I think that can vary from person to person.
My previous self would say that it's impossible to not judge things in such manner. But, in recent times I've been experimenting with and exploring the concept of non-judgment and trying to understand it better and the popular argument I've heard is that people try to use the word "observe" instead and in a neutral manner to sort of expand the possibilities involved instead of to narrow the possibilities.
If you can theoretically observe without judging you leave room for more growth and learning instead of sort of "cementing in stone" a given subject or idea.
If you believe something is 100% the truth you eliminate all other possibilities and I am trying to keep my mind open to the possibilities.
Good question. I would say it's probably something similar to how a child sees something be the child is taught what it means.
I heard a philosophy guy on YouTube recently quote some other ancient wisdom and say that if you teach a child the name of an animal the child will never again see that same animal.
Once we define things we put limitations upon them. Words hide more than they convey.
But, all of that isn't even a good enough answer because I just don't understand it well enough and I'm using words to explain such, lol...
I'm still trying to figure it out after arguing with New Agers about judging for a good portion of my life. I used to think it was impossible not to judge... Now, I'm trying to understand what some people mean when they say non-judgment and I don't have all the answers. I admit I just don't totally know and am experimenting and learning as I go.
Indeed, really good questions.
That "evil" is not real probably also implies that "good" is not real. The further one distances events from oneself in time and space, the less one thinks of them as evil or good, but as "happening as they happened". For example, that the stars collide in the cosmos, supernovas are created by powerful forces. Man does not associate this with anything bad or good if he refrains from imagining that he himself will one day be overcome or destroyed by such cosmic forces. In the same way, one cannot impute any good or evil intentions to the micro-cosms, the smallest particles in every body, whether organic or inorganic. Only man knows how to do such things, for example, by calling viruses "enemies" and creating a dilemma in which it is impossible to distinguish between humans and viral enemies. He dumps the baby out with the bathwater. Is that already "evil"? I would say no, it is merely a worldview based on the good-evil theme, born out of the malaise of awareness of oneself.
Observation rather than judgement is an ideal, you can have it.
However, it should be really clear that one can never absolutely live up to this ideal, but if this ideal did not exist, then the level would go even further in the direction of "judgement of goodness or evil", because the alternative, the deviation from these two terms, would be missing.
But you are right insofar as alternatives of something can only be found on the basis of the already existing terms. Where there is no original, nothing deviating from the original can be considered.
The point is that one can allow oneself to judge, but once one has made a judgement, one can also let go of it, instead of clinging to the hatred or accusation that commonly accompanies the judgement of others.
This "not letting go" is a problem, I think. In every encounter, two people recreate themselves every time, they influence each other and behave according to the views thrown at them, there is almost nothing you can do about it.
Whether an environment therefore develops into a primarily conflictual one is up to all the people involved in that environment, who are all at the same time the creators of their physical as well as mental environments. Nothing happens without this permanent creation of reality, in my eyes.
I would say that the moment Homo Sapiens came to consciousness of himself, and thereby became human, he has been a reality creator ever since, an ongoing process. A burden as well as an inspiration.
One can say that it would be better if there were no conflicts, but one can also say that this statement is wrong, because without conflicts humans would not be humans, but animals. Conflict can result in extremely intelligent decisions, as can the exact opposite (and everything in between). A certain acceptance that death, disease and struggle exist is, in my view, part of not going crazy.
Thanks for the thoughtful response @erh.germany
I tend to agree in regard to good being the duality of evil, however... I've heard the argument and I personally lean in the direction that "love is everything" even hate and evil can be considered a form of love though perhaps misguided, or twisted or lesser forms of such.
So, I'm open minded to the possibility that there is no good or evil, but there is love. I have been trying to distance myself from thinking I'm a good person though and just trying to be aware that I'm beyond all those labels and I can't even totally describe myself because I don't totally even know what or who I am... Heh.
Good point in regard to good and evil in natural examples like stars colliding or viruses.
It seems like a very subjective anthropomorphic type of thing.
It is true we can change our judgments, but it seems like that is much more rare and uncommon and than usually judgments are very solidified sorts of things.
I disagree a bit with what you said at the end because technically by both the modern and etymological definitions and the scientific understanding humans are animals and we are not separate from them.
We do appear to have much more intelligence in certain ways, but we are animals nonetheless. Animal essentially means "soul" or "spirit" and if aliens exist they would almost certainly be animals as well... Anything with a soul is an animal based on the definition of the words from my understanding.
But, yes in regard to conflict it's not all bad... Conflict can help us grow a lot. I think it's often about balance too much can be a problem and too little can, just the right amount! :)
yes, the lover and the hater are not very much apart from each other. People hate/oppose those people the most they find the greatest familiarities/overlaps with, is what I observe :) If you make the full circle, you end up with love.
It's a long path to be able to think of it as just labels. And not to dismiss them but to accept that we have, need and use them. But then to let go of them.
I am grateful that you say that you "try" to be aware that you are beyond labels and not that you already live by it. Is it or was it not a very strange, but at the same time funny experience to find that out?
Yes, judgements are solidified and sometimes they need to be, I think. Is it rare? I guess so. Let us work at this score :)
Oh yeah, true, too much conflict is like "Uargh!!" and to little like "yawn..."
I would agree and say that not only are we not separate from animals, but we are connected with everything earthly as well as otherworldly in a way for which it is difficult to find expressions except in art and poetry. However, and this is peculiar to us human beings, we do not find any other living being, apart from ourselves, that is so conscious of itself and suffers so severely from this consciousness of itself.
No fish that we have ever seen emerge from its habitat and play the harp, no bird that glides through the air ever invent a car, no dolphin climb Mount Everest. It may escape us because we don't speak dolphin, fish or bird and what inventions the animals have devised. We will not know if they have awarded Nobel Prizes among themselves or opened nightclubs. We simply anthropomorphise everything we see and observe, love and hate. Because we are so much human. That which we have in common with the animalistic we want to suppress, you can see it in everything that is suppressed as spontaneous sensations: angry screaming, maniacal crying, unrestrained laughter, nakedness, etc. This schizophrenia, the agony of suffering in the consciousness of oneself, is what distinguishes us from the animal, I think. What torments the soul is understood by every human being, is it not? But what soul actually is, no one can explain. The torment is one thing, because one feels strange, so often alone in this world. And yet there is a great joy, spontaneity, bliss, tending to be in younger still carefree people (though not the rule), that we can laugh at paradoxes immediately, this humour. The schizophrenic is the normal, because every human being can put himself into countless characters, otherwise we wouldn't even know what a character is, couldn't follow a play or a novel. This being torn between the individuality of the self and the group, I don't think animals as we see and observe them in the world have such split personalities.
Yes, in the sense of animated, ensouled, you could take that generic term and it wouldn't be wrong. But definitions are the only thing where we can create contrasts, so we need them and we say to ourselves "we humans" and not "we animals", simply because we are not :)