TRUTH? MULTISENSORY VALIDATION TECHNIQUE (MSV)

TRUTH?

God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please — you can never have both. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can

stand by itself. ~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

Men ardently pursue truth, assuming it will be angels’ bread when

found. ~W. MacNeile Dixon

The trouble about man is twofold. He cannot learn truths which are too

complicated; he forgets truths which are too simple. ~Rebecca West

Truth is rarely writ in ink; it lives in nature. ~Martin H. Fischer

My latest reading on Quantum Physics had me thinking truth might be more like a particle in Quantum physics than a solid fact in Newtonian science. In short, could my life benefit by treating truth not as a fact but as a probability.

My past experience doing computer patches showed me I could not just send out a security patch by email to the employees and ask them to install it. If I did, I only got 20–40% compliance. I knew we HAD to setup a program to trigger the install during the login process and record the results to see if all 300 workstations completed the update successfully. My co-worker, new to the task wanted to rely on the easier and less reliable email request.

An argument ensued as I tried to convince him why I was right and to see what I knew and experienced. I was frustrated and confused why this inexperienced person thought he “knew” better than I.

I wondered as I walked away from yet another discussion about truth. Truth was it was more of an argument. I was a proselytizer addict I guess. I was consumed by trying to know, find and get others to see the same truth. Proselytizer Anonymous just had not caught up to me yet.

Finally we agreed to test both methods with 10 test cases and see what happened. We checked the results of both systems of security updates against each other. We developed a grid by which we would measure different aspects of both systems so they could compete more objectively. During this testing a third option came up to try but was a horrible failure and quickly dropped. Neither system was perfect but one was clearly better and it’s problems could be fixed.

Earlier that week, I had a discussion\arguement over the fastest way to get between 2 places. And before that there was the topic of healthy diets. Based on my experience, I really thought I has discovered some facts which others would not acknowledge. Yet no amount of my words changed anything. Why? I asked myself were other people not interested in the truth, my truth? Some of these truths were easily testable but when I would suggest doing so, everyone would have an excuse. Yet I was willing to drop everything to test it and measure it, even when I had measured the facts in the past. Was I weird? Wrong? Why did others not care? When it came to finding the truth others would guess and walk away. Me? I would run, get out my measuring sticks, and proceed to FIND the truth. But others ran from my “let’s-measure-it” habit.

I no longer blame them. This pattern often repeated until I finally got it into my thick head, I could not “make” others care. But sense I cared, I had to explore on my own, discover what was important to me and worked for me and shut-up. I see now part of my problem was, I did not want to explore on my own. In a way, I was lonesome… tired of measuring the world on my own.

In the years following my stroke I had new opportunity to review my behavior and discover new ways of thinking. One new thought came about by asking how do I validate choices. In the past I would measure and gather “facts” until the choice became clear. But when the facts were “fuzzy”, like which the best vacuum cleaner. Choices were hard and paralyzed me. I was unable to accept “good enough” for now, when I wanted to choose only the final polished perfected version immediately (the first time). I wanted to be RIGHT! I eventually asked, in my real life, “Do I really need to know the truth?” or “Do I only need enough information to take the next step?”

I started to test/measure against different standards and systems. This testing against multiple systems idea lead me to consider what I now call multi-system validation. Other than seeking validation by discussing experiences in a group, or looking to science facts, Is there a place we can go or a means we can use to determine the validity of the choices we have? Not the truth but the validity. Not for others but for myself.

Yes, ….I call it…. multisystem validation (MSV). In other words, checking the results of one system check against other systems, like the best information of science facts available, against mine and others’ experiences of what has worked before, and against validating against someone else’s intuition, who has more experience than I do. Another validation check is simply is… is it working? Am I making progress.

So in summary, I suggest we look across multiple systems and the more systems that validate the choice or interpretation the more confident we can be about the choice and interpretation.

This method treats decision making and the “truth” as more of a probability than a Yes or No choice. It asks, “Is it good enough?” instead of, “Is it perfect?”.

SYSTEM CHECKS IN MULTISYSTEM VALIDATION (MSV)

- heart: love compassion does it make sense “relationally” — gut: instinct intuition does it “feel” right
- head rational thought does it make sense “logically”

- past experience
- past experience of other people I trust
- muscle testing (kinesiology)
- Is it working? Dr. Phil’s how’s that working for you? (outcome validation)
- validation by another person’s intuition and sensory feedback (heart and gut)
- validation by other culture’s experience, dogma or religious beliefs
- body truth feedback, all sensory feedback is taken into account: breath, arms, legs, neck & face feelings (not talking about the interpretation of emotions like anger or sadness but how does this “feel” nerves, warmth, tightness, right, good, constructive, building on positive, see value selection criteria below)
- make a choice. Does it “feel” wrong? After the choice.

Each system check above is ideally assigned a percentage as to how well it accomplished theses positive factors below.

VALUE CRITERIA

When making decisions using MSV, I’ve noticed that the more of the criteria that are met in the list below, the greater the confidence I have in the decision. The greater percent the higher probability the system check is a useful one for decision making. This increases the probability of my success of deciding the best next step.

- love,
- compassion
- not imposing on others free will
- maintaining my own free will
- that which will serve the highest good (supports the greatest number of people) — Inclusion versus exclusion
- constructive versus destructive
- healing versus wounding
- creates connections versus creating disconnections
- promotes making sense versus making confusion
-promotes simplicity over complexity

In summary, look across multiple systems and the more systems that validate the choice or interpretation the more confident I can be about the choice and interpretation for me.

A focus on finding truth can be be less useful than finding your next step.