Judgment is generally defined as the forming of an opinion, usually from material evidence or any of the phenomenological senses used to form that opinion. (For the purpose of this post, I am omitting the legal and the religious definitions.) As opinions, judgments are neither right nor wrong, good nor bad.
It is important to note that judgments are separate and distinct from morality. Similarly, a decree of judgment is not a decree of value. Failing to distinguish these differences runs the judge into a high risk pretense of hypocrisy.
Indeed, the hypocrisy invalidates the opinion so formed. In other words, judgments based on systems of morality and/or valuations are intrinsically invalid because by definition, judgments are opinions. As such, their basis is the phenomenological evidence given to us by our senses – our highly subjective senses. The phenomenological are separate and distinct from morality and from valuation.
Valuation is generally defined as the act of appraising the worth, quality, or excellence of something. Because they are based on an appraisal/value system, they are – unlike judgments – not opinions. However, like judgments, valuations are separate and distinct from morality.
The pivotal factor for a valuation is its appraisal/value system. Without definition of the system, the valuation itself becomes negated ineffective and meaningless. It becomes an empty statement until the system is so defined. If the system is based on morality, the valuation so formed becomes invalid. Again, the two are mutually exclusive.
Quite often, judgment – especially directed at another person’s character, work, action, behavior, or decision, etc. – is mistaken for a moral valuation of the individual himself. The same can be said of valuations. Especially in today’s hypermediated e-globalized climate, it is critically necessary to avoid miscommunications with an unwaveringly tenacious due diligence.
An imperative for such avoidance is in the separation between judgments and valuations of the action, object, behavior, etc. from the acting individual. The key here is distinction between the subject qua the individual and the object qua his action, behavior, etc. And key to this distinction is the extrication of all morality systems.
So now that the distinctions have been so identified, the questions become:
How do we maintain the distinctions?
How do we avoid miscommunication, especially when judgments/valuations are involved?
In the paradigm shift Infinite Potentiality Theory (IPT) proposes, the ultimate freedom of and from the self through realized creative potentiality mediates an alternate – direct and powerfully effective – avenue of the judgment/valuation avoidance. Shifting from a self-centered reality to an other-centered reality immediately enables the individual to be so liberated from all fetters of the erstwhile reality. When focused on an other-sensitivity and phenomenology, the individual seamlessly and effortlessly shifts away from pretense qua hypocrisy. Instead, s/he is ennobled to the other and this ennoblement is beauteous indeed.