Chapter 10: What Is Truth?

Welcome to Last Minute Lecture.

This free chapter overview is designed to help students review and understand key concepts.

These summaries supplement not replaced the original textbook and may not be redistributed or resold.

For complete coverage, always consult the official text.

Okay, let's unpack this.

Welcome back to the Deep Dive.

We are moving into the second major section of our investigation now.

We're shifting from just looking at how the two brain hemispheres see the world, you know, the means of attention they offer.

Right.

And we're now examining the different paths humans take to try and understand it.

We're going to be focusing on, well, science, reason, intuition,

and imagination.

And the central question that underpins all of that,

I guess, the mission statement for this entire part of the dive is it's deceptively simple.

It's what is truth?

It sounds like something you'd leave to an academic philosopher in a dusty room, but the sources we're drawing from make it so clear.

This is a fundamental, almost an existential question.

It absolutely is.

Your core beliefs about what truth even is.

That's what makes the world what it is for you.

And, you know, ultimately it determines who you are.

That is the high stakes reality here.

And we need to establish the initial claim.

And that is that no single overarching theory can ever encompass everything we want from the concept of truth.

Truth is never finally known.

It's an ongoing pursuit.

Always approaching.

Exactly.

But because the left hemisphere and the right hemisphere approach everything so differently, they are, well, they're bound to have profoundly different ideas about the nature of truth itself.

And here's the really crucial, maybe challenging move.

This doesn't just mean we land in some kind of relativist swamp where every perspective is, you know, equally valid.

No, not at all.

The material is really assertive here.

It's saying one hemisphere's approach to truth is going to be significantly more fruitful, more adaptive than the other.

It's the core thesis of this entire work, the precise analytic abstract world, the represented world that the left hemisphere reveals to us.

It has to be contextualized.

It needs a bigger frame.

It needs the broader, deeper overarching vision of the right hemisphere.

When the left hemisphere's mode, its whole way of defining truth takes the lead.

When it becomes the master instead of the servant,

it just inevitably leaves us astray, sometimes catastrophically.

Okay, so that immediately brings up the biggest philosophical objection, and we have to settle this up front.

If reality is always mediated by our two hemispheres,

if we're relying on these two internal processes, how can we possibly decide which view is superior?

Right.

Doesn't that mean we'd need a third neutral arbiter, you know, a third hemisphere to look at the two systems and say, okay, that one's better?

That is a beautiful logical trap, but the source material just rejects it outright because it leads to this endless nonsensical regress.

A loop.

A total loop.

If you need a third judge for the first two, well, you need a fourth to judge the third, a fifth for the fourth, and on and on.

It never ends.

So how do we get out of the loop?

We avoid the trap by making a necessary practical assumption.

We have to assume there is something apart from ourselves to which we can be true.

Reality is not purely made up by the brain.

There's a relationship there, and some understandings of that relationship are just better.

They're richer, more enduring than others.

So the criterion for what's better isn't some abstract logic in a vacuum.

It's practical, lived experience,

an embodied arbiter.

Yes, exactly.

Give us the clearest analogy to make that distinction really stick with you, the listener.

Okay.

Think of a pilot flying blind.

They're relying on two separate navigation systems, and those systems are giving conflicting information.

The standard for judging which one is superior is pretty clear, right?

Yeah, which one doesn't get you killed.

Which system is less likely to lead to a crash?

You prefer the one that provides a richer, better integrated account of the world and, well, ensure survival when reality starts pushing back.

Right.

It's about whether the system works when reality exhibits what the text calls recalcitrance, when things just don't fit the map.

It's the ultimate reality check.

Or think about the musical analogy, a complex piece of music.

It can't be fully experienced without a player who inflects and interprets and shapes what we hear.

And yet there is still such a thing as a better or worse performance.

One is more or less faithful to the potential that's enshrined in the music itself.

So the arbiter is, it's the holistic experience of the embodied person as they respond to a richer or a poorer or a more accurate account of the world.

So if one account right hemispheres is better able to incorporate the best of its counterpart,

the left's precise logical vision, offering a bigger, more integrated picture, then that is just the superior approach.

To choose the more limited, more prone to crashing system is, according to the sources, an act of societal madness.

It is.

And this realization brings us to what's called the single most profound difference between the hemispheres, and it frames this entire understanding of truth.

