Rumi’s Field: Outflanking Right and Wrong

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.” ~Rumi

From childhood, we are taught to see the world through a lens of morality: actions are right or wrong, people are moral or immoral, things are good or bad. This framework shapes our laws, our relationships, and even our inner dialogue.

It is a natural human instinct—to label, to sort, to judge—as a way to navigate the chaos of existence. Yet, Rumi suggests that this very instinct, while practical, limits us. It builds walls where bridges could stand. It traps us in cycles of blame, shame, and separation where open doorways of openness, interdependence, and interconnectedness should stand.

The “ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing” Rumi speaks of are not just personal beliefs but the collective constructs we inherit—cultural norms, religious indoctrinations, and societal expectations. They are lines we draw in the sand, defending with a fervor, often at the cost of understanding each other. In this sense, Rumi’s field lies beyond the battlefield of ideology, a place where the scales of judgment are laid down and replaced with swords of inquisition.

Rumi’s Field of Interconnectedness:

“Everything is nothing, with a twist.” ~Vonnegut

Rumi’s Field is not a physical location but a state of being—a clearing in the dense forest of human thought, a strategic elevation above the battlefield of the human condition. It’s a space of pure presence, where the soul meets the Great Mystery without the baggage of cultural conditioning, expectation, or preconception.

“I’ll meet you there” is both a promise and a challenge. Rumi isn’t just describing an ideal; he’s asking us to join him. To reach this field, we must let go—not of our values or discernment, but of the need to wield them as shields or weapons. It’s a radical act of vulnerability, to stand in that open space without the armor of being “right.”

It requires us to quiet the mind’s chatter, to soften the heart’s defenses, and to trust that connection is possible beyond the fray. Rumi’s Field isn’t a denial of justice or accountability. It’s a deeper lens, one that sees beyond the surface to the shared essence beneath.

In Rumi’s Field, “good” could be seen as what draws us closer to the divine, the healthy, or to authentic connection—acts that reflect wholeness, compassion, and truth in a deeper, universal sense. “Bad,” then, might be what pulls us away—unhealthy disconnection, ego-driven harm, or clinging to falsehoods that obscure reality.

But here’s the twist: in the field, even these definitions lose their edges. The focus shifts from judging to experiencing, from categorizing to understanding, from attachment to nonattachment.

So, rather than a checklist of moral absolutes, Rumi’s Field might redefine good and bad as energies or orientations. Good is the flow toward health, light, harmony, and being; bad is the unhealthy stagnation or distortion that resists it. Yet, Rumi’s invitation suggests that even this duality is secondary—once you’re in the field, you’re beyond duality. You simply are, and in that being, the struggle between good and bad becomes less a battle and more a dance, observed with a kind of tender nonattachment. It’s not that they don’t exist; it’s that they don’t rule. Only Healthy Interconnectedness does.

The philosophical debate on the concept of good (healthy, valid, right, true) and bad (unhealthy, invalid, wrong, untrue):

“There is no Truth, only interpretations.” ~Nietzsche

From Rumi’s Field, let’s draw the Sword of Inquisition and see what we can cut.

Objectivity vs. Subjectivity:

Is good and bad an objective reality, determined by a divine being or by moral laws, or is it a subjective interpretation, dependent on cultural and historical factors, individual experiences, and personal perspectives?

Cutting cleanly with our sword, we discover that good and bad is both an objective reality and a subjective interpretation. It’s objective in the sense that universal laws (neither divine beings nor moral laws) dictate what kills us (unhealthy, and extrapolating badness from that) and what makes us stronger (healthy, and extrapolating goodness from that). It’s subjective in the sense that it is our responsibility as unique individuals to interpret those universal laws correctly.

As Herman Hesse said, “As anywhere else in the world, the unwritten law defeated the written one.”

Absoluteness vs. Relativity:

Are good and bad absolute and unchanging, or are they relative and dependent on context?

If we choose to live in accordance with reality (universal laws), we will be healthy (good, valid, right, true). If we choose to live at odds with reality, we will be unhealthy (bad, invalid, wrong, untrue). But can it be that simple?

When we use health as a benchmark, we realize that health is not a matter of opinion. Rather, it is dictated by an indifferent universe with universal laws that apply to everyone, despite their interests, biases, opinions, cultures, or beliefs.

Validity matters. Health matters. Truth matters. We all know this. The problem is that we are fallible creatures. We are prone to mistakes. We often misinterpret reality and form invalid opinions. And from our misinterpretations and invalid opinions evil springs. Rumi’s field helps us see through the morass and rigmarole so that we might interpret reality correctly and thus form valid opinions.

Causes of Good and bad:

What causes individuals to behave in morally good or bad ways? Are people inherently good or bad, or are their actions shaped by their environment, upbringing, and other external factors?

From Rumi’s field, we se how everything is connected to everything else. We see how the unwritten law defeats the written law. We see how healthy and unhealthy are not matters of opinion. We see how Healthy must outflank Unhealthy lest corruption, decay, evil, and death rule the day.

Understanding this, we can see how most people would naturally (just out of a primal sense of survival) be motivated to be healthy rather than unhealthy. They would rather live than die. They would rather feel good than feel bad. They would rather be right than wrong. They would rather be true than untrue. And, of course, they would rather be good than evil. Since this would often be the case, it’s safe to say that most people are inherently (compelled to be) “good.”

So, what could cause people to behave in morally good or bad ways? Simple: they either correctly (healthy, good, valid, true) or incorrectly (unhealthy, bad, invalid, untrue) interpretate Universal laws. They are either in sacred alignment with what’s healthy, good, valid, and true or they are not.

At the end of the day, Rumi’s Field is a platform for a higher perspective. It gives us fallible creatures something infallible to stand upon, a stage elevated above the rigmarole of rightness and wrongness, a sacred space where we are free to piece together the unpiece-together-able.

Rumi’s Field is there to connect the disconnected, to reorient the disoriented, to balance the imbalanced, to align the misaligned, to recondition the conditioned, and to validate the validity of Health (love, fortitude, honor, Truth) itself as an interconnecting force that connects everything to everything else.

Image source:

Portrait of Baba Nondo Somendrah by Joshua Buana

About the Author:

Gary Z McGee, a former Navy Intelligence Specialist turned philosopher, is the author of Birthday Suit of God and The Looking Glass Man. His works are inspired by the great philosophers of the ages and his wide-awake view of the modern world.

This article (Rumi's Field: Outflanking Right and Wrong) was originally created and published by Self-inflicted Philosophy and is printed here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Gary Z McGee and self-inflictedphilosophy.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this statement of copyright.