Living in 3D

I saw my first 3D movie in the '50s. Those paper glasses were a hoot. But they brought the pictures right up to your face. I really didn't see too many of them though. Not that many 3D movies came to our State Theater. We did get lots of B movies (Doris Day and Rock Hudson over and over and over again!) and some westerns.

Then along came Disney in the '70s to central Florida bringing 3D and the paper glasses to the forefront again. They added special affects with wind, water and tickles that made the experience lots of fun.

Being able to see in and out and around the "objects" gave multiple views in the scenes. "Did you see that?" "No, but did you see this?" What fun--and insight.

Trailers for the movie Vantage Point caught my eye this year for the same concept: multiple views of an event. I still haven't seen it but plan to do so. Which angle really did get the truth of the attempted assassination?

And a Law and Order show began with a shooting with loads of witnesses. But for some reason no two witnesses were in agreement about what went down. How could this be?

Actually I believe this really is possible. Our individual observation of an event has our particular priorities of focus/influence. One person may be zoned in on fashion and use that angle for relating his facts. But another person may be cued to electronics and add his two cents worth from that perspective. These examples can go on for ever.

Let's consider taking this model and applying it to other issues such as politics, religion, education, war and peace, economics, globalization, environment--whatever. Each of us has our opinion on these and countless other things. And each of us has our own set of priorities at issue when deciding where we stand and why on the topics. Is one more correct/right/accurate than another? It depends on whether you agree with that person or not.

There are people that look at gay marriages and say yes because--legal rights are at issue; or yes because--pursuit of happiness should not be denied; or yes because--physical attraction shouldn't be denied. Then there are those who say no because--the definition of marriage is one male one female; or no because--the Bible says it is sinful; or no because--even the animal kingdom rejects such unions.

When we each get down to the nitty gritty of our personal reason for our preference, we think that is the only right way to believe on the subject and everyone else just doesn't get it. I remember Daddy use to say, "I might not always be right, but I'm never wrong."

The next step, I think, is in accepting the fact that everyone has a right to his own opinion and priority of focus on all matters. If our debate skills are unsuccessful in changing a person's mind, it is time to agree to disagree.

How many countries in the world allow individual thought among its citizens? What types of government do they have? For all the heated rhetoric bombarding us in the US this election year, I pray we respect one another's right to disagree--no matter how wrong we think they may be.