Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site tove.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!tove!israel From: israel@tove.UUCP (Bruce Israel) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: BEING RESPONSIBLE Message-ID: <289@tove.UUCP> Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 02:49:51 EDT Article-I.D.: tove.289 Posted: Mon Jul 29 02:49:51 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Jul-85 06:11:34 EDT References: <2471@ut-sally.UUCP> <1660@hao.UUCP> Reply-To: israel@tove.UUCP (Bruce israel) Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD Lines: 99 In article <1660@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >From Pooh: >> The only hint of concern for other people that >> I've heard has come from Bruce Israel > > This is truly unfair and is missing the point. I agree (on both points). My intention in my posting about the selflessness or giver aspects of this point of view was not to make anyone else look bad or to make me look good, and it was also not to say (and this is what you seem to be saying) that since here is the way to be unselfish, any of you that haven't been discussing these points are obviously selfish and self-centered. In this discussion on responsibility, I see two major issues that have been brought up. One is whether this philosophy is an accurate model of the real world (i.e. do people really work this way), and the other being whether this philosophy is a desirable one to operate one's life from. I'll take the second issue first, since that is Pooh's (and others') major concern. The point has been raised that this point of view can be used to shift blame from oneself to others, to distance yourself from other people, and to avoid caring about others. I agree (*surprise* :-) ). Yes, this philosophy CAN BE used for those purposes, but NOT THAT IT HAS TO be used that way!!! In my previous posting, I tried to address this point (which I consider to be a side issue) by showing that, contrary to some previous postings, the philosophy of responsibility is not automatically incompatible with philosophies of selflessness, caring, and giving. I consider this to be a side issue, and I left this point implicit in my letter, rather than saying it. I apologize for my lapse in communication. Now, what this actually means. Since Pooh has shown that you can be responsible and selfish, and I have shown that you can be responsible and selfless, without either of these two positions containing contradictions, then obviously the issue of being selfish or selfless is independent of whether you adopt this issue at all and thus depends on a person being generally selfish or selfless in life. DO YOU SEE THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY A SELFISH PHILOSOPHY, BUT THAT IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU APPLY IT? (Sorry to shout, but I consider this an extremely important point). This applies to many different areas. For example, one that people don't necessarily apply it to is the area of making money. How many of you out there (assuming that you've read this far) have a belief that people that make loads of money are basically selfish and money grubbers? Some are, but there are also rich people that use money to help society. Now on to the other issue that has come up in this discussion. Is this philosophy an accurate model of the world? I dunno. I don't think anyone on this list *knows* the answer either (though we all have our own beliefs on the subject). My response to this point is "Who cares?" Less important than whether it is an accurate philosophy is whether it is a workable one (i.e. whether this philosophy can be used to your benefit in your life), though I will address both points. Some of us in this discussion have discovered through experience (the only way to actually verify anything like this) that this philosophy actually works. I have found that once I became open to accepting it (not that I accepted it, just that I was open-minded towards that possibility) I immediately gained much more responsibility and control over my emotional state. Do I now have complete control over it? Naaah, you kidding? But I do feel that you WON'T have that control over it if you are not open to accepting the possibility of that control (and I don't mean open up here in the head, but instead down here in the heart). Someone else said that better than I could hope to: From one of my favorite books, " Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah" by Richard Bach, "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours." How much control and responsibility do you feel that you have over your emotions? Maybe that is what's limiting you from having any more than you already have. I also want to quickly address another point someone brought up, that stuffing emotions is not a very good idea. I agree with that, and I think that negative emotions should be experienced since if you stuff them down, they will grow into a larger time bomb just waiting to explode. Responsibility for your emotions also means handling them in a responsible fashion. -- Bruce Israel University of Maryland, Computer Science {rlgvax,seismo}!umcp-cs!israel (Usenet) israel@Maryland (Arpanet) Enclaimer: The above opinion (no matter how ridiculous, dumb, or asinine) IS intended to be construed as the official opinion and/or policy of my employers, family, friends, and any other organizations I happen to be associated with, no matter how indirectly, including the automobile club and the commercial television networks that I watch.