Yes.

Let's move right into that core distinction.

Presencing versus representation.

Okay.

This is a complex idea.

It's going to need a patient unpacking.

So the left hemisphere deals with the world as it is represented.

Yeah.

Image, a map, a token, a fixed finished concept.

But the right hemisphere deals with the world as it presences to us.

Right.

We often mistake the map for the territory, but these are, they're qualitatively different ways of engaging.

They really are.

The difference is the shift from,

say, passively viewing a static object to engaging in an active dynamic relationship with a continually disclosing reality.

And what's so fascinating is the linguistic difficulty here.

What do you mean?

We actually lack a common everyday verb to describe reality actively disclosing itself.

We have the noun presence or the passive to be presented with something, but we don't really have the active verb to presence.

I wonder if the lack of the verb is actually proof of the left hemisphere's dominance.

Well, go on.

If that dynamic experience, the active two -way relationship, isn't part of the left's repertoire, then language, which the left hemisphere heavily processes, just doesn't create the necessary word for it.

That's precisely the argument.

We have to borrow from philosophy.

To presence is used to translate Heidegger's German word and Wiesen, which means to reveal or disclose itself to us or to come into being for us.

It has that vital pre -conceptual active freshness.

And this philosophical distinction has been grasped by other great thinkers.

I'm thinking of Merleau -Ponty.

He gives us the perfect shorthand.

Je pense versus je peux.

Exactly.

Je pense, I think that's the left hemisphere mode.

It's mental representation.

Here, I'm separated from the world and my primary problem is worrying about how my internal thoughts accurately reflect external reality.

It creates that distance.

And je peux, I can, is the right hemisphere mode.

This is intuitive, embodied awareness.

I'm already fully situated in the world in a field of potential interaction.

It's the difference between thinking about riding a bike and actually feeling the balance and the flow of riding it.

In that second state, the world is actively disclosing itself to you and you're actively co -responding.

And this intuitive difference between the abstract separation and the embodied knowing,

it's articulated by, well, by every major philosopher who values experience over pure logic.

You're talking Bergson, William James, Wittgenstein.

And sadly, this active presencing of the world, it diminishes as we age.

We start with that freshness as children, but it fades.

The poet Wordsworth talked about how the shades of the prison house begin to close upon the growing boy.

And that tragic loss is, well, it's tragically exacerbated in our current era.

So much of our reality is mediated.

Our experience is so often conceptualized.

It's virtual.

It's secondhand.

It's pre -digested.

We're shielded from the immediacy of reality.

We're interacting with representations of representations of representations.

Exactly.

Which leads us to that wonderfully brutal metaphor from Evelyn Underhill, the critique of the ready jugged hair.

This really drives home the modern submission to representation.

This is a stunning piece of writing.

It is.

And it's over a century old, but it perfectly captures the modern condition.

Underhill says the practical man operates not with things as they really are, but with images and notions of things.

They are fed a deplorable dish called things as they really are.

And in doing so, they've sacrificed the living, lovely, wild, swift moving creature, which is reality itself.

The hair has been hunted, killed, skinned, and stewed.

It's a finished static fact.

It's a commodity you can just easily assimilate.

Yes.

Modern consciousness is content, she argues, to be separated from the facts of being.

We are, and this is a quote, happy enough understanding, garnishing, assimilating the carcass from which the principle of life and growth has been ejected.

Wow.

We're content with the finished product, the representation, and completely divorced from the living, flowing process.

And the consequences of this shift, from dynamic presencing to static representation, are profound.

Especially when it comes to space and time, which are the fundamental coordinates of our lived reality.

So how does that play out?

Well, the left hemisphere's process of representation, it ignores the significance of time by literally trying to make something present again after the event.

When the left hemisphere thinks about time, we substitute the full qualitative embodied experience, the duration, the flow, the meaning of a moment with a one -dimensional line in space.

Time becomes a measurable commodity, totally separated from its lived meaning.

And space suffers the same fate.

It's reduced to a two -dimensional map or a screen representation.

This whole process of virtualizing and distorting space and time is so deeply habitual now that we don't even notice it.

But since space and time are literally where we live,

allowing the left hemisphere to strip them of their significance is,

well, it's a serious foundational error.

It corrupts everything that comes after.

Right.

And let's transition now to how these two modes define the concept of truth itself.

So truth is a thing versus truth is a process.

Okay.

Given everything we've just said,

it's pretty intuitive that the left hemisphere would conceive of truth as a thing, an abstract objective entity existing in the mind as a suitable static representation of reality.

And this LH approach has a very clear linear methodology.

You start with a secure set of facts, you build upwards using strict rules of logic, and you construct this massive solid pyramid of represented truth.

This LH truth then, by definition, has to possess these specific rigid characteristics.

It must be impersonal and fully transmittable.

It has to be timeless, unchanging, independent of context.

Yes.

Must be ultimately single.

And finally, it has to be perfect, precise, and certain.

All attainable goals once you've concluded your deliberations.

Now let's look closely at the language associated with this view.

Words like representation, fact, perfect, precise, certain, and concluded.

The common thread is that they all imply a process that has stopped.

Motion is replaced by fixity.

Completely.

Let's pull out the most powerful examples from that etymological deep dive in the text.

Take fact and perfect.

Okay.

Fact comes from the Latin factus, which is the past participle of fessere, meaning to do or to make.

So a fact is literally something that has been done or made.

It's now existing firmly in the past.

It is finished.

And perfect.

Very similar.

Perfectus, meaning done through to completion.

If something is perfect, the process has ceased.

There's nowhere else for it to go.

And concluded from the Latin meaning to shut off or lock up completely.

The entire linguistic structure of the left hemisphere's view of truth is engineered towards closure and finality.

It is.

The LH sees change only as a series of static steps, like the static stills in a film.

It follows them until the final facts are reached and the film ends.

It just can't truly deal with the flux of reality.

So, okay, if the left hemisphere sees truth as a static, fixed thing,

how does the right hemisphere conceive of truth?

The RH experiences truth as a dynamic process, one that in principle has no ending.

But more importantly, it understands that truth is a relationship.

A relationship.

It doesn't see a subjective realm over here mirroring an objective one over there.

It sees a constant dynamic co -response, or a better word might be, attunement between our thoughts and our experiences.

So that constant adjustment, that state of being in accord is the evolving truth.

Yes.

It's intrinsically incomplete.

It's constantly in the process of approaching certainty and it's incapable of being grasped except through our embodied being.

We test this truth not just by checking one abstract logic against another, but by testing it on the pulse of experience.

Does it correspond with the totality of our experience?

So this view embraces uncertainty, but it's not an invitation to just give up on truth.

It actually demands a deeper kind of discipline.

It does.

Constant attentiveness and an open receptivity.

And the language reflects that.

The language of the right hemisphere reflects this motion and reciprocity.

We talk about reverberation, the return of a beat, affirming something in reply like swearing an oath, and accord, which comes from the Latin concordare, meaning to bring heart to heart.

That idea of heart to heart brings us to a much deeper, much older historical understanding of the word truth itself.

It's not about propositional statements at all, is it?

No.

Historically, truth indicated not a proposition, but a disposition.

The word true is related to trust and fidelity.

We speak of plighting one's troth, an older form of truth.

It's about reliability and commitment.

Yes, like two surfaces that marry well being called true.

And this changes everything about what we mean by belief.

Belief isn't signing up to a cold fact sheet.

Not at all.

Belief is a matter of recognition and relationship.

The Latin credere originally meant to entrust to the care of or to give your heart to.

This relationship requires the believer to be disposed to love.

It's related to the word love or leaf.

And the believed in thing must inspire that trust.

And whether that trust is worthy is only determined through commitment and experience over time.

That's a powerful warning against the left hemisphere tendency towards what the book calls deracination, treating words as these manipulable tokens detached from their history and their embeddedness in the human community.

Yes.

This is how we get to post truth.

It is.

When Henry Ford says history is bunk, he represents this machine worldview where the past is just dismissed and words are emptied of their flowing meaning.

If we lose the embeddedness of language, we risk losing the ability to grasp truth altogether.

So the fundamental choice is between truth is correctness, the thing, the LH view or truth is unconcealing.

The process of something revealing itself, the RH view, Heidegger's Olatheia.

And if truth is a process, then the manner of expression, the style, the tongue, the howness, that must matter deeply.

It has to.

As the philosopher Weisman noted, deep truths are inseparable from their style.

We turn to poetry for profound truths because as he says, truth is intrinsically tied up with the style of your expression.

It needs no less than a poet to render fully and facefully such fragile states of mind.

The deepest truths require poetic expression because they're too complex to be reduced to precise, fixed LH propositions.

Yes.

So let's briefly frame the conventional families of truth within this hemispheric split.

We've got correspondence, coherence, and consensus.

Okay, correspondence theory.

Truth is the link between internal symbols and external reality.

That sounds like an LH favorite because it deals in representation.

It is.

But the problem is, how can we check our internal representation against a mind -independent reality if we only ever access reality through our representations?

It sets up this fundamental unresolvable distance.

And the classical counterpoint to that is coherence theory.

Truth lies in the internal cohesion of beliefs.

This is also favored by the left hemisphere because it just loves internal logical systems.

If belief A supports B and B supports C and C supports A, well, it must be true.

The problem, of course, is the flat earth paradox.

A system can be perfectly coherent, perfectly internally consistent, and yet be entirely false.

Completely divorced from external reality.

So these two approaches are necessary, but they're not sufficient on their own.

The sources suggest progress lies in their close interweaving, rock brush mold, it's called, that needs both the external check and the internal consistency.

And then there's consensus theory, which is generally accepted.

That one feels easy to dismiss.

It is.

History is just full of examples where the majority was dead wrong.

And new truths, by definition, start out as false by the consensus standard.

So this failure of the left hemisphere to attain its own rigid standard of certainty is what drives a lot of modern defeatist theories, like deflationism or social constructivism.

Yes, these are classic LH fictions rooted in disappointment.

If truth can't be single, perfect, and certain, the LH says it must be abandoned.

And you see the classic LH characteristics here, fear of uncertainty,

that either black and white thinking, and the demand for utilitarian coercion.

Coercion.

Yeah, if truth can't be coercively demonstrated and useful for manipulation, it's just deemed worthless.

All these alternative theories, they found around the same mistake.

They assume that because we can't know reality without our consciousness entering the equation, that therefore we can't know reality at all.

It's like dismissing the window itself because the window has a few smudges on it.

Exactly.

But we cannot give up on truth.

We have to stick with it.

We must.

Uncertainty is not a failure.

It's inherent to what we are trying to grasp.

Truth is uncertain not because it's empty, but because it is full.

It's rich, complex, manifold.

And to claim there is no truth is a self -refuting statement.

You're asserting a truth about the non -existence of truth.

Okay, so if we accept truth as a relationship, how does that work in practice?

This is where pragmatism and phenomenology come in.

Placing the emphasis on relationship means truth is necessarily lived, it's changing, it's contextual, it has to answer in practice.

As William James argued, true beliefs guarantee against recalcitrance on the part of experience.

False beliefs get you caught out.

The world eventually refuses to cooperate with your internal story.

Now that sounds dangerously close to the simple whatever works philosophy.

Is there a meaningful distinction between genuine pragmatism, the philosophy, and just being narrow -mindedly pragmatic?

There is an absolutely crucial distinction.

Being merely pragmatic, believing whatever works, is too narrow and can be very dangerous.

I mean, treating people as objects works if your narrow goal is efficient profit.

Treating the environment as an infinite resource heap works if your goal is cheap production.

But those narrow truths break down the moment you broaden your context.

They don't truly answer to the totality of our complex embodied experience.

Precisely.

Genuine pragmatism judges ideas not by their simple immediate utility but by their fruits, by whether they hold up over time an answer to the world and all its richness.

The right hemisphere view is constantly ready to update its understanding in light of new experience.

Whereas the left hemisphere?

The left hemisphere tends to stick rigidly to its theory, often ignoring disconfirming evidence, simply because the theory is internally beautiful.

Okay, here's where it gets really interesting.

Because we can clarify this value asymmetry between the hemispheres.

The idea that the LH is necessary but not equal, using a scientific analogy.

Yes.

The relationship between quantum mechanics and Newtonian mechanics.

Okay, so Newtonian mechanics is the left hemisphere mode.

It's incredibly precise, fixed, and useful for our day -to -day reality, but it is fundamentally inaccurate when you look at the underlying reality at the subatomic or cosmological level.

It's a precise map of an approximation.

That's a great way to put it.

And quantum mechanics is the right hemisphere mode.

It's inherently fuzzier, less precise, it's based on probabilities and fields and flux.

But the key insight is that quantum mechanics applies across the whole field of reality.

Newtonian mechanics is just a localized, highly useful approximation of that.

So therefore, the very precision of Newtonian mechanics, the LH style, is what makes it a less good fit for the underlying reality.

The fuzzier, less precise quantum mechanics is, paradoxically, more accurate.

That completely flips how we tend to value clarity and precision in our culture.

We think precision is accuracy.

We mistake measurability for truth.

Look at the healthcare example again.

Template -driven packages of care, highly precise and generalized, are a poor fit for a unique, complex patient.

Right.

The fuzzier, personally tailored response is a much better fit because it is individual and therefore more accurate.

And that word, accurate, comes from the Latin curare, meaning to exhibit care towards.

You need the care to achieve accuracy.

The precise, generalized protocol lacks the care needed for true accuracy.

And this underscores that the left hemisphere's contribution, like Newtonian mechanics, is necessary.

Our lives would be impossible without its limiting clarifying logic.

Of course.

But it is not of equal status when it comes to disclosing reality.

It's more precise, but less accurate.

And this framework also clarifies how we handle opposition.

The left hemisphere view of opposition is eitherer.

It seeks elimination.

Get rid of the other side.

Whereas the right hemisphere holds a both -hand view, it recognizes that adversaries are often mutually necessary, and that their opposition enables something new to arise.

You can't just eliminate an opposite.

If you try to eliminate one side of attention, you destroy the entire dynamic that makes the system whole.

Opposition is often interdependent.

It is.

Which brings us naturally back to the subject -object divide.

We establish that this is fundamentally the left hemisphere's problem because it deals in representations.

Which inherently creates distance.

Yes.

Distance between the knower and the known.

And that distance creates the Hall of Mirrors problem.

How does this objective in here relate to the objective out there?

In the right hemisphere, operating in the mode of presencing, it has no such problem.

What is present to the right hemisphere is immediate.

It's a single holistic experience.

As the quantum physicist Erwin Schrödinger observed,

subject and object are only one.

The barrier between them does not exist.

We make the mistake of jumping from an awareness of distinction to the assumption of division.

But if our consciousness is always part of knowledge, and we can achieve objectivity in the sense of a blank slate,

does that mean all knowledge is just relative opinion?

Not at all.

The striving for truth that lies behind the concept of objectivity is essential.

But we can't pursue it through some dehumanizing, disengaged stare.

Disengagement radically alters what we see.

We have to pursue objectivity through high -quality engagement.

The philosopher Michael Polanyi completely skewers the absurdity of that kind of reductive objectivity.

Oh, that passage is fantastic.

It demonstrates the necessary anthropocentric view we must take.

If we truly committed to seeing ourselves objectively in the true perspective of time and space, Polanyi argues, we'd focus only on portions of equal mass.

We would spend a lifetime preoccupied with interstellar dust, and humanity wouldn't even register for a second of our notice.

It's the ultimate reduction that reveals the absurdity of the premise.

We must inevitably see the universe from a center within ourselves.

And that realization doesn't negate the striving for truth.

It just changes the means.

And this is where the crucial function of imagination comes in.

We achieve meaningful objectivity by using imagination, an RH function, to take various perspectives on the world to see how it looks from over there.

That ability to shift perspective is a form of humility.

And without imagination, there can be no true objectivity.

So we return to the nature of the game itself.

The difference between the hemispheres is perfectly encapsulated by James Carson's distinction between finite and infinite games.

The left hemisphere plays the finite game.

The purpose is winning, reaching a fixed endpoint, closing down on truth.

The game only lasts because the longed -for close down hasn't happened yet.

While the right hemisphere plays the infinite game, its purpose is continuing the play, constantly testing, constantly seeking.

Truth is seen as a never -finished search, disclosed by the very process of living.

It is the difference between formulating truth theoretically at your desk and then trying to apply it, versus having truth constantly tested during its formulation in the process of becoming.

And the book says it's wise to use both.

It is, but if we have to let one go, the theoretical planning on the kitchen table must be the one to be forsaken.

We must prioritize continuous testing on the pulse of experience.

And now we have the perfect segue to the neuroscientific evidence, which provides this undeniable, almost shocking proof of the difference between these two modes of defining truth.

Here's where it gets really, really interesting.

