Trust.
What is this ideal? What are its properties, its boundaries and it's limitations? Can it be evaluated, and more importantly, tested? Wikipedia tells us:
'In a social context, trust has several connotations. Definitions of trust typically refer to a situation characterised by the following aspects: One party (trustor) is willing to rely on the actions of another party (trustee); the situation is directed to the future. In addition, the trustor (voluntarily or forcedly) abandons control over the actions performed by the trustee. As a consequence, the trustor is uncertain about the outcome of the other's actions; he can only develop and evaluate expectations. The uncertainty involves the risk of failure or harm to the trustor if the trustee will not behave as desired.'
Yet about the concept of 'Faith', it has to say the following:
'Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity. In religion, faith is belief in God or gods or in the doctrines or teachings of the religion. Informal usage of faith can be quite broad, including trust or belief without proof, and "faith" is often used as a substitute for "hope", "trust" or "belief".'
Are the two concepts interchangable? Or, more pertinently, are they one and the same ideal under differing pseudonyms? Is faith a sobriquet for trust? The idea that in order to enjoy the benefits of whatever conceit with which we choose to use to insulate ourselves, that a blind emotional investment in undefinable and unquantifiable behaviours we cannot possibly be a party to is required. How far can one travel based on such ideologies? The belief that others will act in our best interests no matter what the circumstance?
When all has been said and done, social humans by nature, are all natural (and skilled) liars. Whether it is that we lie to ourselves that we are good, generous, kind hearted individuals, yet also people who pass on hurriedly by the average homeless individual with nothing but a mild feeling of awkwardness, muttering something about not having any change. Or whether we lie to our loved ones, that they look good in a certain garment of clothing or shoes, when they in fact appear patently otherwise, or further still even more serious and grave deceits, and so on and so on, ad infinitum. The world of politics, the governmental infrastructure that runs the society as we know it is built on smear, character assassination, claim, and counter claim. The western justice system operates on lying and deceit as a matter of prosecution and defense of our criminals, concerning matters that threaten some peoples very existence in the world. We depend on lies to make the system we live in work. We use a system of white and black lies to make not only our own lives, but the lives of those around us who we love and depend on, more managable. We use them every day, for better or for worse. But do we we live in harmony with them? When we know that they not just make everyone's world go around, but ours personally too? Is one to makes ones peace with the fact that you will be deceived to varying degrees by anybody and everybody at any time, in any place? What is the alternative?
Is trust based on good judgments? Do we have to assume that our sound appraisal and subsequent judgement in a person or an entity is the first block in the foundation that eventually builds the wall of trust? Or is trust just a feeling we have to say we feel in abundance, even when we feel otherwise. Should we be putting our faith in the good and honorable nature of the individual, even at those times when ones instincts are indicating there is something amiss, that internal alarm that blares, dull yet insistent, when something isn't quite right. Some detail omitted from an account, a grey area in a memory, a distant recollection of something skirted over and quickly hurried on from. Only when such situations occur does the trust card become the trump of the deck. See fit to call integrity into question, and the illusion of trust is quickly decimated and replaced with anything from confusion and bitterness to outright resentment, assuming of course that any accusations or mere suggestions made prove to be in fact, false.
A bond of trust is essentially developed based on assumptions, made through what can only be desribed as educated guesses. This guess work has to be worked out based on other, equally ambiguous conditions. The following questions may be asked of the trustee to help check or uncheck certain boxes:
1). Who/what is this person/entity and what is their relationship to me?
2). Have they proven themselves worthy of trust in the past?
3). What is it this person/entity aspires to, ie: what do they want?
4). Having answered this question, does what they have in their life currently fulfill this criteria?
5). Finally, has their trustworthiness been put to the test?
Until one defines the answers to the above questions, how can one really say with one hundred per-cent certainty that they can truly trust in someone or something else?Until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a person/persons or organisation is incapable of lies, deceit or betrayal, how can one operate under such assumptions?
To quantify such an ambiguous term such as trust, test it thoroughly and become aware of its limitations, boundaries and weaknesses, is impossible without essentially annihilating it outright. A method known in manufacturing as 'test to destruction', if you will. The crossroads one reaches is whether to make that 'leap of faith' (there's that word again), to place in someone/something the faith that no matter what is put in front of them, no matter what temptations they happen across and no matter what offer is tabled, that person (or persons) concerned will do what is best by you, the trustor, under any circumstance.
What is the alternative?
Quote: 'Remember, it ain't about what you know, it's about what you can prove'
No comments:
Post a Comment