Out in the open

It is astonishing how much value we place upon external evidence! For instance, consider a relationship between two parties involving a strife where one knows exactly what the other is thinking and feeling; what the other person's plans and secrets are, what the motivations of deceptions, defenses and attacks are, what is veiled and what is revealed. And moreover the other person knows that one knows this about the other. But since all of this information is hidden under the carpet, as it were - due to whatever reasons - the interpretative games continue to go on as if both parties were oblivious of these various facts and knowledge about the other and about oneself. These facts still do not count as evidence. The balance of this struggle is tempered with, and consequently shifted, only if one of the parties decides to break the rules of the game, and call out the other, and bring out all the motivations and secrets into the open. Only then both parties acknowledge what they already know - as if they were standing before a 'judge' before whom they must confess. (This happens even if no one else is involved or cares about this struggle except the two parties). The specter of the 'world' itself stands as the judge before whom the two witnesses appear. So much for our belief in the external world!