A Conversation around Questions of Sincerity, Stone Soup

Andrew Taggart has become the first contributing author on Stone Soup. In his first post he looks at the story and responds to the skeptic’s view.

In the end he asks, “How can someone … avoid the fate of the con man?”

I’d like to take a stab at that. I’d like to say the answer is simple, though it’s not likely to please “the skeptic.”


Sincerity. “Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made!” says the ad man. What is missing in this approach is that sincerity is not something turned outward, but a relationship we have with our selves. Sincerity focused outward is false. Sincerity cannot function except as an internal relation. Even then it is fraught, but the possibility for it to be true exists.

I’ve been awed by realizations concerning sincerity that have grown out of my practice of Qi Gong. The weight of sincerity appears to be what carries Qi. It is certainly what animates one’s movements and what focuses one’s attention. The discovery of such clean and clear sincerity practiced on its “home” ground within the body and mind is astounding. A silent clap of resonant truth.

This applies to the beggar/artist. In the story he has arrived at his actions sincerely. He has no prejudice towards any result, and he is present in the unfolding of what occurs among and between them all. The question then becomes how to maintain that sincerity? This is a question of maintaining and returning to the sincerity of action that was there in the first instance.

In this way sincerity is tied to creativity. His creative leap and his openness to possibility led to the celebration of conviviality. Continuing this relationship between sincerity and creativity he can continue to be honest and not fall into the con.

How can we recognize sincerity?

It’s not a question of sensing that an attitude of another is telegraphed to us via a judgment about them. It is a question of finding our own sincerity and then discovering that we have a sincere response to another welling up within our selves. This response isn’t tied to any verifiable level of attributes of sincerity in the other. It relies on our own sincerity, and the way we then respond creatively to a situation. In this way we paradoxically do not interrogate the sincerity of another. Their sincerity is a matter for themselves alone and we can not know it with any certainty. We can be fooled, but only if we are primarily concerned with whether they are sincere. When we focus on our own sincerity the rest takes care of itself. We may take in the “products” of an insincere person and respond to them in a creative way that meets with our sincerity. Or we may find that feelings of conflict with another inspire us to look more deeply at our own response.

Sincerity may be the way in which we are free of striving. It is the deepest expression of humility in the sense of groundedness. It is a strength we feel coursing through us that is available to us but cannot be dominated. As soon as we attempt to “use” it, it disappears.

Published by Antonio Dias

My work is centered on attending to the intersection of perception and creativity. Complexity cannot be reduced to any given certainty. Learning is Central: Sharing our gifts, Working together, Teaching and learning in reciprocity. Entering into shared Inquiry, Maintaining these practices as a way of life. Let’s work together to build practices, strengthen dialogue, and discover and develop community. Let me know how we might work together.

8 thoughts on “A Conversation around Questions of Sincerity, Stone Soup

  1. 1. This is a fascinating reply, Tony. It seems to me that the skeptic wants one to point to some basis in reality (which, in this case, is impossible) or something about the maker of stone soup. But what you’re saying is that the skeptic would lose his skepticism in the very instant that he himself became sincere. So it’s not about answering the skeptic; it’s about the skeptic coming to better self-understanding and, in that moment, becoming the sincere man.

    2. Sincerity might be the term that designates the transformation of the beggar into the visionary (I’m not set on using this name). Let’s call this figure S. It’s important that S no longer conceive of himself as a beggar. For as a beggar, he is able to offer nothing and can only ask for a little, a handful, or a lot. Approaching life in the form of a beggar, S will naturally repel those from whom he seeks because he reminds them, in his way of being, that scarcity is the way of the world and hostility, or guardedness, the way to comport oneself toward scarcity.

    3. Arguably, S’s self-transformation into a sincere figure is a symbol for the needful self-transformation of all the other figures of the story. If they have also become sincere, then chipping in will, as it were, follow of its own accord.


    1. Andrew,


      So well put!

      Let’s find ways to dwell, or savor this process, taking S from beggar to sincere man.

      This is where creativity is essential. Habit and conditioning lean on us with tremendous pressures to repeat actions and begin to live within a relationship to expectations instead of engagements. It is through creativity that we break the bonds of stereotypical reactions and renew our connections with each other and our world.


  2. It does not have to be a con story. He is seeding another story from the hungry one he is in. You have to start somewhere… and it has to have power. Fire, water and earth… they have power to draw out another story…


  3. Uh. I rushed. I meant to say, he is seeding another story, different from the hungry story he is in.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: