Bearing Witness
(Originally written on Sunday December, 12, 1999)
Bearing witness is the theme for today's satori.
First, a definition of the term "bearing witness". It means having some sort of experience of an event. It has many and very subtle shadings which I wish to describe.
First, there is the idea of witnessing something first hand. One example is the legal definition and the courtroom scenario where people who have witnessed something give testimony to what they saw. Facts usually submitted for this type of witnessing are date, physical descriptions of locations, people, and objects. In some instances the witness is asked to describe emotional details and feelings ("how did Mr. X appear to you?"," Was he angry?" "How did you feel when he came in?", etc.). This sort of witnessing is a very specialized type, as sometimes the stakes involved can be life or death (most of the time this sort of bearing witness can determine freedom or a jail sentence, or more mundane, having to pay a fine or not). Therefore the types of things said in this instance of witnessing are to be precise, truthful, and faithful to what had transpired. Any form of speculation, lapse in memory, forgetfulness, or fuzzy recollection is often rejected outright as being insufficient evidence. We also say the witness might be unreliable if along the way different facets of the event and how s/he remembers it change ("oh, I forgot about that", "well, it was dark, now I remember what he looked like"). In any event, there is this desire and need in the courtroom scenario to try to establish the facts of an event through this type of bearing witness.
Interestingly, when pressed under circumstances to establish the "truth" of an event, we find we do not necessarily witness the same things. It could be the point of view in a physical location sense (ask any sports referee about it-- they must agonize over making the wrong decisions based on a poor viewing angle!), or a momentarily distraction ("I turned my head and then I heard the bang. When I turned back, he was lying on the ground").
But along with the more "police report" style of bearing witness, we find personal factors change our perception of events. Certain emotional states, certain prejudices, and other internal factors color how we view the world and profoundly shape what we see. As Bob Weir sings, "you ain't gonna see what you don't wanna know." As the story goes, my sister was stung by a bee while an airplane passed, and to this day she is a little leery of airplanes and flying. And there is an element of social politeness, discretion, and tact that have us just not witness too closely (that zit on his chin, that drunk at the table beside you, etc.). In short, we might not wish to see what is before us for all kinds of reasons: protection, fear, tact, prejudice, and so on.
Kurosawa's classic film "Rashomon" tells of a search for truth based on the accounts of four different observers of exactly the same event- a murder of a warlord. Each person's tale of the event is vividly depicted in the film. The beauty of the film is that it is left unresolved-- we are left puzzling over whose version of the events was the correct one? Which one was the truth? Or, is the truth a synthesis of all the viewpoints-- that truth lies somewhat murkily in between the actual tales? Or, is there such a thing as a definite, singular truth given relative perspectives and affective perceptions?
There is another type of bearing witness too. It is the type that is not first hand perception at all. For example, religions speak of bearing witness to God. This witnessing is a leap of faith. We entrust the tales to be self-evident and truthful. We don't question the where's and why's and how's, we just believe in the truth of the tales. We don't even question the source of the tales, as that is no longer important. "Trust the tale, not the teller", is how D.H. Lawrence described the function of literature and its place in the human experience.
But it is worthy to mention how some tales become part of our shared knowledge as being the "truth".
At the University of Toronto while I was there studying, Dr. Roger Simon, a professor of Jewish studies and history, lectured to us as he was working through the idea of bearing witness in relation to the "Holocaust". He was actually in charge of interviewing survivors of that event for historical documentation. He said there were insurmountable problems in compiling a coherent history of what transpired. He mentioned the types of bearing witness I briefly outlined above, stating it was very hard to corroborate the stories amongst the survivors, written historical accounts, and even with the Nazi records. He noted in the exercise that the survivors who bore witness at the first hand level were unreliable for all sorts of reasons: they couldn't remember dates, names, people, that there stories changed day to day depending on how emotionally attached they were feeling at the time, they were old and their memories were selective if not totally functional. He was not trying to suggest these people were wrong, or that the events never occurred, or denigrate their dignity; rather, he found in his work that bearing witness was a much more complicated thing than simply saying this event happened at this time and this is what took place. Humans are much more complicated than that.
