Truth is, at best, elusive. It is “a hard deer to hunt” (from By the Waters of Babylon by Stephen Vincent Benét). And any ol’ body’s personal truth is not “the truth”! It’s just their truth. “Just being honest” does not carry the gravitas of actual reality, of deep understanding, or of any kind of universal truth! Question your truths! Question authority – and question other people’s truths. But if you have found one, even a little bit of truth, understand its opposite, and cherish them both. 

When I used to teach AP English Language and Composition, there was usually an essay question that began: “Defend, challenge, or qualify.” I would always encourage students to “qualify.” Why? Because it gives one the opportunity to defend AND challenge. To agree AND disagree. To truly show one’s thinking about both sides of an issue. To find both truths! And it meant they were gonna have a lot more to write. (Always an opportunity in AP essays!)

The other reason to qualify is balance – and that is the more jurisprudential position in any argument. Show your qualifications! The person who can take both sides, honestly, is usually considered the more rational, the more reasonable, the one with more equanimity, or better, equipoise. Further, is there not more gamesmanship in truly showing an understanding of your opponent’s argument (then countering it) than artfully delivering your own. (Don’t just “Stand and Deliver” – understand and redefine!)

Nowadays, we hear much about bipolarity, psychologically and politically. In fact, bipolarity (or multipolarity [non-sequitor?]) is a strength. It allows one to walk on both sides of the aisle (or of an issue), to see the yin and the yang, the left and the right, the dark and the light. But my point here is not simply about fundamental dualism, it is about big picture thinking. Box avoidance! And the magnanimity to indulge in contrary notions, divergent ideas, and to love paradoxes! Perhaps, only in a paradox can one find an actual truth? 

Further, when one adopts radical ambiguity tolerance, the love of the paradox, one can truly open up to possible realities more compelling than any particular ideology, specific culture, or current zeitgeist. Better, that perspective requires humility, it shuns all dogmatism, and it opens the mind to lateral thinking. Rather than the defeat of judgment, ambiguity tolerance allows both sides to win – in their way – without claiming absolute victory.

If more people lived their lives with ambiguity tolerance, there might be fewer arguments, less polarized politics, more interesting conversations, and many opportunities for finding common ground. Society might be better lubricated with reason, and individuals might be more curious about all kinds of things. More question marks! Fewer exclamation points? 

What do you think?