Is There an Obligation to Speak?

When I bring forward anything I write—fiction or philosophy (never mind if there is a difference)—it is because I imagine that I see a possibility that the work might benefit someone I meet in print. Otherwise, the work remains private, as the exercise only meant for me to greet an aspect of myself. And it is assumed to be strictly for my benefit.

Once I imagine that the writing is not merely private, then I come to another question. What is one’s obligation to present truth or perspective as they know or believe it? If one believes that sharing what they know or see will avoid what they recognize as a disaster or as making another person happier, are we bound to deliver the information?

I end up turning this conundrum over and over. How does one decide the next step once writing is inspired?

First—for me—is the nature of truth. Enough people will probably consent to consider the idea that much truth (if not all) is—or at least might be—subjective to an individual and their needs or situation at any given time. You probably already realize that I do and do not believe that my truth is concrete and objective.

Yes, do and do not—My truths are right and invariable for me, at this moment. And I hold to their guidance. But tomorrow will be a new world, possibly with new realities unfolded. If so, I do not imagine that truth of yesterday will be able to continue to justify itself.

For me, "truth is but a resting place until the next revelation…an ever-progressing horizon…"* a collectively endorsed mythology. When it can no longer explain the world of our experience, it is surpassed, built on top of. Today’s truth may be tomorrow’s trash, and vice versa—But I do not imagine that even this must be the case for another person.

When contemplating whether or not to share my truth, I consider that any descriptive (i.e. happy or disaster) that I may think I am responding to is always subjective. Therefore, my idea of ‘happier’ may be another’s idea of miserable! Even if their definition of ‘happy’ and mine are compatible (or the same, as best we can determine), our conscious perceptions are not always what state and/or condition we are most drawn forward by. After all, is it the happiness of the conscious mind/ego that is most beneficial to the spirit and will give us lasting joy? What element of our experience—conscious mind, subconscious, or spirit—do we gratify in order to produce happiness or avoid disaster?

There is a Taoist tale by Chuang Tzu that he speaks of the right service for the wrong individual :

“Have you not heard that tale of old when a sea-bird alighted outside the capital of Lu, the prince went out to receive it, and gave it wine from the temple, and had the Chiu Shao played to amuse it, and a bullock slaughtered to feed it? But the bird was dazed and too timid to eat and drink anything; and in three days it was dead. This was treating the bird like oneself, and not as a bird would treat a bird.”

So, the first requirement I make of myself in deciding if I should share my perspective is whether the information is truth for me at the time of my offering. Next, I make a point to consider whether I can perceive a value for others in my sharing the information.

If the information passes those two tests, I try to be certain the offering is relevant to the individual or audience before me at this time. I suppose this has a lot to do with why I am a writer. The free will of the reader to ignore any piece allows me some flexibility in responsibility on things that I am drawn to share. The reader can also take in installments any information that too quickly annoys their definition of reality—assuming they recognize sufficient personal truth in the writing to warrant reading it at all.


Finally, there is the issue of believing that the information can be “heard” by the anticipated audience, whether in a book or a personal conversation. The value is often in its timing. Offering perspectives of time as a great healer to someone who has just lost a dear one—even before they have had time to grieve—is insensitive (from my point of view), if not inappropriate. The same is the case for abstract concepts.

A beautiful quote by Sai Baba sums my considerations up:

Before you speak, ask yourself, is it kind, is it necessary, is it true, does it improve on the silence?
Ultimately, whether I speak/write of my perceptions of the truth in nonfiction or fiction, I am presenting my truth with the desire that “breaking the silence” will benefit someone who has been drawn to the work.

*"Strike a Cord of Silence" © CG Walters

Copyright 2008 CG Walters

This is my truth. Only you can determine if there is any value in it for you.

C.G. Walters primarily writes fiction that focuses on the multidimensionality of our loves and our lives. His current novel, Sacred Vow is a metaphysical novel about a man who responds to the mysterious call of [his soulmate], opening the way to redefinition of both himself and his understanding of the world around him…Highly recommended. —Midwest Book Review.

Receive new editions of Into the Mist through a reader http://feeds.feedburner.com/IntoTheMist

In celebration of CG’s upcoming non-fiction book, Strike a Chord of Silence, for a limited time autographed/signed copies of Sacred Vow are available for $4.00US plus shipping!

Purchase a signed paperback copy from http://sacredvow.dragonsbeard.com/ – or buy from your favorite brick and mortar, or online store (Amazon.com ). Purchase Sacred Vow as ebook http://www.mobipocket.com/en/eBooks/eBookDetails.asp?BookID=79405&Origine=3971 or the Amazon Kindle version