And in part I bring this up because I sense in my own experience bearing witness opens up a can of worms where you would never expect to find disagreement! For example, at this time of the year, when Christmas is just around the corner, it brings us to reflect upon memories of family life, of the events of the past, nostalgic sentiments, and so on. Dreamy, idyllic thoughts of happiness and good times displace the weary, day to day grind we all so often gripe about. We look for that place in our hearts that contains the love and kindness that we fondly recall from the stories that abound about Christmas-- we have Santa Claus, the Scrooge story, and the birth of Jesus all mixed and mingled at this time, with the hopeful outcome we stop for a moment and reflect on all that is good. And I find it interesting now that even the stories of my own life, which I have borne witness to, are as corrupt and tainted with personal accounts as are the other members of my family in regards to the events that occurred in the past! We occasionally get together, and over the years we talk about the same events. Eerily, we notice how we have divergent views and thoughts about the same events (although, with all due respect, some members remember things that never occurred, like a phantom family trip to Niagara Falls!). Is there blame to be levied at divergent remembrances? Is it that we must drive home a point till each sees the same events exactly the same way? Is it worth arguing about who said what to whom and what happened? The short answer is no. None of it really matters. But what does matter is that we respect each other in such an exercise. That we have divergent viewpoints about our life experiences is a natural thing; there is no blame in that. What takes considerable courage and an open heart is to see the other's experience, and see how it shaped them into the person who is now in the present. In short, we listen to each other to find out about ourselves and about others. We don't hold an individual to an image of what they were 10, 20, or 30 years ago. "The past, "as Graham Nash sings, "is just a good-bye". We are living now.
So even bearing witness is suffering of sorts. A desire to remember something no longer, and even then, it is really hard to pinpoint what is "true" about it. Hmmm. Jerry Garcia sings,
"If all you've got to live for is what you left behind,
get yourself a powder charge and seal that silver mine."
And about Christmas. I agree that it is a good time to stop and reflect, to meditate for a moment on all that is good and wonderful.
I just don't know why Christmas cannot be everyday.
May you all be well, living in the continuous present.
(1,417 in 2 hours)
Bearing witness is the theme for today's satori.
First, a definition of the term "bearing witness". It means having some sort of experience of an event. It has many and very subtle shadings which I wish to describe.
First, there is the idea of witnessing something first hand. One example is the legal definition and the courtroom scenario where people who have witnessed something give testimony to what they saw. Facts usually submitted for this type of witnessing are date, physical descriptions of locations, people, and objects. In some instances the witness is asked to describe emotional details and feelings ("how did Mr. X appear to you?"," Was he angry?" "How did you feel when he came in?", etc.). This sort of witnessing is a very specialized type, as sometimes the stakes involved can be life or death (most of the time this sort of bearing witness can determine freedom or a jail sentence, or more mundane, having to pay a fine or not). Therefore the types of things said in this instance of witnessing are to be precise, truthful, and faithful to what had transpired. Any form of speculation, lapse in memory, forgetfulness, or fuzzy recollection is often rejected outright as being insufficient evidence. We also say the witness might be unreliable if along the way different facets of the event and how s/he remembers it change ("oh, I forgot about that", "well, it was dark, now I remember what he looked like"). In any event, there is this desire and need in the courtroom scenario to try to establish the facts of an event through this type of bearing witness.
Interestingly, when pressed under circumstances to establish the "truth" of an event, we find we do not necessarily witness the same things. It could be the point of view in a physical location sense (ask any sports referee about it-- they must agonize over making the wrong decisions based on a poor viewing angle!), or a momentarily distraction ("I turned my head and then I heard the bang. When I turned back, he was lying on the ground").
But along with the more "police report" style of bearing witness, we find personal factors change our perception of events. Certain emotional states, certain prejudices, and other internal factors color how we view the world and profoundly shape what we see. As Bob Weir sings, "you ain't gonna see what you don't wanna know." As the story goes, my sister was stung by a bee while an airplane passed, and to this day she is a little leery of airplanes and flying. And there is an element of social politeness, discretion, and tact that have us just not witness too closely (that zit on his chin, that drunk at the table beside you, etc.). In short, we might not wish to see what is before us for all kinds of reasons: protection, fear, tact, prejudice, and so on.
Kurosawa's classic film "Rashomon" tells of a search for truth based on the accounts of four different observers of exactly the same event- a murder of a warlord. Each person's tale of the event is vividly depicted in the film. The beauty of the film is that it is left unresolved-- we are left puzzling over whose version of the events was the correct one? Which one was the truth? Or, is the truth a synthesis of all the viewpoints-- that truth lies somewhat murkily in between the actual tales? Or, is there such a thing as a definite, singular truth given relative perspectives and affective perceptions?
There is another type of bearing witness too. It is the type that is not first hand perception at all. For example, religions speak of bearing witness to God. This witnessing is a leap of faith. We entrust the tales to be self-evident and truthful. We don't question the where's and why's and how's, we just believe in the truth of the tales. We don't even question the source of the tales, as that is no longer important. "Trust the tale, not the teller", is how D.H. Lawrence described the function of literature and its place in the human experience.
But it is worthy to mention how some tales become part of our shared knowledge as being the "truth".
At the University of Toronto while I was there studying, Dr. Roger Simon, a professor of Jewish studies and history, lectured to us as he was working through the idea of bearing witness in relation to the "Holocaust". He was actually in charge of interviewing survivors of that event for historical documentation. He said there were insurmountable problems in compiling a coherent history of what transpired. He mentioned the types of bearing witness I briefly outlined above, stating it was very hard to corroborate the stories amongst the survivors, written historical accounts, and even with the Nazi records. He noted in the exercise that the survivors who bore witness at the first hand level were unreliable for all sorts of reasons: they couldn't remember dates, names, people, that there stories changed day to day depending on how emotionally attached they were feeling at the time, they were old and their memories were selective if not totally functional. He was not trying to suggest these people were wrong, or that the events never occurred, or denigrate their dignity; rather, he found in his work that bearing witness was a much more complicated thing than simply saying this event happened at this time and this is what took place. Humans are much more complicated than that.
And in part I bring this up because I sense in my own experience bearing witness opens up a can of worms where you would never expect to find disagreement! For example, at this time of the year, when Christmas is just around the corner, it brings us to reflect upon memories of family life, of the events of the past, nostalgic sentiments, and so on. Dreamy, idyllic thoughts of happiness and good times displace the weary, day to day grind we all so often gripe about. We look for that place in our hearts that contains the love and kindness that we fondly recall from the stories that abound about Christmas-- we have Santa Claus, the Scrooge story, and the birth of Jesus all mixed and mingled at this time, with the hopeful outcome we stop for a moment and reflect on all that is good. And I find it interesting now that even the stories of my own life, which I have borne witness to, are as corrupt and tainted with personal accounts as are the other members of my family in regards to the events that occurred in the past! We occasionally get together, and over the years we talk about the same events. Eerily, we notice how we have divergent views and thoughts about the same events (although, with all due respect, some members remember things that never occurred, like a phantom family trip to Niagara Falls!). Is there blame to be levied at divergent remembrances? Is it that we must drive home a point till each sees the same events exactly the same way? Is it worth arguing about who said what to whom and what happened? The short answer is no. None of it really matters. But what does matter is that we respect each other in such an exercise. That we have divergent viewpoints about our life experiences is a natural thing; there is no blame in that. What takes considerable courage and an open heart is to see the other's experience, and see how it shaped them into the person who is now in the present. In short, we listen to each other to find out about ourselves and about others. We don't hold an individual to an image of what they were 10, 20, or 30 years ago. "The past, "as Graham Nash sings, "is just a good-bye". We are living now.
So even bearing witness is suffering of sorts. A desire to remember something no longer, and even then, it is really hard to pinpoint what is "true" about it. Hmmm. Jerry Garcia sings,
"If all you've got to live for is what you left behind,
get yourself a powder charge and seal that silver mine."
And about Christmas. I agree that it is a good time to stop and reflect, to meditate for a moment on all that is good and wonderful.
I just don't know why Christmas cannot be everyday.
May you all be well, living in the continuous present.
(1,417 in 2 hours)
posted by Gaga | 10:33 PM
<< Home