In our world, money, or profit, is referred to as ‘the bottom line’.

A few years ago I decided to convene a meeting of four people I considered to be great role models and teachers. I invited a Hindu named Gandhi, a Muslim named Mohammad, an atheist named Einstein and a Jew named Yoshu, better known today as Jesus. Since they are all long dead, getting them together was no easy task and required a lot of imagination and careful research.

The purpose of the meeting was for these very learned men to share their ideas and opinions to determine what the real bottom line is in regard to life in general, so we have something clear to use for making laws that govern human behaviour.

 As the convenor of the meeting, I made the rather empty threat that there would be no food or drinks until they found a common thread in their teachings and agreed on a statement that was easy for people to understand. Research indicated they could do this because all four men had a deep respect for each other’s views and a genuine concern for people in general.

They got along very well and found that, apart from some very different terminology, they agreed on most things. The main sticking point was whether intelligence pre-existed matter or evolved. Anyhow, the statement they came up with was:     

“The fundamental principle to live by, in general, is a complete and utter commitment to seeking the truth to guide your every word and action and, by doing that, all laws would be based on the social truth of all people being equal.”  

However, they added a warning that although most people would agree about all people being equal, they might kill you for saying it should be the bottom line.
Bob Myers.

People going on a journey usually know where they’re going before starting off, simply so they know which way to go. If we don’t know where we are going, how can we know when we arrive? To avoid running around aimlessly towards the equality of men and women, we first of all need to know what we mean by ‘equality.’ Otherwise, it would be like deciding to go to a city without knowing where it is.

Equality’ has many different meanings. One being that two objects are the same in every way. Obviously men and women are not the same and never will be, so if the question means, ‘Will men and women ever be the same?,’ the answer would be ‘No.’ 

Unfortunately, in the present system, many women try to be equal to men in a system designed by men to suit the interests and abilities of men. The parliamentary system and legal system reflect male thinking in that both use adversarial methods to settle disputes and make decisions and plans. A woman entering those systems has to prove herself to be at least as tough as the men in a male-oriented game. The system doesn’t change to reflect female thinking; so a woman must play like a man. In the Pygmalion stage play, Henry Higgins asks a question that sounds more like a prayer, ‘Why can’t a woman be more like a man?’ It seems that the present desire of women to be equal to men is only granting Henry’s prayer.

The best we can expect from the present system is that the decisions made will be influenced to some degree by input from women. That isn’t real equality and makes little progress towards equality. Real progress towards equality will be made when our social systems and structures change to also reflect  female thinking. I don’t know what decision making method would emerge if women were freed from submitting to the male dominated system but the adversarial system is not the only possibility. For example, Gandhi gave us the truth-seeking method that takes competition for personal power out of debating. The sole aim of truth-seeking debates is to find the most workable solution to whatever the problem is. The point I make here is that it’s just possible men and women, together, can come up with a better way than the current adversarial method.

Will men and women ever be equal? I’ve heard it said that there are no wrong questions; there are only wrong answers. This question proves this saying is false. It’s a nonsense question because men and women are already equal. The question should be, ‘Will men ever accept that men and women are equal?’ The equality of men and women is a natural truth, just like ‘Water seeks it’s own level,’ is a natural truth. Men have dominated women for centuries and came to believe male domination is natural. However, it only seems natural because the system men set up is suited to men. That is the real reason for the illusion of male superiority. 

Men can certainly do some things better than women, and it does appear to be all the important things, but again that is only because the whole system we live in is suited to what men do best. If our social, legal and parliamentary systems were set up to suit what women do best, it would appear that women are superior to men. What may answer the intent of the question is, ‘Men and women will be seen as equal when the overall system we live in, and the rules we live by, emanate from the equality of men and women.’ That is what my book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness explores.

By Bob Myers. 

Most people are familiar with the saying, ‘The truth will set you free;’ but that saying is not true.

Obviously, it means that the truth sets you free from something you thought was the truth but some new knowledge has shown that it is false.

If that new knowledge sets you free, then your old belief was some sort of prison that was restricting your freedom in some way. But isn’t that what any belief does? And isn’t that, therefore, what this new belief will do, only in a different way? This new belief will influence your thinking, and influence what decisions you make, for as long as you hold that belief.

How do you feel when someone destroys a belief you have held for a long time? Most people feel threatened and refuse to change their belief. A man named James A Garfield said, “The truth will set you free but first it will make you miserable.” This is because discovering a long-held belief is false damages our sense of security and leaves us feeling vulnerable, and maybe miserable, until we can adjust our thinking and actions to fit in with this new truth.

I think it was Einstein who said a new truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is fiercely rejected; but then it is accepted as self-evident.

These thoughts of Garfield and Einstein don’t help much because they still leave us with the problem of each new belief being just a different prison. However it is possible to have the security that goes with having set beliefs and at the same time have a sense of freedom. I think the words of Clarence Darrow sums up what that would look like when he said, ”The pursuit of truth will set you free, even if you never catch up with it.” But the last word goes to Gandhi who taught that freedom comes from living what you believe to be true while you search for a bigger truth.

Bob Myers.


 

Most people rate honesty very highly, especially in regard to money and telling the truth, so it seems logical that our social systems would reflect that attitude. Do they?

A person who is convicted in a court of law for stealing money or telling lies is branded as a thief and a liar for life and may find it difficult to find employment. However, a person who appeals and has the evidence against him dismissed on a technicality has a clean slate, even though the inadmissible evidence proved his guilt beyond doubt.

The point is that, in the legal system, the law and its interpretation is more important than the truth. Our legal system is an adversarial system which means the lawyers involved are competing against each other to convince a judge or jury to accept their version of what is legally right, not what is the truth. In any adversarial situation, winning becomes more important than the truth.

Our parliamentary system is based on what is called the Westminster adversarial system and anyone who has watched politicians in action quickly become aware that winning an argument is far more important than giving a straight answer. There is probably no better example of the adversarial debating process than parliament. Every politician is by definition trying to increase their power and influence in the parliament and most work to become cabinet ministers or maybe even prime minister.

In the general community, most committees adopt a version of the Westminster adversarial system for making decisions, and even sporting tribunals adopt a legalistic system. Religious institutions are often described as both adversarial and legalistic in dealing with complaints and disputes. So it is little wonder that in everyday life we also adopt an adversarial attitude to settling differences with other people, even loved ones.  

The effect of this influence on the way we relate to others can damage relationships because the main aim of the adversarial approach is to win and we feel somehow inferior if we lose. That means the whole thing is more self-serving than advancing our knowledge of the truth or finding a solution that everyone can live with.

• The example from parliament and the legal system is that the winning argument somehow becomes the truth, rather like deciding who is right by having a fist fight, or who can drink the most alcohol. That means there is no real requirement for the content of a person’s argument to be actual truth.
• In order to win, it is an acceptable tactic to discredit the opposition’s intelligence to weaken their argument, even though you may secretly agree with it. Winning may therefore promote something neither side actually believes is right.
• This method of debating is being taught to our children in the schools as a legitimate way of advancing our knowledge and skills

All the above throws some light on why children can be confused when we suddenly get upset over them being a little untruthful  and refusing to admit to doing something.

I suggest that we would have more credibility with our children if our social systems, including churches and schools, were to adopt and teach the Gandhian truth-seeking method of debating. Gandhi taught about the importance of hanging onto what we believe to be the truth because our beliefs and values help us make sense of the world as we make decisions about what to do.

Truth-seeking debates.
Some of our beliefs are deeply held, especially religious beliefs, and we feel very threatened and defensive when they are attacked. However, other people hold strong opposing views which they claim as being the truth. Obviously, opposing views cannot both be the absolute truth.

Gandhi maintained that everyone knows part of the truth and part of the untruth. He taught that it is only through listening to understand the other’s views that we can take little bits that make sense to us and add these to our truth, so our truth grows. And if we listen to enough people and gain a little from each of them, our truth gets bigger and bigger. This was a deep belief for him because he believed Truth was God, so his search for truth was a search for God.

Our beliefs and values are important to hang onto but, if we believe our truth is the truth and are not prepared to modify it under any circumstances, those beliefs and values become more like prison walls restricting our knowledge.

A genuine search for the truth sets us free from the prison of false beliefs but it’s also important to hold fast to what we believe to be true as we assess what others are saying.

The rules of the truth-seeking debate method are:

• Be open and honest in expressing your views.
• Listen  to, and respect, the views of others.
• Be prepared to vary your views if you are convinced by what you hear.
• Then be open and honest in sharing your new level of awareness.
  

I wonder what kind of social structures and systems we would have now had our ancestors adopted a cooperative, truth-seeking debating method rather than the adversarial method. 

Bob Myers.