I think by intriguing I meant something like 'sent my mind in so many different directions at the same time' that I wanted to find some word to capture that reaction generally instead of writing a book. One of those directions was to look for how that question might apply to and be answered by me which lead to a realization this could could easily be a can of words a subject requiring a lot of introspection and self confrontation, in short, the the kind of places in thought where things go bump in the night. But in keeping with a piece of advise contained in a saying I often quote, 'in the sea there are treasures beyond compare but safety to be found ashore, I figured the easy thing to do world be to pass your question by. So my reply was in part to draw TH's attention to that, that he would miss the opportunity you offered.
As to why you say this is the most basic, fundamental thing to always ask yourself when you are inclined to tell someone else they are wrong, would make a much better topic to discuss, in my opinion, than the topic of this thread. No insult to TH intended. I have no problem with the topic at hand.
Anyway, the irony for me here is that what you refer to as 'basic and fundamental' I find to be pretty amazingly. I would expect almost nobody to say such a thing and I am rather curious as to why you do. I would say that nobody ever says things like you just did because questions like that get avoided like the plague. They, far from being basic, are non existent. Your question opens the door to chaos and uncertainty.
Of course, I agree with you that such a question should be basic but because of rarity certainly isn't. So for me that shifts my attention to question why seeking an answer to it is so rare. Here I supply my usual answer to everything, namely, we can't ask because of what a true answer would require as to what we really feel and that is the last thing we will ever be willingly to do. The effort requires a massive excavation, the hero's journey of legend, a sword, a mirror and a dragon the direct beholding of which would turn the hero to stone.
I actually don't agree with myself on this one. After I wrote each of my responses here, it gave me something of an internal panic to review my own behavior with actively considering the question. And the results are mixed.
But I stopped judging myself pretty quickly. What I stated turned out to be an expression of a moral ideal. The way I see it at least,
moralism is one way to defend against psychic conflict, and it's often a limiting one which pushes to categorize people as either good or bad. And it's a particularly limiting when you fear your own amorality.
So I'll restate my observation about the question. I think it's fundamental that, when someone judges another, they face a conflict in judging themselves in order to justify their judgment of another. When the person they are judging is different in a way they are unable to mentalize, how can they be certain they judge themselves fairly?
I'd say now it's better to state that the
conflict is fundamental. Everyone deep down fears they are nothing -- that they are hypocrites ready to be exposed and rendered worthless. That is the truth regardless of whether people in general are anywhere close to this awareness. But since the conflict is there, it must be overcome in some way in order to contain that fear from escaping and overwhelming them.
I will say that, as a person moves closer to awareness of such a conflict in their own mental processes, that opens the door to discover more about the self and the other, which might lead to results someone judges as "good".
I will comment here that one of the fundamental principles I have applied to my study of how the mind works -- something I have never explicitly been taught to do but have seen expressions of similar conclusions -- is that, while people's minds work in ways which are irrational, if the way in which people's minds are working is ubiquitous, then the problem is that you have simply failed to make sense of it.
To that end, if a great number of people facing the same conflict choose to find ways to avoid awareness of that conflict altogether, then it must be that reasoning exists why doing so is "good".
So from following this exchange with you, I am concluding that my responses signaled to you awareness of this conflict within you, and you have some will to explore the ways you and others approach it. Perhaps you are now a tiny bit more free than you were previously.
I will say that something else I have observed which I'm not sure anyone has actually formally taught me is that, when the conditions of someone's life and interactions with others make sense to them, they have a tendency to come to the conclusion that this is the way things are, have always been, and always will be. It's my personal hypothesis that the lack of people incorporating awareness of this conflict at this moment in history is not a good depiction of how it has always been, nor is it a good depiction of who the people who are acting that way are. It is merely the most functional way their minds have determined that they should be for the circumstances of now.