We discuss a friend who is spending more than he has to keep certain company. The cost of his companions is high and at times burdensome. Our friend says that he was from the wrong side of the tracks. He invests a great deal of his resources to support his argument that he is not from the wrong side of the tracks. He must defend his case within the district that deemed him such. He does this with great intention; speaking loudly and passing bills to buy support. He is right to understand that this is the only way to defend himself of such accusations once he chooses to do so. This is the crux of my story.
For our friend to believe that defense is necessary, our friend must find an ounce of truth in what he announces a lie. Least he would not be motivated to defend the right or wrong side of the tracks. Like all human-beings, our friend is innately motivated towards self preservation. Once he takes the bait, he is compelled to defend himself against a claim that deems him “less worthy”. And the struggle begins.
The only proof for defense is evidence of events, actions, and circumstances that are approved worthy by the right side of the tracks. Being that our friend is not entirely sure that he is not from the wrong side of the tracks (as, if he in-fact, did not believe himself to be from the wrong side of the tracks, he would never have considered the argument of interest), our friend doubts himself. In doubt, our friend is caught. He is stuck; re-considering, doubting, and defending.
In the end, our friend fulfills the notion that he is indeed from the wrong side of the tracks simply by acknowledging it as a reality and then embracing it with everything he’s got. And even with what he hasn’t got. He makes a full investment in it and makes it his reality, simply by acknowledging it as reality.