On the look of things.

There's a saying i've most often heard in my life. It goes, 'things
are not always as they seem', or, 'not everything that shines is gold'.
Well, the second one might be right, but when you think about the
first one, that things are not always as they seem, one could actually
give that a second thought, and get to the conclusion that, perhaps the
ones that cannot see are us. It is not, so to say, the subject itself that
hides its nature under mysterious veils of lies, fake smiles and bluff.
Let's look at it keeping a rather simple example in mind:
There is a man, who has vision problems. And as he walks his path, he
finds in front of him a beautiful woman which, naturally, he wishes to
follow. Now, he cannot do that easily for he cannot see clearly what's
ahead. There are ways to help him. There are glasses. There are canes,
which will enable him to feel what lies ahead in his way. There can be a
lamp or a torch, should it be dark either by the hour of the day or by
his own eyes.
Now that man will most certainly not follow the woman if he does not
possess any of the aforementioned items. In fact, he might even see
wrongly from the start, capturing the woman as ugly or appalling,
therefore not going after her at all.
The man depicts the people, and the woman symbolizes the truth. Now,
if the man's logic or perception of things is flawed (depicted as his
low vision), he is bound to misinterpret the truth, or reach his own
conclusions. That doesn't necessarily mean that what he thinks is in
fact a fundamental truth, not that the truth is something other than
what it, in fact, is. If he has studied the ways of things, he is armed
with a torch, and if he is willing to leave his dogmas and self-imposed
boundaries out of his logic and judgment, he acquires his glasses.
Knowing some facts about the fundamental truth, disallowing his fillings
to mix or mess with it, he is given the cane, with which he knows where
he stands.
Another example. Alex is a very simple man, without that making him
daft. Lena is a very good liar. If Lena lies to Alex and alex believes
it, then it was the latter's fault for not having studied the nature of
human lies enough to be able to judge wether or not Lena is lying to
him. It might sound wrong to Alex, but Lena would surely agree. Well,
Lena would also say that her lying skills were flawless, and boast about
them, but that is also her way of interfering with the truth.
It isn't that Lena is not as she seems. Lena is a liar. Someone who
has studied her, or someone who plainly knows her for some time might
know it for a fact. Therefore if they are lied to by Lena, they will
understand and elude it, reaching for the truth behind Lenas' lie.
So I pose the question once again. Is it that things are other than
what they seem, or is it that we don't see them in an impersonal way? In
other words, is it the glass that's blurry, or did we blur it with our
breath?
I believe it is a matter of analysis. When we stop being passive
viewers and actually start to study our surroundings, we find patterns,
behaviours and acts that many people or things share, and then we can
begin to better understand what is around us, which leads us to the
second step, which is doing something about it.
Having studied the nature of human lies, let's say, gives you two very
broad choices. To lie, flawlessly, or to detect lies, and find the truth
behind them. Of course, nothing is two-sided, or black and white.
Therefore one could easily do little of both, lying and understanding
lies, or not lying at all. It is a choice most subjective, which one may
take for their advantage, measuring the consequences.
So, today's lesson? Keep an open mind, I guess. Try to see things as
they are, not as you want to see them, and by gods, not, I repeat NOT as
others want you to see them. A mind is like a parachute, it only works
if it's open, and when it does it saves you.
And I guess that's all for today.