I recognize within myself condemnation of whole categories of people, and how my posture towards individuals that are members of a certain category is a lot more aggressive and unforgiving. Condemnation is the removal of humanity as one of the variables from a human. Pre-judgement, it wouldn’t take so much evidence to see an individual or group favourably, but after condemnation, they need to prove themselves beyond doubt to be seen favourably in the future. Their ideas are rejected, their humanity and kindness are seen with suspicion, and conflicting evidence to oppose the narrative needs to be overwhelming for your opinions to have a chance of changing.

The problem is, and this is the real kicker: we allow ourselves to do this because we can endlessly construct arguments for our judgement. We think that rationalizing an idea or opinion is a good enough reason to hold that idea. It’s the spirit of argumentative rationalization that came from the Greeks, or maybe from the scientific method psychologized during the last several centuries in the West. It’s most clearly present in the house of commons, in Canada and the UK. I mean, does it get any more obvious than this image:

Two opposing political sides, all dressed the same way, all have the same argumentative posture, but sit opposing each other with a divide in the middle.

And the icing on the cake is the speaker in the middle, through which all interactions are mediated. The opposing sides don’t even speak to each other! They are not trusted to! On one hand, the speaker ensures some sort of order and civility. But at what cost? The opinions that the two sides have of each other aren’t properly expressed. They suppress their true feelings and try to direct them at each other with increasingly passive-aggressive comments. So the true thoughts of the people don’t ever show. This insistence on verbal and physical civility, when enforced in the ‘you’re not allowed to call them that’ fashion, creates a real divide between the inner thoughts and the outer expressions. And the outer expressions are further separated from the other side by the speaker, through which the outer expressions are routed. None of these problems would be a particularly big deal if these rules were only part of the interaction. But they’re the entire interaction, and individuals adapt their behaviour to account for this structure. And in the end? A spectacle.

The tribalism is absurdly obvious. No one will explicitly say it, but the spirit of interaction is combative. We are here, you are there. We believe this (and if you’re a part of WE you better support us on this), and you believe the opposite. And even if there is agreement about most things, it is implicit and not a problem, so not discussed. It’s not made explicit and celebrated together. What the fuck, why? Why don’t these two opposing political parties, before going into this hall to condemn and shout at each other, first connect through their shared beliefs? Their shared Canadian values. The people in these groups are more similar than different, and the physical divide creates a psychological divide. I would say that it should be a requirement that the people on both sides need to have a physically embodied relationship of love and understanding towards each other.

This is what the church was for. These people would have seen each other under the same roof, under the same law - the law of God to supersede the motivations and arguments of the house of commons. Imagine these people who shout at each other, what the interactions would look like if they all attended the same umbrella (a cathedral) where they all got down on their knees and gave up their judgements and hatred for each other, and aligned themselves with the highest good. Together, communally, able to embrace each other, cry with each other, and support each other with loving-kindness. Watch any debate in the house of commons, and imagine these people embracing each other and loving each other. You can’t! The image is absurd, a caricature.

Even better if they all brawled with each other like in Jiu-Jitsu, not for the purpose of hurting each other, but specifically to demonstrate whether they would hurt each other if given the opportunity. And to allow their inner thoughts and feelings to embody physically and be witnessed by all. If someone tries to hurt another member physically in Jiu-Jitsu, everyone can tell. They shouldn’t be debating with each other, pretending to be civil, when in their hearts lies malice. What would the debates look like if that WAS the case?

At the same time, it could be much worse. If they all came in from different entrances, or if they were not there in person. If the whole thing was indirectly run, say, over zoom or some shit like that. The humanity of the other side is stripped further and further, until all that remains in the opposing side is the evil within, projected through a narrower and narrower channel of communication, allowing the imagination to run wild with ideas about what the other side really thinks and why.

And I know how this sounds. Hippie ideas about peace and love, and how these things never work in the real world. I am skeptical of unnatural implementations of peace and love, and whatever ideas I may come up with, are unlikely to be accepted by individuals on either side. We don’t want to stop vilifying others because then it means that the evil we have identified as being ‘somewhere’ must therefore exist elsewhere. Maybe even within ourselves. The exercise is very simple: what if they’re right about vilifying you. If you’re right, sometimes, about them being bad in some sort of way, and they’re sometimes right about you. Or even worse, what if you’re both usually right. That means that at least sometimes, there is an element of evil within you. If you accept the level of argument happening, then you can either be defensive and tribal and say no, the evil is all within the other. But if you are Christian, you say no, the evil is within me. Matthew 7:5, Jesus said “You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

And if you’d like to take it one layer behind this level of analysis, you’d say there is no evil unless I specify it. Unless I condemn it as being evil and attach those qualities to it. Then I create a representation of that evil within me and interact with it as if it is evil, and its external manifestation will present itself to me henceforth as evil. We should actively seek to recognize the validity of the different sides, truly and deeply. Not the ‘understanding why they’re wrong’ kind of recognition, but the ‘this makes perfect sense to me and I am unable to condemn them for it’ kind of recognition. But don’t stop there. Having understood their position from their perspective, and from yours, move beyond the idea that one truth must mean another isn’t true, and into the realm of paradoxes and contradictions. In the land of contradictions, we absolutely must seek a deeper truth that encompasses the contradiction and allows it to exist peacefully.

Previous essays can be found here:

decodingthemind.substack.com

Previous podcast episodes: