David Letterman made a joke on his television show after Alaska Governor Sarah Palin took her family to watch a New York Yankees baseball game that a basebll player had "knocked up" one of her daughters.
After Lettrerman was condemned by Sarah Palin, her husband, and some others, he offered an apology. He said, "I'm sorry about it and I'll try to do better in the future." Earlier he had said that his intention was good but the perceptions of others did not see it as good. And, it was the latter that persuaded him to offer an apology. Obviously, it is more honorable to "step up to the plate" and take responsibility for one's true intention than it is to "back down" in response to the perception of other people.
It is this principle or dual-principle of intention vs. perception that has prompted me to write this discourse. However, I want to address it in a larger context than that of a quasi-comedy show - in the context of life.
Usually when we think of intention we think about the initial doer and when we think about perception we think about how the doer's expression was perceived by someone other than himself. The intent of the doer to be helpful may be perceived by the intended recipient or respondent of his action to be negative or destructive. Or, in a word, inappropriate.
How are we to behave when there is the probability that our intentions, as honorable as we may believe them to be, might be perceived by others as inappropraite or destructive?
To answser this question, in addition to intention and perception, several other terms are germane when focusing on intention and perception. They are: self-perception, self-deception, political correctness and moral arc. Often what is really true for the person who claims that his intentions are good is best defined by one or more of these terms. It may be self-perception that has duped or blinded or, even worst, self-deception, causing a person to declare his intentions to be good. Deceiving oneself is all too common in our culture where pretending and masking are extolled as virtues and sometimes delineated as characteristics of successful people.
Political correctness may also color one's intentions. This may lead a person to deceive others about his true thoughts and feelings, and by attempting to placate others deny what he perceives to be true . An example that illustrates this point is evidenced in the confession of a Christian minister who said, "I never mention Jesus in my prayers when I know there are non-Christians in the audience." He added, "I want to be politically correct."
Moral arc that bends toward righteousness is the most important thing for a person to embrace in understanding and birthing his intentions. This may also be described as being honest with yourself. Translating Shakespere's "To thine own self be true then thy canst not be false to any man," it says, "To yourself be honest and then you cannot be dishonest to any person." And worth adding, do not offer an apology for the truth, thought or feeling, that you know.
The point being made is: perceptions of intentions may be correct but they are more likely to be correct when self-perception, self-deception and political correctness are considered as possible elements undergirding one's intentions. It is possessing a moral arc that offers the greatest hope that our intentions and perceptions are correct. On the contrary, the lack of a moral arc makes for fraudulence and inauthenticity. And may lead to self-negation.
It is a person's intention and perception that ultimate matters. Intentions may be good or evil or healthy or destructive. Therefore, it is important that intentions and perceptions be directed by a moral compass.
Let the declaration of your intentions conform to the intentions of your soul. Even in an immoral environment a moral person can have pure intentions and perceptions. Let the intentions and perceptions of others be as they may but take delight in knowing that your intentions and perceptions, as expressed in what you do - in words and deeds - are divinely ordered.
No further comment is needed on the David Letterman's joke because, all who possess a modicum of goodwill, know what is good and its opposite. Making a scurrilous comment in the cloak of a joke does not make it any less offensive than arsenic is made less deadly when it bears the label taken from a peppermint candy package.
Copyright 2009 by Uriah J. Fields
