The handout suggests that we choose to use the descriptive language of action as perceived. It asks us to consider speaking in a way as to keep our meaning perspective based biases and prejudices out and keeping the Kant problem of direct perception of the thing-in-itself and our limitations as careful observers in mind.[138] When we choose to observe and speak in that way, we accentuate what actually occurred rather than what we think or feel about what occurred. When we say, "Mack assaulted Polly with a knife," we have already changed what actually occurred to what our interpretation and diagnosis of what occurred. Our listener and our mind create a very real sense of what this means, and it means absolutely no good. When we choose to say, "Mack cut Polly with a scalpel in the operating room," we come closer to the thing-in-itself not our interpretation of the thing. If we observe more about this occurrence, we can create a more specify statement: "Dr. Mack cut Polly with a scalpel in the operating room to remove her inflamed appendix." That last sounds very distant from the first description of a violent act, yet they speak about the same visual information.
When we call George a liar, we have made an accusation about the very nature of George while offering no specific evidence as to the fact of our statement. When we mindfully choose to say, "George lied to me," it makes the accusation specific to one perceived situation with George not a global condemnation of George. The more action specific information we supply, the closer we get to the truth value of the observation we have made: "George told me he would go home. Less than ten minutes later, I saw George at the bar down the street." In this way, we offer action instead of opinion, the where, and how information on which we based our statement. However, when we reflect on our original statement, we might see that we have still committed a diagnosis. We do not know if George actually lied when he said that he would go home. George may have fully intended to do just that when an emergency occurred in that very bar in which he felt compelled to get involved. In order to correct our original statement, we can choose to withdraw any opinion whatsoever and speak as much as we can about only the actual appearances and actions we experienced:" George told me he would go home. Ten minutes later, I saw him at the bar down the street." When we critically reflect on the seeming simplicity of the question, "What am I observing?" we find the answer and its expression come complexly. It may feel nearly impossible to perceive and speak in this way. However true that may prove, we can still strive to achieve the closest we can to the ideal observation and reporting of what we observed as we can. Truth, we may actually find, comes to us as a quest of aspiration.[139]
Factual data may also serve to obscure the truth. Kant held an absolute position on this question, and asserts that lying is intolerable under all circumstances: “By a lie a man throws away and, as it were, annihilates his dignity as a man.” In some way, he speaks truly. When we choose to lie, we throw away all the value of truth in the world and in ourselves. Everything becomes a means to the end of our identity as expressed through the lie our ego tells. Everything becomes an It.
In such a consideration, however, it might serve us well to remember that things happen in a reality that exists on more than one level or dimension.