Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Blame != Responsibility? (???????) Message-ID: <1395@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 15:58:27 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1395 Posted: Fri Aug 2 15:58:27 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 10:38:15 EDT References: <5557@cbscc.UUCP> <591@unc.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 93 >In article <1347@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> >> [ paraphrasing ] >>You may not have the responsibility, but then neither does any other person. >>The state of your mind is dictated by all the circumstances and events in >>your life that got you to where you are now. >>Are those circumstances anybody else's "fault"? > No one has TOTAL responsibility for any one persons actions, but that does > not mean that NO ONE has ANY responsibility. We do share responsibilities, > but one cannot depend totally on others to be responsible for you. First, > and foremost, you have to be responsible for oneself before you can go around > expecting anyone to take any responsibility for you. [CHRIS ANDERSEN] You can LAY responsibility on people as much as you like. The question is is this a just or reasonable thing to do? What controls are available to you to HAVE A VIABLE MEANS of taking responsibility (and real control) over your actions? Not just saying that you do (or that others do), but showing the means by which you exercise control to make responsibility a reasonable thing to lay at people's feet. That is the important issue. > The state of your is PARTIALLY dictated by all the circumstances and events > in your life that got you to where you are now. The other half of the picture > is how each one of us INTERPRETS and REACTS to those circumstances. Of course, > one might say that the way we interpret and react is also dicateted by > past events. In other words, we act because of past events, but past events > occured because of how we acted, but we acted because of even earlier events > which were dictated by how we acted, etc. etc. etc. This gets us no where > mighty fast. Nowhere? Sounds like it's getting to the real root of what causes our experiences and reactions. Complex, maybe imperceivable, but pretty clearly right in the direction you were heading above. You may not LIKE the direction, or the final destination, but I don't think reality is based on what we "like" and "dislike". > Also, this is not a discussion on "fault" and blame. It is about > "responsibility". Something else entirely. See the last article I just wrote (I can't stop laughing, sorry.). blame: to hold responsible, accuse; to place responsibility for (something [I WOULD THINK USUALLY A NEGATIVE THING]) on a person; also n.: responsibility for a fault or error. As long as you are saying we are responsible for EVERYTHING, we are thus also responsible for the faults and "errors", and THAT, my friend, is BLAME, pure and simple. I say I can't stop laughing not to be rude, but because this is the n+1th "responsibility is NOT blame" article or letter I've seen today. Sorry.) >>Take the raising of a child that experiences the type of >>family life laced with marital violence we've been discussing. Is it the >>child's "fault" if he/she is brought up to expect the same sort of marriage >>life, and to act it out? Does the child have a "choice" to live through and >>integrate that experience or not? Is it the parents' "fault" when they >>probably lived through the same thing? Pinning blame is not the answer, and >>that is all this "taking responsibility (for things you can't control)" >>concept really accomplishes. > It is not the child's "fault", of course not. Don't even suggest that what > I (and probably others) are doing is trying to pin blame. I think (if I > can be allowed to speak for others) we are trying to suggest that before > one can overcome a problem one must be willing to accept the responsibility > FOR SOLVING THAT PROBLEM. Not so much for the problem itself (THAT is trying > to pin the blame, which accomplishes nothing). This is akin to telling a man trapped underwater that he is responsible for keeping himself warm by starting a fire. If the tools (the knowledge) needed to do this are not present in the person's mind, by what right can you hold him/her responsible? *SHOULD* they have demanded that their parents teach them these things, sued for malpractice if they didn't? > In the case of the child of marital violence: Yes, the child does have a > choice to integrate that experience or not. Of course, s/he must > first become aware of how those experiences will effect him/her, and this is > where programs on marital abuse come in. These programs should not be > designed so much to "cure" the abuser as it show the abuser what s/he is > doing. From > then on, IT IS the abuser responsibility AND NO ONE ELSES to take that first > step tworads curing themself. To paraphrase the question asked of the British general who masscred the Indians in the movie Gandhi: "How does a three-year old child apply for 'awareness training' to teach him/her how NOT to integrate those things displayed natural family behavior (to the child) by the parents?" Is it the child's responsibility to learn that? From whom? How? > Frankly, I think I and Rich agree a lot more then these banterings back and > forth seem to indicate. Were arguing more over semantics then anything else. Semantics (like definitions of blame) AND the whole notion of responsibility as a given for everyone for everything in their lives, as discussed above. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr