I’m an advocate of sadness; feeling it fully, talking about it openly, allowing it to flow naturally, and reducing the stigma around doing those things.
I find that when we try to block our sadness or chase it away, it doesn’t stop or go away, and our efforts only serve to hold onto the feeling longer than is natural.
I have similar views of loneliness, grief over loss, anger, etc, and find that these feelings often go hand in hand, and/or lead into one another.
This morning my playlist shuffled across a beautifully poignant song that I haven’t heard in some time, and haven’t related to so deeply in a longer time. Living alone again for the first time in 19 years. A recent brush with a friend’s tragic loss. The song plays. Then something unexpected happens. I feel joy. All of those other feelings are transmuted into joy through the solidarity I feel with this Irish guy who wrote down some feelings to share with the world several years before I was even born.
“Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.” -Thomas Gray
But what of the cost of your ignorance on other people? If your blissful ignorance causes others to suffer, is it worth it to you? What does the exchange rate look like? Does your small amount of bliss cost others a large amount of suffering?
“Out of sight, out of mind”
But is it out of existence? Or is it in the sight and in the minds of those it harms?
“What you don’t know can’t hurt you.”
But can it hurt others? And can it furtively hurt you as well?
Before we learn anything about someone, there is only one part to them:
The part we don’t know about them
As we learn things about them, they break into three parts:
The part we don’t know about them
The part we know and understand (the ways in which they make sense to us)
The part we know and DON’T understand (the ways in which they don’t make sense to us)
As we consider the second and third parts, we have a natural tendency to shift toward labeling those parts “right” and “wrong.”
The part we don’t know about them
The part we understand –becomes–> The part that’s right with them
The part we don’t understand –becomes–> The part that’s wrong with them
This is called “being judgmental.”
What if instead of shifting the part we don’t understand toward a judgment of “wrong” we leave it as it is? It’s simply the part of a person that we don’t understand.
This is called “being curious.”
Curiosity allows us to learn and grow. Judgments close the door on those things.
This isn’t to say that we don’t understand anything; that we can’t know anything; that nothing is right or wrong. I feel very confident about my stance on many controversial topics, like climate change, the supernatural, and whether or not allowing split-tunnel VPN connections is a security risk; and I view these things as having “right” and “wrong” components.
Even so, are people right or wrong? Or do they hold a belief or idea which we see as being right or wrong? Are they those beliefs and ideas? Or are beliefs more like clothing that people wear? The clothing people wear might say things about them. The beliefs people hold might say things about them. But are they really those beliefs? Or would it be more accurate to say that their beliefs are a separate thing from them?
I think it’s important to make corrections to inaccurate information, erroneous beliefs, and harmful ideas. But I find much more value (and success) in viewing those THINGS as right or wrong, and not the PEOPLE who carry them around. When we criticize or correct information, ideas, and beliefs, it becomes a data- and evidence-based assessment and discussion. What’s accurate or inaccurate? It’s not personal. When we criticize or correct people, it becomes a value-based competition. Who’s right or wrong? It is personal.
When I find someone who disagrees with me on a topic, I don’t have to label them as being wrong. I can sternly disagree with the idea, belief, or information, while politely retaining my curiosity about the person, and simply viewing that part of them, the part which believes those things, as a part of them which I do not understand.
To be clear, I also find great value in remaining curious about ideas, beliefs, and information, but I find it more immediately helpful to indemnify the people who carry them.
Try it sometime. The next time you think (or say), “you’re wrong,” try exchanging that thought for “I don’t understand why you believe that idea, which I believe is wrong.” Remain curious about the person. Talk about the idea.
When we consider the reasons we make mistakes, or do whatever else we do, we can immediately see that those mistakes were largely the consequence of things that we didn’t choose, like our upbringings, mental capacities, physical aptitudes, desires, etc.
Even for those things that we did choose, it’s just another thought experiment to ask ourselves why we chose them, and by performing this repeatedly, ultimately we can see that our own choices are entirely out of the picture.
I do believe in taking responsibility, however. It seems reasonable to hold ourselves and others responsible for things that are our/their responsibility. That’s just about making life work better though. Sharing space with other humans. Functionality. Reducing suffering. I’m big on responsibility.
But fault? I’m not sure that I see either the value or the accuracy in assigning it.
You know, similar thought experiments can be done on other people. When we also see them as simply doing what they do because of all the causes and conditions that led up to them doing it, and that ultimately they didn’t choose to be the way that they are either, we can simultaneously feel more compassion for them AND not put up with their bullshit as much.
The way we treat grizzly bears. We would all do well to treat ourselves and others like we do grizzly bears, or other creatures which we already look at and think of as simply following their programming.
It’s not their fault.
Reader response: This would save lots of money as well… when a grizzly bear gets a taste for blood and go after men they are simply put down and not locked up and baby sat for the rest of their lives… I’m sure that’s not what you meant and I’m only kidding… for the most part😉
My response: Yes, of course I don’t mean exactly like grizzly bears–unless of course a person behaved exactly like a grizzly bear. But generally what I mean is we should treat people more like we treat grizzly bears. In the scenario you described, when the decision is made to put down the grizzly bear (or when they are relocated for human safety), the feelings and attributes attached to it are compassion, sadness, wisdom, safety, etc. Whereas if it were a human with grizzly bear programming there would be hatred, anger, revenge, reaction, inflicting suffering, etc., plus possible guilt and shame afterward.
I appreciate this perspective. It’s not about religion vs. non-religion. It’s about persecution vs. acceptance of people with differing beliefs. Even if you’re religious, consider the way that this philosophy protects you from OTHER religions imposing their different beliefs upon you.
And if you’re in Utah, and belong to the majority religion, consider not supporting attempts to legislate your beliefs onto others.
“I CAN’T DO THAT, IT’S AGAINST MY RELIGION.” Perfectly acceptable. That is religious freedom and I will fight for you to have that right until the day I die. “YOU CAN’T DO THAT, IT S AGAINST MY RELIGION.” Those are fighting words. That is persecution through religion, and I will speak out against it and fight it until the day I die.
