Emotional Embezzlement

The term emotional embezzlement indicates feelings have been stolen. However, think of it in terms of emotional speculation which has been betrayed, swindled, or unwisely invested. Any restitution can only be punishment for unrealized future returns while ignoring the memories of past gains. The memories are forever ours but does the projected void devalue our emotional investment or benefit? Is this misappropriation a betrayal of stipulated or projected expectations because the decision to divest was not ours? The instance after the hurt has no ability to change the past, only question our perception of it.

In the vacuum of time, once violated it is forever lost to that capsule of time. The best that can thereafter be restored occupies a different time, space, or emotional state even if in the same period which is an expansion of separation. This larceny is judged by the degree and manner of execution whether the smash and grab or smooth criminal method was employed. Still, the actual loss remains the same, an emotional deficiency. We like to pretend otherwise especially as the perpetrators of the larceny because it somehow makes us feel better in a narcissistic sort of way.

Yet still, who among us has not felt the bitter sting of emotional larceny or hasn’t committed it? The victimization is always defined by the reluctance to accept the realization. Physically nothing is damaged but the psychological devastation can be unbearable to a physically sickening degree. This makes it a fraudulent act against our psychological wellbeing thereby being a damage of thought, feelings, or perspective. Others may trigger it but we surrender it. So we chase someone down the street to resist or recover our victimization eliciting the outrage of everyone who has ever felt the same bitter sting.

Everyone condemns the emotional double cross while we overlook the duality of the triple cross whereby we tricked ourselves or were even tricking them. The emotional triple cross started long before the cake of emotional immaturity or denial hit the floor or the guilty verdict is read. Regardless, a comprehensive emotional audit is mandatory to conduct a systems analysis and ego evaluation of our contribution.

Not because of them but despite ourselves. What about disappointment is so devastating that even revenge will not satisfy the brokenness of a Humpty Dumpty fragility to not express or accept the truth either spoken or demonstrated. The negation of any good or beneficial interaction is replaced by a spectrum hurt which indignation to revenge will not sooth. Inability to accept the truth makes it easier for the truth to be withheld or ignored.

Be careful not to cheat our expectations in the process of protecting someone else’s. That is the issue to be resolved, the balancing of subjective expectations. So is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? Is it better to wallow in oblivious bliss than the fairytale spell to have been broken? Therefore, reality is a cold shower only if you prefer to not shower in reality.

Could it be there are times when what someone does may be a result of what we are doing or refuse to do? Actions may speak loudly even if the words don’t or intended resignations are yet to be rendered.What if what we receive is what we are not doing which negates our complaint of what they are doing? It this a significant influence whereby one would be more accommodating if one were more accommodated.

So, if circumstances don’t allow for the truth why would they allow for a lie? If the lie is unbecoming the truth must be welcomed whether telling it or receiving it. So tell it and receive it. The inability of either is not an emotional embezzlement. It is an emotional bankruptcy of an insolvent understanding where the villain or superhero may be hard to distinguish. Lying is a bad choice but so is refusing the truth whether to yourself or someone else. Invest wisely because it is all speculation.

 Thurston K Atlas

Creating a Buzz

The Ugly Truth or a Pretty Lie



Do you Know the Truth?

Is the truth subjective and situationally influenced by our perspective’s radius and the conditions that apply to our circumstances? Personal truths which often emerge through heritage are usually dependent upon conditioning and reinforced through our experiences and environment that provide proof and acceptance of its legitimacy.

The flaw with personal truth is that they lead to the pretty lies that we convince ourselves are true, then we seek confirmation by our biased metric of verification within our subgroup. So then, our truth can always be proven by the criteria and method in which it is favorably applied, measured, and verified.

With the many variations of truth-proving processes and their interpretations, there can be any number of truths logically deduced and seemingly proven. It would then seem to fluctuate depending on who you are, where you are from, where you are, or even more importantly, what you would like it to be.

How many truths can there be? Let us count the ways. First, you have your more basic ones. You have relative truth in comparison to something else like a higher-suited card. There is the old standby, the convenient truth when you need it the most to suit your purpose.

