Chapter 4: Honesty is Key

A Parallel Self Keeps You Straight

(Note: All Content unless otherwise cited is merely observations from a young man and should not be considered fact, only thought material.)

Gas lighting, while the term is used to refer to a system of luminance where a mixture of fuel would wet a net-like lattice which sustained a controlled burn, today it is used differently. Gas lighting may be one of the most playful or deeply sinister actions relationships can perform. This term has been used to describe jokes and pranks, but also conspiracies and deception. So why does it ride a line of light and darkness, what is Gas lighting at its core, what is its opposite, why do we laugh at it, and what can we learn?

Starting with definition, Gas lighting is a general synonym for sarcasm, leading someone on, or convincing someone of something that isn’t true. Normally this is used in a playful sense, for example your friend just made a no look basketball shot and missed, but you celebrate anyway just see his reaction before telling him the truth and laughing at his disappointment or irritation against you.

Though this is a very playful instance, gas lighting by definition has been used in much more destructive manners. In war, soldiers would kidnap children, lie to them and then turn them into soldiers against their parents. So is gaslighting a bad practice period?

Though our principles may be grounded, our application of those principles are still influenced by what we perceive. This means that sometimes dilemmas have two right answers.

This has manifested in the deep theological question, is lying a sin? There are some that say lying is universally a sin and so we should never tell anything other than the truth, or at least the applicable facts we have perceived. However this conflicts in a very similar way to Kant’s categorical imperative. A great example of this conflict is Corrie Ten Boom who hid jews in Austria during world war II. Many times Nazi’s would arrive at her door and inquire if they had seen or knew of any jews, of course Corey normally answered “no” dishonestly in protection of the jews she was hiding. But the question remains, is it a sin to lie to a Nazi about hiding jews? Is it a sin to deceive others and the public in protection of something precious? A hard question when set in an ethical dilemma, but thankfully this is not a blog about perfect ethics.

In a relationship setting this dilemma is much more tame and it causes me to conclude that honesty is key. It’s important to note that by affirming the positive I don’t condemn the negative, a surprise birthday isn’t deceptive for a harmful purpose.

Honesty is key, but why? Because you cannot rationalize someone else’s thoughts. In order for two humans to think a message must be encoded into a syntax, translated through a medium, received despite noise, decoded into another syntax, interpreted against bias before finally being understood. This is described as the communication method, which proves that the fact people can communicate effectively at all is a miracle.

While Empiricism doesn’t set good grounds for our identity, it does make incredible observations about social interactions, mainly because we cannot control the will or identity of others. This does not mean we can’t understand who other people are or what they focus on, it just means to relate through rationalism takes time because it is in a sense, telepathic.

Whenever people communicate they are not only sending a message, they are also sending a part of themselves to paint a picture of who they are to the other person. Being as honest as possible recreates an accurate version of that self in other people’s minds. As the two mental parties communicate they begin to know each other disproportionately to the amount of time they have observed each other’s actions. They are no longer predicting and assessing the actions and thoughts of their partner, they are judging the possible actions and ideas of the person they presented themselves to be.

This can be a catalyst for growth or the grounds for betrayal. As people know each other more and more the two mental parties become accountability partners for the identity that each presented themselves, the counter party will hold this as a sort of social contract of relationship to keep each other honest, and good friends will hold each other to it.

Many long time friends can remember times where genuine guidance manifested into phrases like “that doesn’t sound like john,” “he’s not that kind of person,” or “I can’t see you in that career.” This is a reflection of a solid relationship, because friends start giving life advice before the natural consequence has even happened.

However this picture of self extends not only to just the opposite party in the relationship, but also every other time that your name will be propagated among humanity. This is how reputations become harmful or invaluable. The more honest you present yourself in every interaction the less inconsistencies occur when you are mentioned this builds a sort of social trust because other witnesses can testify that you are following the contract you promised. When people meet inconsistencies or violations in this contract their automatic reaction is to distrust you, because why would you be someone different to a different person unless they were under a different contract. Thankfully most people are gracious enough to disregard or chalk up to rumor small breaks in the pattern of your character.

Because of this social contract propagation, some responsibility of the integrity of the contract falls upon the propagator themselves because they may be the only person to represent a currently absent party. This is where I think another dilemma occurs and that is the dilemma of discretion. If being completely honest is so important to uphold the integrity of your own and other people’s character, then why do we often filter what we say. This is where I believe a special virtue called modesty must be implemented to balance the blatant truth and the beauty secrecy. Put simply Not everything is meant for every eye, and not every word is meant for every ear. In this way when we talk of people in any medium whether positive or negative it should always be first considered against the virtue of discretion and modesty.

It should ultimately be for love that you do not spill every ounce of knowledge you have about a friend. And it is because of respect that you will allow them the opportunity to speak forth face to face. Because there is something rather important about not knowing everything, and there is something rather beautiful about a mystery, and there is something worthy to be learned from wondering about things we can never really know the truth about.

It’s like we were meant to puzzle over God’s glory and what we can never fully grasp.

So in conclusion, honesty is key but discretion has its place, whether it be for lighthearted events, campaigns for justice or the sacred nature of brotherly love.

“A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.” Proverbs 22:1 NIV