Multiplicity

In a world currently polarized on numerous issues, it is pointless to focus on “making” everyone believe the same thing. The purpose is not unified thinking, but unified polarity. Can we learn to coexist with one another in spite of our differences? Can we transcend the duality of right vs. wrong in favour of a multiplicity of perspectives all true for the individuals experiencing them?

The questions we must begin to ask ourselves are:

Do I need to invalidate another person simply to make myself and my opinion valid?

Is it really a requirement that in order for someone to be in relationship with me that they have the same point of view?

Is there value in the contrast?

What if we began seeing the relationships in our lives through which contrast is valid as opportunities for our own personal clarification?

If someone sits on a different side of an issue, and believes it to be their truth, who am I to say that their truth is any less valid than mine?

Can I acknowledge that the fact that I live in a world with 7 billion people, all with their own personal life experiences, means there is a multiplicity of truths all co-existing at the same time?

If what I believe to be true for me is something I stand by, can I create the space for another human being to stand by theirs?

Is it necessary for me to be surrounded only by those who believe the same things as me, or can I begin to see differences of opinion as opportunities for personal refinement?

Can I create enough capacity within my nervous system to allow for multiplicty to exist, simply because it has to, without needing to invalidate and denigrate another person?

How would our dialogues shift: in our relationships, in our workplaces, in our communities, in our countries, in the world, if we approached differences of opinion with this level of awareness?