Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00406)

>Thanks to Liesel and Ann for enlightening comments on the theme
>of Theosophists by definition being non-judgmental.  Yes,
>developing compassion works against the judgmental reflex, as
>does seeing beyond our own set of rules.  Both of these, as
>well as recent comments by Jerry S., may tie into the Jungian
>distinction between judgment and perception.
>
>The perceptual functions of sensation and intuition are ways we
>experience reality; the judgment functions of thinking and
>feeling are ways we evaluate what we experience.  At one level,
>the idea that the very nature of a Theosophist is not to judge
>seems meaningless, since we all are constantly thinking and
>feeling about what we sense and intuit.

Art: I agree with you entirely.  We will always judge, that is
form conclusions about what we perceive.  What Jung was
undoubtedly getting at was that the way we form judgement is
prodominantly throught the value of logical consistency
(Thinking)or through the value of human relatedness.  (Feeling).
But it should be emphasized that we all use both at different
times even though some are more adept at one of the functions
than others.  I notice that Daniel and Jerry E.  are sometimes
very good thinkers and that Liesel and Jerry S effectively
evaluate through the feeling function.  What has to be avoided is
taking what is essentially a typology and making it a description
of reality, that is making reality a stereo-type.  So sometime
Daniel or Jerry E will decide given the context that feeling
evalutation might serve better and Liesel and Daniel would decide
that logic might prove worthy on occasion.

I think the mistake many people make is to take Judgment as
judgementalism.  One is a function the other is a flaw - I admire
the function and detest the flaw in myself and others.

>But the fourfold model helps me catch a glimpse of what the
>writer might mean, in that our perceptions are terribly limited
>and constrained, and yet our judgments tend to be wildly
>excessive in relation to them.  We can't see the inside of a
>person's body, and thus have no way to know how their physical
>condition might be related to their behavior.  We can't see
>their past lives, and know what karmic burden they are under.
>We can't see their future, so we can't know how what they are
>doing is leading towards it.  What we can perceive of others is
>just a tiny cross-section in space and time of a vast process
>of individuation.

In this paragraph I think Paul while rational enough is
nontheless using the feeling function effectively.  You are
stressing the limits of logic in application to the human being.

>Yet, even though we know how limited our perceptions are, when
>we get into high gear with our thinking and feeling, we
>forget.  We are so carried away by our thoughts and feelings in
>response to what the person did or said, that we become
>inflated with the idea that we are fully qualified to judge
>them.  And when the data are missing, we just start making up
>facts that fit with our judgments.  (I recently exemplified
>this with Bazzer/ULT somewhat).

What I read here is that we use judgement without perception
without taking in enough data to complete the picture.  This
group has been infamous for that IMHO.  It will take a long time
to get to know each other to read our cyber speak.

>Maybe the thing that has been most difficult about responses to
>my book is when people just invent facts to fit their
>judgments.  For example, a letter to the Times Book Review
>complained that the book, like many others "has gleefully
>bludgeoned the reputation of this woman [HPB]...invents new
>ones [canards]..[reviewers and authors] take the same smirking
>tone...The idea that she had genuine psychic powers or that she
>had received instruction from unseen masters is apparently
>intolerable to these writers."  It's very hard to imagine
>anyone PERCEIVING gleeful bludgeoning of HPB's reputation, or a
>smirking tone, or intolerance for the idea of her psychic
>powers or relations with Masters, in the book, because they are
>NOT THERE.  But perhaps the letter writer just got into a
>judgmental mood, reactive to EVERY book about HPB he didn't
>like, and in that mood felt fully qualified to condemn any
>particular example unread.

Another real possibility is that the reviewer couldn't resist the
temptation to be an intellectual smart ass and impress us all
with their witty cynicism.  I see that a lot in movie reveiws
too.

People do that stuff all the time.
>More seriously, people can read something and see motives and
>attitudes that are simply not there, because they have programmed
>themselves to find what "proves" their attitude right.

Sometimes the motive is, as I suggested above, even lower than
that.  It is just the need for the human ego to be noticed
somehow; being critical gets noticed alot now a days.  eh? I get
the sense that the actual writing, work of art, music etc is
actually just a aesthetic rochshack (spelling) test for critics.

>The trick about responding to this is to avoid judging back in
>retaliation.  You have to realize that you know nothing at all
>about the person, or his motives, or background, or karma, and
>therefore you can only perceive what is immediately present,
>and say "I don't understand, therefore I cannot judge."

On the other hand when you have taken in the perception with love
and care and a contemplative attitude you may form judgments that
can enhance the work and lives of other people so lets not be too
down on judgement as a function but firmly down on judgementalism
as an attitude of a blighted soul.

Art