A Different Perspective on Acceptance, Reality and even Truth
The Statement You Cannot Deny
"What Peter says about Mary says everything about Peter and nothing about Mary."
Sounds provocative. Perhaps even nonsensical. But try to refute this...
The Backpack Principle
Imagine this: everyone walks through life carrying an invisible backpack. Inside are all your experiences, beliefs, triggers, conditioning and prejudices. When you say something about another person, you're actually pulling something out of that backpack.
**The crucial test:**
If everyone gives the same answer → it's about the other person based on irrefutable fact.
If the answers diverge → it's about your backpacks.
**Example:**
- "Mary is 5'9"" → everyone measures the same = this is about Mary
- "Mary is arrogant" → one person says arrogant, another says assertive, yet another says insecurely overcompensating = this is about your backpacks
Why This Is Hard to Refute:
**With measurable facts:** Consensus. Everyone agrees. This is as objective as we can be.
**With interpretations:** No consensus. Each judgment reveals:
- What you consider important
- What you're sensitive to
- What frame of reference you have
- What your experiences have taught you
Peter calls Mary "direct" → Peter values directness, or finds it confrontational
John calls Mary "rude" → John values diplomatic communication
Lisa calls Mary "refreshingly honest" → Lisa misses honesty in her environment
**Same Mary. Three projections.**
The Consequence:
If this is true, then most things we say about each other are actually...
- Reports about our own inner world
- Confessions about what we value
- Revelations about our own sensitivities
Not wrong. Not bad. Simply: ours, not the other person's.
Even With "Social Norms":
We often think: "But everyone knows that X is wrong?"
Example: Running a red light.
Consensus: Punishable, unsafe, don't do it.
But even here:
- Person A: "Always wrong, rules are rules"
- Person B: "Wrong, except in emergencies"
- Person C: "I can assess for myself whether it's safe"
**What does this reveal?**
- A's backpack: values rules and structure
- B's backpack: pragmatism within boundaries
- C's backpack: own judgment above external rules
Even with "objective" norms, our backpack colors how absolute we find them.
The Liberating Implication:
If you embrace this principle:
**About others:**
- Their judgments about you say nothing about you (it's their backpack)
- You don't need to be right
- Conflicts become... more pointless (you're fighting over backpacks, not over truth)
**About yourself:**
- What you say about others comes from your backpack
- Your interpretations are yours, not "the truth"
- You can confidently share your perspective without pretending it's objective
The Pragmatic Reality
Does this mean everything is relative? That truth doesn't exist? Or can everything be seen as truth?
**No.**
The distinction is simple:
- **Consensus = as objective as we can be** (Mary's height, scientific measurements, facts)
- **No consensus = backpack projections** (Mary's character, what "good" behavior is, interpretations)
We can still function, decide, judge.
But we now know: this judgment is mine, from my backpack, and says everything about me.
The Challenge:
Try to refute this statement.
When you say something about another person that not everyone would agree with...
- How do you know it's about that other person, and not about your perception?
- Would someone with a different backpack see it exactly the same way?
- Or does your description perhaps reveal... your lens?
The Paradox:
This perspective seems relativistic ("everything is just an opinion"), but is actually crystal clear:
**It consistently distinguishes:**
- What is verifiable (consensus)
- What is projection (no consensus)
And it frees you from:
- The illusion of objectivity with subjective judgments
- The need to be right
- The confusion between "this is how I see it" and "this is how it is"
---
*A different way of looking that you cannot deny without... revealing your own backpack.*
Leave a comment