Is Negative More Honest?

This is my re-entry into the LBC after an abscence explained in my previous post.  The Universe decided to call itself Ramana and tug me back!  So be it! :)

With the journey we have taken with so many since December of last year, a bumpy rollercoaster ride, the Lady Fossil and I have had ample laboratory situation to try out our beliefs regarding this hypothesis.  Add in the comments that have come in on social media and the mix of approaches by so many, it is a fine Petri dish of assorted organic material.  To this point, these are the results:

When it comes to challenging the beliefs of others, the negative is definitely more annoying and often not productive.  It seems to be a failure of grace and imagination, for the same challenge can often be put forth in a way that pulls the other to your side with some enthusiasm generated in the process.  Verdict: the negative is less effective in expression, but allowing it may be more effective in skeptical analysis.

Example in point is the situation with two surgeries from two doctors over the past few months for Lafawnda.  The initial surgery was by a doctor who is not a specialist in endometriosis, while the second was performed by a surgeon who is not only a specialist, but is world-renowned in the field.  The first surgery was an abject failure.  The second was a great success.

Some feel positive thought requires that the first surgeon and his followup pronouncement that the problem was in Lafawnda's head since he could find no reason for her to be having that much pain be looked at in the positive light of his unawareness of the bigger issue.  The problem with this is that Lafawnda and her mother and I are left at the mercy of an inept authoritarian figure if we stop there and basically we acquiesce.  Instead, we viewed it with a proper perception of a negative reality with the surgeon and sought immediately to seek positive alternatives with Lafawnda's health.  Had we remained with "negative as more honest" as a bias, we would have hampered our search for the postive.

The followup, however, could be a hatefest that would yield no good result.  We have a daughter essentially healed, but we want the next patient to not be in the same helpless situation needlessly.  Therefore, a nurse who is a patient of the Lady F's will help Lafawnda write an uncompromising but thoroughly professional letter to the first surgeon to let him know the ultimate outcome and his negative effect on the patient's state of mind, to let him know that further training is available to him in this area to make him more effective in treatment, or, as an alternative, that there is another surgeon available who does specialize in this ailment and it very effective in its treatment.

Secondly, when it comes to the healing process, the positive is necessary, for it is a long process, filled with pain and discouragement, and often it is the positive encouragement that brings the patient through it.  The positive has to be authentic, though, and that is often where the believers in the negative mistake it for greater honesty is they see the positive as inauthentic.

My view after all of this?  The negative is on an even playing field with the positive when it comes to honest assessment and should not be hindered, but it should not masquerade as the end of analysis.  It may be equal in honesty as expression issuing forth from that assessment, yet still have less value in improvement of a situation.  

Belief in health of any kind is positive.  Assessment of illness can be honestly negative, but it needs to seek its positive partner ASAP to find health.