Let's look at the incredible 1996 research by Kinsborn and Deglin.

They used temporary hemisphere suppression to ask the isolated halves of the brain how they dealt with logical contradiction.

They use a clever procedure involving syllogisms, these logical structures, where two premises lead to a conclusion, but with a twist.

One of the premises was factually false.

So the subject has to choose between logical validity and empirical soundness.

The test example given is, all monkeys climb trees, the porcupine is a monkey, therefore the porcupine climbs trees.

In the normal state, people just reject the conclusion because, well, empirically a porcupine is not a monkey.

Okay, that makes sense.

But when the right hemisphere is isolated, what happens?

The subject responds with immediate indignation, referencing reality.

The right hemisphere states, the porcupine is not a monkey, it's prickly like a hedgehog, it is wrong here.

The RH checks against the world.

And the left hemisphere.

This is the shocking part.

This is what defines the modern danger.

The same subject, when their left hemisphere is isolated, dramatically changes their answer.

The LH replies that the porcupine does climb trees because it is a monkey.

Wait, really?

And even one challenge, but you do know that a porcupine is not a monkey.

The subject insists on the conclusion, saying, but it is written here.

That is chilling.

The fidelity to the internal closed system, the logic of the text,

completely overrides experiential reality.

The abstract signs are more real than the world outside the system.

And they confirm this with a second geographical example.

Winter is cold in tropical countries, Ecuador is a tropical country.

Is it cold in winter in Ecuador?

The right hemisphere rejects the false premise outright.

It says it's a lie.

But the left hemisphere of the very same individual quickly asserts the conclusion.

It's cold in winter in Ecuador because Ecuador is a tropical country.

The internal logic works.

And even when they admit they aren't sure if winter is cold in tropical countries, when they're presented with the syllogism again, the LH reverts.

It is cold in winter in Ecuador because Ecuador is a tropical country.

But it is written here.

Wow.

But it is written here.

The left hemisphere defines truth as fidelity to a closed system, the interrelation of signs that defines its own reality.

It focuses on how the signs relate to each other, not how the signs relate to their reference in the real world.

While the right hemisphere just checks against the empirical world.

Every time.

So, okay, let's synthesize these two visions of truth.

The left hemisphere sees truth as a thing.

It's fixed, certain,

concerned with representational consistency.

And the right hemisphere sees truth as a process.

It's contextual, constantly coming into being through interaction.

And it's real because it's constantly tested against experience.

And the core critique of modern life here is that the two currently dominant public stances, naive positivism on one side and naive deconstructionism on the other, are both typical LH fictions.

Yes, they lack the subtlety and the crucial betweenness that's understood by the right hemisphere.

We have to reject that either or framing.

Certainty is rare, but degrees of truth exist.

Truth isn't random, it's informed by all our faculties.

Experiment, perception, reason, intuition, imagination,

all of it.

In acquiring the level of sophisticated judgment that's necessary to intelligently cohere all these elements.

Well, that used to be the primary purpose of education.

It was the foundation of reasonableness, a capacity we are dangerously close to losing in a mechanized, LH -dominated society.

So the final beautiful synthesis is this idea that truth is the asymptotic limit, the goal we're constantly approaching, of sensitive attempts to be responsible to actual experience.

Truth is a result of focused, deep attention, not mere inspection, but a form of looking that is informed by positive regard or love.

It's fundamentally about relationship.

And the tragic paradox is that we are constantly crashing and experiencing what the book calls sustained incoherence, because our currently dominant model of reality, the left hemisphere mode, is fundamentally mistaken.

We are following the precise but inaccurate instructions written on the card, even as reality pushes back against us.

We need to fundamentally rethink.

The conflict over truth is whether we prioritize the precise static map on the kitchen table or the accurate embodied journey constantly tested against the terrain.

And the journey has to lead.

So the final provocative thought for you to consider is this.

Are you, in your personal and professional life, willing to abandon the comforting but illusory certainty of a closed, logical system, the system that says,

but it is written here, and instead prioritize judgment, relational fidelity, and attuning yourself to the complex, full reality of the world?

Are you willing to be accurate, even if you can't be perfectly precise?

Thank you for joining us for this deep dive into the nature of truth.

We hope you gained a richer, deeper, and maybe a more challenging understanding of how the two hemispheres shape not only what we see, but what we must believe.

Until next time.