There are many expressions of this.  Sadly, critical thinking is always sacrificed and replaced with cynicism.  The cynic portrays the holder of opposing ideas (the "opponent") as being not only always wrong, but in addition, always bad. He casts the motive behind every idea, action or thought of opponents as immoral, corrupt and criminal, regardless of how admirable the motive may really be.  Cynics often seem to be mind readers, the ease with which they make assertions about the feelings and motives of others.  Truth is not the point for the cynic.  He magnifies the negatives and filters out all of the positive aspects of those with whom he disagrees.  He lives by innuendo, unsubstantiated charge and implication.  Expression of fear or expression of love?

In a William Raspberry column I read sometime ago, I came across a quote by Teresa Heinz (wife of Senator John Kerry) who, I thought, expressed this mindset very well. She was describing political partisans, who in their insistence of being right, exhibited mean-spirited, hate driven behavior.  She characterized them as:

"...critical of everything, impossible to please, indifferent to nuance, incapable of compromise. They laud perfection but oddly never see it in anyone but themselves. They are right all the time, eager to say I told you so, and relentlessly unforgiving...They corrode self-confidence and
good will; they rule by fear and ridicule."

Seeking affirmations of their beliefs, certainists prefer associations with those who think alike ("the preaching to the choir" environment).  They crave authority and seek leaders--particularly those who will assure them (and patronize them) that they are right--for deep down is the self-doubt that has propelled them to the need for certainty to begin with.

One cannot be certain he is right if he doesn't have ready answers for all issues.  Ambiguity invites questions, rather than certitude.  At it's extremes, the outward expression of the need for certitude results in fanaticism.  Nobel Peace Prize winner, Elie Wiesel, an authority on the subject, described fanaticism as being excess conviction.  He wrote: (Note: I have selected passages from his full text.)

"...an idea becomes fanatical the moment it minimizes or excludes all the ideas that confront or oppose it. In religion it is dogmatism; in politics, totalitarianism. The fanatic deforms and pollutes reality. He never sees things and people as they are; his hatred makes him fabricate idols and images so ugly that he can become indignant about them. In his eyes he and only he, has the right to put his ideas into action, which he will do at the first opportunity.
...My experience is that the fanatic hides from true debate. The concept of dialogue is alien to him. He is afraid of pluralism and diversity; he abhors learning. He knows how to speak in monologues only, so debate is superfluous to him.
...A fanatic has answers, not questions; certainties, not hesitations. In dictatorial regimes, doubts were considered crimes against the state...Nietzsche expressed it this way: 'Madness is the result not of uncertainty but certainty'.
Substitute the word fanaticism for the word madness and the equation holds."   Parade Magazine article by Elie Wiesel, 4-19-'92

Fanaticism could be viewed as the individual visiting the pain (expressed in rage and hate) of his memories of love rejections upon others. However, while this may describe the most outward expressions of fear, the attacks are also turned inward upon the self, whether the individual expresses them outwardly or not.  Fear or love?

The significance of thinking style is also recognized within the field of psychotherapy.  In fact, one of the most prominent types of psychotherapy is Cognitive Therapy. Its whole precept is that the symptoms of depression and anxiety (and others) are related to distorted thinking that, in part, leads the patient to feel inferior and hopeless; it's aim is to help the patient recognize this and provide him exercises to correct his thinking.  Thought--where the rubber meets the road.  But here, we are interested in more than psychological mechanics.  We are reaching toward our Higher Selves and remembering that we are subject to the conventional wisdom of this world only to the extent that we choose to be.  We are recognizing the role of energy and attraction in our experience.  This is beyond the scope of conventional therapy.

Are you beginning to see that when you observe all of this fear energy at the workplace or in your neighborhood or amongst family members, it isn't something that you just have to bear as part of your life?  Can you see it as manifestations of mass conscious thought which you can choose to take or leave?  Leaving means vibrating differently from those thoughts you don't prefer by focusing upon those you do.

We can't control other's insistence upon being right but let's realize for ourselves that we don't have to be right because there's nothing to protect--no threat from outside.  It's silly when you think about it.  Why do we care that someone else's reality is different from ours when we can simply vibrate differently?  So I implore you to give up all ideas of certainty.  Is there anything wrong with saying I believe what I believe but others may see it differently; I could be mistaken but that's the way I see it now, or, I might change my mind at a later date?  If you insist upon certainty about something, I urge you to be certain about your infinite nature.

If we can accept the idea that there is no static reality, we can then acknowledge the limits of our own view.  And this doesn't disturb us because we realize that it's always changing anyway.  The more we accept this truth, the more we are open to exploring and considering other ideas.  Quite soon we begin to appreciate the grand adventure of life before us.  So ironically, the more we acknowledge the limits of our own worldview, the more we open our perspective to the truth of our limitlessness; and conversely, the more we are certain of our rightness, the more cloistered we become and the more limited our perspective.

Religion / Culture / Society / Politics

Race consciousness is a stew consisting of, among other elements, religion, culture, society and politics-a recipe for fixations upon issues of morality--especially other's morality.  There are always those who observe evil and insist there is a severe moral decline unlike any other time. Often they assert that it's all due to an erosion of the "Biblical foundations" of our nation and insist the only thing that can save us is a return to them. Many speak of engagement in a cultural war.

Clearly, this is an example of a personal reality that is not toward love, unity and inner peace; its focus is upon other. The supposed enemies in the war are those who don't have these fears (thus, immoral).  If that fits you, you may feel uncomfortable or defensive when you hear the criticisms of moralists.  You may feel the need to dispute them.

Actually, disputing the claims of another belief system that it is the only right one isn't a bad idea.  But I hasten to add that this is not the same thing as trying to quash it or saying it is wrong for those who hold it. You need not even dispute the claims to the critic.  You need not go out of your way to defend your views or make the case to others who might scoff (even though their own views may be built upon quicksand). No, the value is that YOU gain a perspective of the truth for YOURSELF, so that YOU can make the case to YOURSELF, so that you don't allow the old crystallized beliefs to place YOU in self-doubt about pursuing YOUR OWN ideas.  This sort of disputation is in line with the purpose of this section--correcting the false beliefs we may hold about ourselves and obtaining a more realistic view of the ones from the outside.

Justification For Attack

We know that criticism and attack are based in fear. And we know that fear results from the illusion of separation. There are beliefs about such things as work, (the Protestant work ethic), about intolerance of "bad" behavior, about money (it represents evil and greed), patriotism, tradition, etc. In addition, are the pressures to conform. There is the exhortation to defend a host of ideas--honor, good name, mother, family, family values, country, the faith and more.  Then there are pressures to be politically one way or another, to criticize secularism and / or liberalism as evil, to stand up for what's right, to stand on principle (in fact to value a strong stance regardless).  Many of these calls to stand and to defend are really ruses to attack those holding different ideas. Love or fear?

Certainists emphasize absolute moral standards that all must follow. They refer to disregard of them as "relativism"--a prevalent subject, frequently raised in political and religious discourse-and thus worth examining.

Absolute Morality vs. Relativism

To begin, the term relativism, is almost always used contemptuously. We might more appropriately refer to those labeled as "relativists", as non-absolutists; one never hears so-called relativists referring to themselves as such or espousing a moral view that they call relativism.

What is meant by the word?  Most obviously, it's portrayed as the flip side of absolutism--the idea of absolute moral standards handed down by an authoritative, rule-obsessed God. Relativism, therefore, is seen as holding that all moral judgments are subjective, i.e., determined by each individual for him / herself, and subject to change at any moment.  To absolutists, this amounts to no moral values at all. In their opinion, this can only lead to a corrupt and immoral society (Today's absolutists assert this has been the case since the 1960s).

Absolute moral standards are reassuring for those inclined toward certainty for it removes the ambiguity (and ensuing discomfort) of being unclear about what is right or wrong.  It's all prescribed.  Consequently, there need not be disagreements over such issues.  Having to think and reason and make personal decisions about these matters is not necessary.  In addition, objective moral standards allow absolutists to claim for themselves moral righteousness, a justification they utilize to judge and condemn those who fall to temptations and get caught in "moral" lapses. Absolutists eagerly leap to the task of holding "sinners" accountable, demanding admission of guilt, pleas for forgiveness, public repentance and punishment. Absolutism is a contrivance aimed at controlling other / outer.  Absolutists have little tolerance of those who can tolerate ambiguity, sneering at non-absolutists whether or not they behave morally and responsibly regardless of obedience to absolutes.  Love or fear?

When many agree upon static views, one result is a collection of inflexible rules of conduct.  So morality becomes a matter of following the rules, evil infringing upon them.  There is nothing cosmic or spiritual with this approach.  It's interesting, isn't it?  Certainty about one's own reality leads to an outer concern about other's takes upon reality.  This is why the outer focused approaches to God, especially in their more fundamentalist applications, are very much concerned about the beliefs and actions of others.  But more to the point--absolute morality is not about love.  At the beginning of this article, we said that there are two focuses of attention-love or fear. Absolute morality is a consequence of a focus upon the latter.

But absolutists understandably ask, from whence moral standards if not from an ultimate authority?  Well as mentioned in earlier articles, the laws of the universe (the working of cause and effect and the law of attraction) are far better and more effective at achieving loving behavior by helping us to recognize and correct our errors (sin?) than are absolute moral standards.  We will discuss this in greater detail in coming articles.

End Part 4; Go to Part 5

Copyright © 2001-2008, William Gunderson
All Rights Reserved

No part of this article may be reproduced for distribution without the express permission and consent of the author. To obtain permission, contact the author via email.