There have been a lot of discussions on this board about morals and judgment over the last week — some with disastrous results. That such discussions got ugly comes as no surprise to me. I would have been far more surprised if they hadn’t. I have commented very little on these threads, because, I’ve realized, I have more to say on this issue than can be reduced to a few sentences, and that I needed to sit with the feelings that some of this emotionally charged language has brought up for me. For my part, I strive not to judge others. I’d like to lay out why I believe judging other people or their behaviors is unconstructive and why I believe it takes us out of integrity to do so.
First, a little background about me and the foundation for my beliefs. The cornerstone of my belief system is “mystical thought.” I studied for several years with a Cherokee Mystic. (This term is capitalized because it is a tribal designation, not to aggrandize her needlessly.) I am a psychic intuitive and healing facilitator. I am also a caring nurturer and a member of many of twelve step programs, but not a licensed therapist, to borrow from my fictitious hero Stuart Smalley.
One of Stuart Smalley’s oft quoted aphorisms, which I think is very much on point, here, is, “When you point the finger at someone else, you have 3 fingers pointing back at you.” While this is a little precious, there is much truth in it. When we form judgments about other people, what we say is really about us, not them. It’s about our beliefs, our values, and our unhealed wounds. When we criticize other people, it is what John Bradshaw calls “acting out our shame” and what Jungians refer to as “projecting the shadow.” It is easier, in the short run, to point to what we perceive as flaws in other people than to undertake the work of rigorous self-examination.
As a mystical thinker, I cannot look at another person, without acknowledging what they are mirroring about me. This is what my Cherokee Mystic teacher defines as “sourcefulness.” I acknowledge that I am the center of my sphere of consciousness, and that I view the world from my position in it. I also acknowledge, that from another person’s position in the universe, I am simply their reflection. My views have no greater value or authority than anyone else’s. If I think they do, and I place myself in judgment of them, I am saying, in essence, that I think I am the source of their reality. Not only does that violate their sovereignty, it puts an awful lot of responsibility on my shoulders, which, frankly, I do not want.
Mystical thought is simply the belief in one-ness. It is the belief that we are all one greater consciousness, having the experience of separate, discrete identity. We view this universe as holographic — the microcosm contains the macrocosm. All things reflect all other things. I cannot judge another person, because, in reality, that other person is me, from another position in the universe.
To judge is to hold oneself separate, to create distance from things and people which threaten our sense of order and safety. When we judge ourselves, we are separating ourselves from actions we have taken which are inconsistent with our beliefs. My goal as a mystical thinker is not to separate, but to integrate, to remember the unity that, as part of the human experience, we have only the dimmest awareness of.
I am not saying it is easy not to judge other people, or that it comes naturally. For whatever reason, judging others seems to be the way are wired. I believe that this is because we have forgotten what we are. We live in a world of illusion, what the Hindus call “Maya,” that makes us feel powerless, and we have substituted stealing power from others for a genuine awareness of our power as microcosm of the entire universe. This is because the matrix has us, and we have forgotten that the matrix is us.
As long as we are in the experience of separateness, we also have the experience of difference. The fundamental dichotomy of human existence is the we are one, but we are many. Our individual expression is in constant conflict with perceived others. We collide over disagreements between societies, and within societies. We are constantly shaping, and revising, agreements by which we can share this experience. We call those agreements laws.
Over the last few days, there have been many judgments and beliefs expressed, with regards to abortion. It has been argued by some that “we cannot legislate morality.” This is patently false. We legislate morality all the time. Murder and child molestation, for instance, are illegal because they violate the mores of our society. We just tend not to think of it that way, because there is widespread agreement about those mores. This, in essence, is the role of law in any society. It is the codification of the shared moral values of that society. So, it would be slightly more accurate to say that we cannot legislate personal morality. We cannot legislate easily against things like the sexual activity of consenting adults, because, in a pluralistic society, we do not have the level of collective agreement necessary to codify such things into law. Our laws should, ideally, reflect, a level of consensus amongst the citizens of a society. We have clear agreement that if we injure other people, against their will, violate their person, or their property, that is morally wrong.
We do not, however, have anything approaching widespread agreement about abortion, because we do not share a cosmology. We all have differing views about when life begins and when it becomes sentient, and in the absence of an objective determination of those greater cosmic questions, it is unlikely we will arrive at that level of agreement any time soon. For instance, I believe that life has no beginning or end, but merely changes form, so the Catholic idea that life begins at conception should have no bearing on my choices. Abortion, for me, creates no internal, moral conflict.
We live in a democratic republic, which, on paper, gives us the ability to shape the laws of our society through a process of agreeing to certain representatives through the process of election, who then deliberate and reach consensus about the laws of our society. While it is a few steps removed, this gives us the ability participate in consensus building and create societal rules, which reflect those things upon which we have widespread agreement. This principle is enshrined on the Great Seal with the very mystical phrase, “E Pluribus Unum” or “From the Many, One.” We may be made up of many parts, but we are one country, and, in principle, we have an equal share and equal responsibility in its decisions.
These issues of personal morality are tearing at the very fabric of our republic, because of exactly the kinds of judgments we have been wrangling with on this site. When we state personal beliefs, about which there are not consensual views, as if they are universals, we abrade each other. When those who feel, that either because they are acting on the authority of a deity, or because they invest in their own logical process a superior moral authority, attempt to codify that moral structure for others who disagree, conflict is inevitable. From my perspective, as a mystical thinker, such people are asserting that they are the source of my reality, and are attempting to violate my sentience. From a shamanic perspective, to act as moral arbiter for other people is actually a form of power theft.
I endeavor not to judge. That is not to say that I have transcended judgment. But, I try to be mindful of my own mental process and remind myself that my judgments are mine, and I should take responsibility for them. If I form a judgment about the wrongness of another person’s actions, I consciously append the phrase, “for me.” Think how much could be resolved if members of the Religious Right said things like “Abortion is wrong, for me.” “Homosexuality is wrong, for me.” Because, then the solution is simple. Don’t have gay sex or abortions. This is the difference between judgment and discernment.
If I find that my value system is in conflict with others, I must make the conscious decision about whether or not I am comfortable having an ongoing relationship with them, because I have learned through bitter experience, that I cannot control other people. I can only make choices for myself. I can only set appropriate boundaries, and leave people to their own choices, experiences, and life-learning. So the choice is not to make them wrong, but to accept that their choices are wrong and uncomfortable for me. As long as their behavior does not materially imperil others, and is based in the consensual exercise of free will, it is not my business, or the business of the wider community.
I choose not to sit in judgment of other people because to do so is to undervalue their state of wholeness, and in doing so, I would sacrifice my own wholeness, and become enmeshed in their experience. I cease to be a whole person addressing another whole person. There is an ancient Hindu greeting, “Namaste.” It means literally, “bow me you.” It is usually idiomatically translated as some version of “The divine in me bows to the divine in you,” to address an entire cultural context of respect for the equality of beings as expressions of universal wholeness. So, in the spirit of Namaste, I humbly submit these thoughts for your consideration.
