that both the issue and the conflicting parties are uplifted because they have done two important things. They have:

·       Rejected any personal need to win or prevail over the other.

·       They use inquiry as a prime method of developing greater understanding of the issue and the person presenting it.

Having extolled the importance of relativism in this post, I plan to look at some of relativism’s challenges in the next one.

Opinions Obstruct Thinking

In spite of my title, opinions are not completely bad. We all have them and they are needed. But as with many things in life, opinions are a double-edged sword. In this blog I will address the less desirable side of opinions.

Most of us believe that we think objectively, but this is honored more in the breach than the practice, and the reason is often opinions. Consider two contentious issues about which most people have strongly held opinions without a single actual fact: human-caused climate change and the minimum wage. Very few of us have the slightest understanding of the scientific models used on either side of both of these issues. We certainly do not understand why one model is more valid than another. We accept one side or the other because of a pre-existing disposition. I believe (or do not believe) that the minimum wage is beneficial for workers and society because I prefer that view, not because I have definitive, supportive facts. It is my opinion.

We all have authorities we rely on to guide us in complex situations which we cannot understand. True enough. But we still make a choice of which authorities to rely on, and that choice is itself a function of the way we want the world to work, or for it to be. It is a subjective choice, and that opinion has nothing necessarily to do with objective reality. The authorities we have chosen to put our faith in (and it really is faith) could be dead wrong and we would never know it. Nor would that matter in many cases. Studies show that people with strong beliefs that are objectively incorrect and who are presented with the correct information, will not only reject the latter out of hand, but actually harden into their original incorrect view.

Making this matter of authorities more complicated yet is that those experts themselves are prone to select data for their models that appeal to their already existing biases. Two archaeologists can look at the same set of humanoid bones and come to different conclusions as to what they represent. Part of these interpretations is due to their academic and experiential focus, and part will be due to their preferences, or opinions. These account for the sometimes very unpleasant, often viciously ad hominem, fights among academics, none of which help solve anything.

And this leads to perhaps the most troubling aspect of opinions. We take them very seriously, as though the mere fact that we hold them is itself prima facie evidence of their correctness. Having “decided” our opinions are correct, and having infused the latter with strong emotion, any contrary information must be destroyed. The merging of our opinion as established fact, and its unverified correctness, with very strong emotion means the death of inquiry and objective thought. This explains the often substantial level of hostility that people experience when their opinions cross, a regrettable every-day happening. Recall any interaction between two people on opposite sides of the minimum wage issue---usually very unpleasant and not at all uplifting.

But what if one person’s opinion is factually correct? Surely that matters? In the absence of an emergency, it matters little on the positive side and very likely a lot on the negative side. The problem is not the actual correctness, but the manner in which the person presents his opinion. If both are playing fair and respectful, and not allowing emotional needs to win, etc., to overcome the conversation, things can go rather well. If one or both people needs to be right or to prevail, then the interaction will be characterized by unpleasant and disrespectful emotional conflict. Thinking in such situations is retarded, and a deeper understanding of the issue is sacrificed.

It is clear that holding an opinion simply because it makes us feel good or because we need it (and ourselves) to be right is anathema to thinking. People holding their opinions in a death grip and attempting to overwhelm others with those opinions are acting from pure emotion. Thinking is not part of this scenario, even though the opinions’ articulation is often accompanied by supposedly supportive data, mostly in the form of facts or pseudo-facts. The goal in using such facts is not to have an open and expansive conversation, but to overwhelm the other person. In order to save internal “face,” people imagine that such supportive elements are evidence of their thinking prowess, but their emotive foundation is completely ignored. And, once aroused, the emotions must win.

If we are going to have opinions, and this is a normal thing, we had best hold them very lightly, as we would a butterfly that landed on our hand. We are not really holding the butterfly, only giving it a place to rest. We do not wish to control the butterfly and we do not desire that it remain. It is natural that it comes, stays a while, and then leaves. That is how we should treat our opinions, as mere concepts that may be dispensed with easily.

Nice as this idea sounds, achieving this state demands much of us---emotional and intellectual fearlessness, an openness to the new, and the desire for a deeper understanding of the world. Many people think they have these characteristics. Sadly for them and for those around them….

Taoist literature offers wisdom on the issue:

            When nothing is left to argue with

            and there is nothing to oppose,

            you will find yourself at peace

            and in harmony with all things.

Vulnerability Creates Invulnerability

I can hear the shouts now. We all know that opposites cannot co-exist, so what kind of nonsense is this? And certainly one opposite cannot arise out of another! More nonsense. And what could such ideas have to do with thinking, anyhow?

In my usual way of thinking, I contend that at one level these concerns are valid and at another, more sophisticated level, they are not. Further, appreciating the latter enables us to achieve a higher state of emotional well being. And, lastly, I also believe that understanding the more subtle level is at least an indirect aid to our thinking.

Whether these two words and the concepts they represent can exist together depends not on any superficial sense of incompatible opposition, but on how the words are used. We all understand what invulnerability means---we are armored-up and cannot be harmed. Simple and true enough. None of us wants to be or be seen as vulnerable, and for good reason. If we are vulnerable to physical attack, for example, we will naturally experience fear and a strong desire to avoid the challenges, creating anxiety.

But vulnerability is not limited to the physical. We may fear emotional vulnerability, which can be a normal response. But it may be much more threatening if it is the result of a person’s unbalanced inner state. As an internal condition, the vulnerability is present all the time, just waiting for an excuse to show up. And it shows up most often and most dramatically when we are under stress.

For much of my life the big vulnerability was shame, the idea that others would find out who I really was as opposed to the carefully (and entirely unconsciously) crafted image that I wanted to portray. I was under stress nearly all the time trying to maintain this fiction. My vulnerability arose because at some level I sensed that if someone found out “who I really was” they would dismiss me or dislike me, and I would be shamed. This had to be concealed. If someone asked me how business was going, as just one example, and it was not going well, I would assure them all was fine. I was not consciously lying---I believed exactly what I was saying, all to reinforce the story I told myself that I really was worthy, a view that in my deepest recesses I knew to be false.

My vulnerability came from a weak sense of myself that I could not let anyone see, a characteristic that, like it or not, nearly all of us share. This is dysfunctional vulnerability because, in my case, it was built on a great fear causing me to try and hide aspects of myself that desperately needed exposure and the strong light of day for emotional health. Most people think they are immune from such fears, and from the distortions that follow from them, but that is only because the fears are lodged deep in the unconscious. Our powerful inner needs to protect the false stories must go unacknowledged. My particular need was to avoid shame, but there are many others, such as the need to control, to be right, to win, to be perfect, to be loved, and so forth. These are all large vulnerabilities that need feeding, but which can never be fed enough to resolve them.

From these needs and fears we construct a reality that does not exist, usually a set of stories that give us the illusion of feeling and looking just fine. The stories enable us to keep these troubling aspects below conscious level so they are deniable, which we imagine allows us to avoid vulnerability. But in trying to make ourselves invulnerable by hiding who we are, and by our protective stories and mis-representations, we actually produce the opposite outcome.

The effort to create invulnerability results in unhealthy vulnerability.

Adding to the challenge is the fact that our inner selves “know” that we have failed to achieve invulnerability, fueling the firing of anxiety. Perhaps even worse is the fact that our real vulnerability is obvious to others because they can often see the inconsistency between who we are portraying ourselves to be and how we act, which is who we really are.

But there is a positive side to vulnerability. One cannot love and be loved without some emotional vulnerability, without taking a chance on love or affection or friendship. At some point, we have to say, “I love you,” and hope for a good outcome. That vulnerability is necessary for a healthy emotional life. Vulnerability also has a normal situational aspect. The death of a loved one or the loss of a job may leave us temporarily emotionally vulnerable. Healthy people will recover over time from these losses.

In the positive and most healthy sense, vulnerability means openness and fearlessness, and a willingness to give up the hold that our fears and stories have on us. We see ourselves as we really are and have no apprehension about letting others see this, including our mistakes or weaknesses. Paradoxically, it is this attitude that creates invulnerability. If we have no weak ego to defend, no false story to protect, openness is easy. We have no armor, and need none, and yet we are invulnerable. With nothing to shield from critical eyes---and there are plenty of those---we have nothing to fear because no one can hurt us. We see that wonderful things are gained from transparency. Others will respect us much more for telling the truth about who we are, and our relationships with them will be improved immeasurably as they sense the demise of our earlier falseness. But perhaps most importantly, we will be more emotionally healthy as the fear of being exposed disappears. A great weight is lifted from us as the emotional energy used to maintain the illusions is no longer needed, allowing us to deal with the world and its challenges with greater integrity.

So, invulnerability arises out of vulnerability.

Finally, how is thinking enhanced in all this? Simple---as we adopt openness and fearlessness, our inner clarity increases and the need to protect our opinions and views recedes. Since strongly held opinions can be anathema to objective thought, reducing the grip our opinions have on us frees us to look at things as they really are rather than as how we want them to be. The adverse impact of opinions on thinking is so important that I will address this challenge in the next post.