I just read a blog post from an Independent Field blogger who pronounced “judgmentalism” a fault, and discouraged Scientologists from being judgmental (a recurring theme in his blog). The argument goes that being judgmental is supposedly bad because it cuts us off from the fruits of observation, closes our minds to alternative ideas, and makes us arrogant.
Lack of good judgment is part of the reason why David Miscavige is where he is today. Too many high and low ranking Scientologists failed to execute good judgment and cut him off at the knees when he first got started, and thousands of times since then. Thus, he continues to destroy the group we were all once enthusiastic members of.
Eschewing judgment blurs the lines of right and wrong. Discouraging it is a trap.
Here’s an example of how this happens and the results. Actors are typically taught to suspend judgment of the characters they play. Regardless of the innate evil or worthlessness of a character, they are encouraged to find the “good” in the character and try to explain away his flaws, while playing him in a role. Otherwise, it would be difficult for them to realistically play the role. This type of thinking then tends to become generalized in the minds of actors. Witness a quote from Gwyneth Paltrow from the UK’s Daily Mail.
“Life is complicated and long and I know people that I respect and admire and look up to who have had extramarital affairs.
“It’s like we’re flawed– we’re human beings and sometimes you make choices that other people are going to judge. That’s their problem but I think that the more I live my life, the more I learn not to judge people for what they do.”
Put aside that Hollywood is a cesspool of vice and narcissism. Put aside whether you like or dislike Gyneth Paltrow. Clearly her judgment is impaired. What if these people she likes and admires were, instead, molesting their own children? Would she still refuse to judge their actions? At what point would the suspension of judgment end? How severe would the act have to be before Paltrow again chose to judge the person committing the act? How would she make that distinction, and how would she justify the line which had been crossed? And what would be the difference if she were playing the role of the molester (or criminal or killer) in a film?
(Update A notice in yesterday’s (26 March 2014) newspaper indicated Gwyneth Paltrow and her husband, Coldplay (band) frontman Chris Martin are separating/divorcing. As with all Hollywood divorces, the reasons are unspecified, and until the tell-all book comes out decades from now, we won’t know, if then. But we can speculate. Anyone voting for infidelity as a significant factor?)
Judgment allows us to determine that an act is right or wrong. We use our moral and ethical codes in conjunction with our judgment in determining the goodness or badness of an act and the person who committed it. It can be argued that, using infinity-valued logic, it’s absurd to label things categorically right or wrong. Nice try. There’s also the Equation of the Optimum Solution: The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number of Dynamics. And I’m sorry, no matter what you think, infidelity is still indicative of a condition of Treason on the Second Dynamic. And this condition will invariably and inevitably pull down the condition of the other dynamics.
I’m sure David Miscavige has all kinds of “reasons” why he does things. But reasons only occur after an action takes place, as a way of justifying the action. (Look it up in LRH references.) The reasons don’t matter. The actions do. It doesn’t matter how the guy was treated as a child or how much abuse he suffered as a result of being a short person. He’s still a bona fide 2-1/2 percenter, and his actions prove it. It doesn’t even take very good judgment to make that determination.
It will also be argued that, as an auditor, you do not sit in judgment of your PC, no matter what he’s done. True. As an auditor, your job is to sit there comfortably, perceive, and get the auditing question answered.
But we’re not talking about auditing here. We’re talking about living life and deciding whether someone is worth associating with, whether a situation is worth getting into, whether a group is a good one to join. All these things require the exercise of judgment.
Suspend judgment, and you’re suddenly unable to definitively say whether someone or something is good or bad, right or wrong. It has the same practical effect as being reasonable. In fact, judgment could perhaps be defined as the inverse of reasonableness.
This tendency to eschew judging people and situations has become an epidemic in this society. The result is a lot of insanity. And the ones who most loudly proclaim the unfairness of judgmentalism are precisely the ones who most deserve to be judged. The idea that being judgmental cripples you mentally or emotionally is a ploy to get you to agree to suspending judgment. After all, you don’t want to appear to others to be rigid and blind, do you? Of course not, because what other people think of you is so important, right?
The fact is that exercising proper judgment need have no effect on whether one can properly observe or entertain new ideas. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
There is something which might be mistaken for judgmentalism, which is an entirely different phenomenon: the service facsimile. The service facsimile serves the person and comprises three things: 1. self right, 2. others wrong, and 3) sympathy for self. In Scientology circles, you see this most readily among Sea Org personnel. And it looks exactly like what you might expect. 1. “We Sea Org personnel are superior to other Scientologists.” 2. “Those other Scientologists can’t cut it/are too cowardly/too weak to be Sea Org.” 3. “Why, look at all we have to endure as Sea Org members.” Some staff have a variation of this, and oppterm with public as a result. And some Scientologists have this type of service fac with regard to wogs (non-Scientologists). These are all unfortunate, but they are handleable with the proper tech. And they are not the same as being judgmental. And any well-trained auditor should know the difference, and be able to spot a service facsimile immediately.
The fact is that most people who advocate for the suspension of judgmentalism are really saying, “Don’t judge me.” And that implicit entreaty reveals a string to be pulled. Why shouldn’t we judge you?