The objective truth is when you are just allegedly unbiasedly saying, while the subjective truth is generally because you said so. The historical truth is how it has always been often without even knowing why.

Your higher-level truths are the ones that have collective persuasion supporting them, making them more widely acceptable and supposedly less partisan. The ultimate truth can be obtained but must be maintained, so it is fleeting by nature.

The universal truth is not all-inclusive of knowledge, so it is incomplete. Absolute truth is limited to what is known and, by definition, inconclusive. Empirical truth is based upon observing and quantifying the measurements. It is likely to fluctuate according to the subjective interpretation of the observer.

If perception is reality, then experience dictates the validity of that perspective. When convinced of the certainty of our beliefs, it becomes the irrefutable basis for our actions. Our judgments produce our conclusions based on these assertions. The context of our truth is the extent of our knowledge until more extensive knowledge or different circumstances replace it.

It then exists in contrast to what is rejected or accepted as fact with limited experience or lack of understanding. Thus, it has just as many implications as the metric used to evaluate and establish full acceptance.

Your belief system is assembled by what consumes the void and what is accepted as fact. You act upon that fact which fills this void, thereby conceding to submit to a sphere of this reality which you apply to external spheres seeking commonality as proof.

These commonalities reinforce these comparative analyses within the adopted interpretations forming your associations and approval basis then producing integration and assumptions of the truth, if you will, in a definitive system of your operating ideology.

Our established realities create a binary system where that which does not conform to our truths must be false. There is rarely a consideration by us that our reality may be faulty. It is almost always the flawed reality of another while our default personal defense mechanism protects our perspective.

As humans, we believe what we are conditioned to believe, but these beliefs are not scientific in their selection or application and often don’t have to be true. Often it is all we know, but how much more is there to be known?

We have to wonder if we can trust our truth. It is fragile and has a random dependency on arbitrary provocations and provisional systems presented as proof. Consequently, it has to be defined by the collective belief and acknowledgment that certain human behavior under specific influences and circumstances will produce varying outcomes.

So, the resulting truth must also be varied, not confined by predictable human behavior but by the variable outcomes. The truth would then be predicated and fabricated on a somewhat simulated belief system with no proven point of reference. The reference point would be transient, making it ever-changing and subjective. It would be biased based upon a limited radius of understanding or acceptance.

The truth could be a virtual Mandela effect subject to change or imitating a mirage. Can a “lie” then be an alternative reality limitedly accepted outside of the liar’s mind or be just a contrary belief or reality not collectively shared and rejected? After all, it is acceptable to the mind of the liar as a form of truth.

Is truth an illusion that we all function within as a confirmed and collectively agreed upon judgment, which gives stability and conformity to a moment in time? Must it then be stagnant and constant to be true in an ever-changing environment?

Can it co-exist with other equally valid truths, or must there be only one? Does acceptance of its validation make it a certainty within the variations of truth? Can one that does not infringe, victimize, harm, or obstruct others remain a personal preference of acceptance even though not true?

Is all truth a personal preference based on an accumulation of experiences and knowledge or lack of which will terminate itself when the believer is expired? Since it can exist beyond the believer to influence those indoctrinated to its acceptance, would it not be free to manifest in another to evolve, allowing them to reject it as their truth separate from that belief? Hence. truth expires when the belief is gone, not the believer.

The ugly truth is that very few things are true even when accepted and established as a societal certainty. If you wait long enough when more knowledgeable minds prevail, any belief will likely adjust to a new reality or acceptance.

Isn’t it a pretty lie when we believe it to be an actuality but restricted by the limitations of our understanding or interpretation? The truth changes according to new information and evolving circumstances.

In the end, it is Crystal clear that there is no truth other than the limitations of our knowledge. There is always a limited radius within the sphere of knowledge, creating a scope of perspective, which defines its boundaries until expanded by a more compelling “truth” or knowledge.

Acceptance of our solitary truth is camouflaged by the pretty lie that we pretend to know the truth with certainty. Our pretty lie is the definitive assumption of what is really the ugly truth. Now that is THE truth.

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz