Hyper-Responsibility, a question
-
@J L Romer said
"It seems all problems, if traced back at some point derived from lack of responsibility."
OK, that's the paradigm you're using at the moment. I get that. I suspect (and, actually, hope!) that at some other point you'd have a totally different opinion. But this one is good enough to run with as a meditation (including that form of meditation that we call "obsessing over something").
"Responsibility in one form or another, such as wars lack of one or mores responsibility of understanding, and or love for their fellow man; or in a more specific case failure to ones political duty. The question is, to what extent are we to be responsible?"
I take "to be" to mean "to feel." You don't get to pick how responsible you are. You get to pick how responsible you feel, and how responsibly you act, but not how responsible you are - that's more or less a measurement of physics. (In brief: If any action or inaction of yours contributed to the consequence, then you are in the chain of causation.)
But that's hind-sighted. That's the use of "responsibility" that is hard to distinguish from "blame." (People typically mean "blame" when they use "responsibility" this way.) But blame is hind-sighted, and responsibility is foresighted. It comes from the same word as "sponsor." The question becomes: What consequence will you sponsor? To what forward development will your energies, vision, etc. contribute.
"Are we responsible to do whatever we personally can within our sphere of influence; or only as it relates to finding and performing our True Will?"
Is there a difference? Every piece of matter in the solar system (and beyond) affects (however minutely) the orbit of a planet around the Sun. Space gravel, for example, has a significant effect on Mars' orbit. Your True Will doesn't exist in isolation - it exists in context of everything in your world.
"Are these "disconnected" problems ultimately part of our TW, since they are part of our universe?"
There ya go.
"An example of what I call hyper responsibility, is to view ALL things as our responsibility; and so an example would be to pick up a piece of trash if it within our power to do so, or help another if we can. Or is this more Old Aeon thinking, and akin more to self sacrifice?"
What, exactly, are you sacrificing here? What does it cost you? A tiny amount of energy, perhaps?
BTW, don't forget that "sacrifice" means "to make sacred." Properly used, it's not really any different from "sanctify."
"Are we simply responsible for our own Wills, and not our objective counterpart?"
What would be the difference between these two things? (Not sure what you mean by "counterpart," BTW)
"Does a "Master" take responsibility for his own universe, I.e. all those others within it, and foreign events?"
A Master already knows that he or she is responsible - in an ongoing fashion - for all phenomena. That's taken as much for granted as the fact that the light outside is coming primarily from the Sun. What a Master then undertakes to do is to understand the universe (and thus himself or herself) through deeply experiencing it - virtually having samadhi on each experience - in the course of going.
One then does what it is one's nature to do, given one's less filtered experience of the moment.
"Or do we seperate ourselves, resisting the temptation to be accountable for all outer problems?"
I don't think you are registering just how much you are already doing this - trying to "separate" yourself. Your entire line of questioning presumes that there is some difference between you and the other expressions of you walking around that you call "other people." In Nuit, that's a misperception.
"It would seem that if ALL adopted the motto "all for one, and one for all" that many problems would be solved. If each is "king" of his own universe, then no one should worry if this motto is followed by "all" or not, as long as HE does. Right? Since only he is ultimately responsible for it."
Sounds like you are trying to craft instructions for yourself.
-
93
Finally had time to go over all the replies. Good stuff, a LOT there to chew on! Uni your right BTW, I should have said "shirking" responsibility, thank you.
Jim, thank you, that was truly eye opening and immensly helpful! I think ill be going over all this a few times! I really am starting to grasp it I think!
Its late, let me carefully read and digest all these and reply, I already have questions boiling lol. Thank you VERY much!!
93 93/93
J -
This weekend I have been getting some play time with my much older sisters. Play time with words that is. It has all to do with this issue of responsibility......so I will share it to see if it has any meaning to others.
My family is matriarchal, in that the women in my family have supreme responsibility for the family and it's affairs. My eldest sister is the one everyone goes to, shares with, works with, confides in and reports too. In every way, she is hyper responsible for the while family, got her fingers in all the pies so to speak.
She does this naturally, caring, listening, advising, Ect....it is her nature in many ways.
But she is getting older, the kids are getting younger, and she is just plain getting worn out from all this relationship responsibility.
As a huge joke, she told my other sister that She was giving up her role as family matriarch, and passing her Mantle and Crown to her, the next in line.
The eldest had had enough responsibility, for too long. And felt it was time for her to step back and let others take over that role.
Now this is of course just family fun stuff, she really doesn't have a mantle and crown, and we don't have an actualy office of family matriarch, but yet family dynamics seem to show that many families have traits of hyper responsible people...and people who shirk any and all responsibilities. these families also usually have the active ingredient of addiction, meaning that some of the members of the family are addicts and others are co dependant if not addicts themselves.
The more responsible a person is, the more a person says I 'll do that, play that part, use my energy....the more chances a person has for coming across trouble or challenges. a hermit in a cave who only eats air, and has no family, possessions or desires will have very little responsibility, very little trouble.
My sister tried to pass the Matriarical role on to my other sister, who never had children, who moved all the way across the country to get away from her family craziness, who lives like a hermit, like an addict. It didn't fly. This new leader passed the buck from the get go, saying things like " we all are leaders, we are all responsible, we don't need, shirk, shirk, shirk"
She is not capable of hyper responsibility like my eldest is. It scares her, immobilizes her and goes against her nature. She doesn't want any more on her plate because she knows she won't be able to finish her plate.
Human beings grow into what some could call angelic beings when they are able to be hyper responsible. But there is difference between a hyper responsible CEO whose intent and motive is selfish, lustful... And a person who is hyper responsible because they are selfless and genuinely care about fulfilling their responsibilities to the best possible outcome.
Trouble or challenges come into our lives to test our resolve and commitment to things that we are responsible for. Some times this challenge helps us reframe our situation, strengthening our bonds to our responsibly and other times it is a way to help us let go of things that we do not need to be responsible for anymore ( or actually never were in the first place, but due to Asqued perceptions were thought to be our responsibilities).
-
93
The question I been struggling with, Which led to this subject of responsibility, was how one should approach lifes problems. In sum, my question was basically a method of how to negotiate particular situations. For me, for example, I feel I am constantly hurting myself by helping others, and by failing in my responsibilities so that later of course it haunts me. Yet, at the time, many of these irresponsible acts seemed almost necessary, due to circumstances, I.e. anothers dire need. So, looking back, I see a problem of choosing the proper action at any time. Its not always possible to do the "responsible" thing in all matters, as it seems sometimes there are various "right" choices, vital choices.
AC mentions something along the lines of choosing the right act at any given time, no doubt in accordance with ones Will. Im thinking now, even if unconscious of my TW, it is there, im doing it; so all mistakes are in alignment with it regardless. This would mean "discovering" ones TW, is simply REALIZING it, tuning in with the show already in progress. Right??
Now, looking at it this way, I simply must deal with any situation according to my unfettered nature. "Doubt not", to go with my instincts - im assuming. The resulting problems then, that may occur are MEANT to occur, as a further stimulation of my work (Will?).
You make some good points Veronica, and that is really part of my question; how one "enlightened" would "act". Should we shirk "responsibilities" technically not ours realizing it may hinder us in our lives? Or be hyper responsible, taking ALL in our lives as part and parcel of our Will, and so our ultimate responsibility.
Jim, mentions its a matter if how responsible we "feel", (im still trying to digest it all sorry lol), this I think implies we are not truly in control of it all. We are simply experiencing this whole, which is Nuit, choosing HOW we experience it. Im thinking, this means we are in a way limited in our possible responses, choices, based upon our inherent natures. Is this anything akin to "being yourself on purpose"?
In the end, should I try to "evolve" my irresponsible ways and pick up that piece of trash, or walk past it as all the rest, and continue about my business? Or does either work? What does Liber Al mean then by saying "deem the not of change" etc.? Are we to grow, or simply grow to realize what we are?
93 93/93
J -
Responsibilities can be thought of as attachments. Sometimes we agree to the attachment and sometimes we don't. When you are attached to something that you agree to ( like owning a collection of valuable books) you have to generate and expend energy to maintain that attachment or it will disintegrate. If you don't take care of your books, leave them about, lend them out, use them in the kitchen...eventually your books are gone.
So we work to keep it, when we want it.
Sometimes we think we are up for the task, that we have what it takes to keep a high maintenance responsibility (this is exactly what happened in the housing crash btw) but get swept away in the taxes, or tires, or jetfuel, or social positions. We may have the grandest intentions, but be not to fulfill and for our own survival we must break the attachment, cut your loses, heal and keep going.
Some things we become entangled with, responsible for it's upkeep and maintenance but with prejudice, like a houseplant that was a gift, that you didn't want but, feel obliged to keep alive. It is a very common human trait. In fact I believe it is this very aspect of humanity that restricts us and is the number one cause of all that ails us.
-
I see several fallacies in your assumptions. One is the "Love all" fallacy, a very common one, it having been the official policy of many slave states, not just Christian ones, up to their present devolvement into secular, welfare states, continuing what is necessary for their survival: the production of nations of fools.
In classical times, the general view of virtue, as I understand it, was that while to be too cruel was a vice, so too was to be too kind. Either was an imbalance that would lead to destruction. Then along came the Christians, peddling to the slaves of a cruel empire a fantasy of Universal Love. Thou Shalt Love All, was the advice, and thou shalt get a nice Christmas present. Or something. Of course, this didn't convince those who ran the states as it cannot work on the problems of state, but it is attractive for slaves who have nothing else; and the rulers then had to manage the situation. It wasn't until Augustine, or the Augustinian texts, whoever wrote or rewrote them, that a sort of working compromise was made between theory and practice. Love all, and do what thou will, except you may wage war only on the enemies of the state and you must do so when we tell you to because it is the will of the Compassionate Lamb of God. It was the responsibility of the prince to issue the licence for war and the bishops of the creed of compassion to give it the stamp of Holy War. And the theologians made a pretty penny pretending to explain it.
Class, therefore, was fundamental to the arrangement. At the bottom could be built false communities based on state necessity, not on genuine love; and the conflicts that genuine love inevitably produces could be suppressed. On the top, the ruling classes had only to pretend to believe, and to help cultivate the fantasy. And, there being a sort of balance in it, it all worked about as well as could be expected.
But it was a lie. If one truly practices universal love, if one inflames oneself in prayer, one finds that to love all is to love nothing. One might cavil and say "nothing in particular" but in practice there is little difference. Love is no longer a guide to action. One must seek a different compass. Similarly, charity is a lie if one takes it to the logical extreme. If all is one, then one is all there is, one is all there ever has been and one is all there ever will be. How can it ever change? And what is the point of trying? So why go on? Oh woe is the lot of man!
The problem is addressed in the prophet's skrying of the fourth aethyr:
āO Night, that givest suck from thy paps to sorcery, and theft, and rape, and gluttony, and murder, and tyranny, and to the nameless Horror, cover us, cover us, cover us from the Rod of Destiny; for Cosmos must come, and the balance be set up where there was no need of balance, because there was no injustice, but only truth. But when the balances are equal, scale matched with scale, then will Chaos return.ā
As a mortal creature of a finite space and time, one does not love all in any meaningful sense. As it is also written: She is lone & far. Most people don't know or care what goes on beyond their own, little lives but still find it sufficiently meaningful to go on. And what do we know even of neighbouring solar systems, let alone the vastness of the body of space? One's own world, whatever that is, however big that is, is not the infinite. And living in a limited world, one has what one might call "natural" tendencies. Do you really care for those kittens that the mad cat-lady irresponsibly bred up? And what is the difference between having them killed at the local pound and a five-year-old smashing the neighbour's cat's head in with a hammer because he didn't like it? These are judgements for which there is no certain rule but which experience teaches us how to deal with. And, as the doctrine has it, it is only when the balance in one's finite world is achieved does "Chaos" return.Meanwhile, imbalance towards the side of compassion inevitably leads to instability. Peace is the mother of war and continually pushing the populace towards false compassion leads to an exhaustion of love and there is inevitably a flip to the opposite. Christian, and other compassion-exploiting societies, therefore lurch from one extreme to the other, from stultifying stagnation to war, as a natural result of their flawed, business model.
Another fallacy in your assumptions is the related "Restricted love" fallacy. You see painful situations in the world and you want them gone. If it was a burr in your shoe there would be no problem. It is small, your arm has the strength to remove it, no-one else is involved and you do it. The pain is gone and the matter is resolved. There is no significant division of will or limitation to your act of responsibility towards the maintainance of your own body. You have removed the misplaced article in your sphere of agency and there is none to say nay.
Similarly, there is a garbage tip on the edge of town with thousands of tons of toxic rubbish that has been irresponsibly dumped by selfish, short-sighted people. Their solution is to tell you that because you love your fellow man, because you have a high sense of responsibility, you should go down there and deal with it. You think that if only the virtuous could join together, like Dumas' Three Musketeers (a sort of solidarity that A.C. admired), the problem could be dealt with. But, of course, one soon finds that most people aren't virtuous fighters, willing to fight together to destroy evil in the land; and, indeed, that very few people are. One has to learn to live with that which one cannot change. As it is written: the Lord hardened pharaoh's heart. One can learn to live with at least some toxin dumps. The world doesn't have to be all woolly and white.
There is an economy of love in the world and to give one's love less than whole-heartedly is to mis-place it. Many are the Lying Spirits who will demand your love, telling you that it is right and proper that they be the beneficiary of your compassion ā but if your love for them is limited, it is wrong! And you will pay for it! And those who truly deserve it will miss out! Many are the ways to waste your love but strait is the path towards true balance. And, as it is written, the chief of the Lying Spirits is the mild and compassionate Lamb. It will lead you off the path. It will ruthlessly maul you with its guilt-inducing, toxic, soft, little teeth. Its servants will look at you with their mild, lying eyes and proceed to chew you up in the name of love and kindness and compassion and responsibility. They will spit you out and have the next victim haul your carcass off to the garbage dump. Beware the Lamb, who deceives even the very elect!
It might be apparent by now that I don't believe that A. A. stands for Agony Aunt. Your problems are your own and you must work them out for yourself. However, I will point out, regarding ordeals, that you are not a Master and are not expected to act as one. There are mysteries, such as that of the fourth aethyr, that you cannot understand and one of the mercies of a graded system is that you are not expected to do so. And there are many other responsibilities that it would be only hubris to believe are yours. But, today at least, I believe that it has been my responsibility to point this out to you.
-
"I disagree. Each man and woman are their own master - forever. And I do expect them to act when the time is right - Kairos! And they will know it. And when the time is not right then enjoy what is there to enjoy in the love of consciousness we are all blessed with and find the time is right for a great many adventures in this world.
"One is reluctant to write that which might give offence to a sincere contributer, but, really, this is one of the sillier things that I've read regarding Thelema.
Is the eight-year-old who loses his temper playing Monopoly, who has little control of his emotions, who is ruled by his own pride, who cannot concede defeat with grace, a Master?
Is a teenage anorexic, who falls into the complex mind-body spiral of that unfortunate condition, a Master? Are such girls not helped by being taught the techniques, that they now are taught, to acheive a greater mastery of her body, emotions and mind?
Are the millions being ensnared by the engineered foods sold by Big Food, and reduced to a state of complacent and compliant obesity, masters of themselves?
And what greater and more subtle disciplines must one master before one is ready to distinguish the Quick and the Dead?
-
@Pattana Gita said
"Even when deluded, asleep, tricked, manipulated, oppressed, etc. all these individuals at the end of the day are their own master. Their life and their bodies and mind belong only to themselves and no-one else. Just because a person cannot see it, or realise it, does not change that quintessential fact."
The problem with the assertion of Self as an ethical foundation is the pesky, little fact that, ultimately, it doesn't exist. This doctrine, and the essentially-Choronzonic nature of the assertion, is explained much better in L. 418 than I could here.
@Pattana Gita said
"6. Man has the right to learn as he will and make mistakes in the process."
Why Man would bother when He is already a Master, I can't imagine. But those on the path of the falsely-crowned and unconquering child might have some ideas. Of course, they might be mistaken...
@accipiter astralis said
"And what greater and more subtle disciplines must one master before one is ready to distinguish the Quick and the Dead?
@Pattana Gita said
"Could you explain what you mean by that please?"
"The phrase is Biblical and is explained here: The Quick and the Dead.
There is also this from L. 370, 15: "Nor do thou deceive thyself. It is easy to tell the live force from the dead matter. It is no easier to tell the live snake from the dead snake."
They appear to be different doctrines but I suspect that the Christians merely misunderstood, or deliberately misrepresented, the original doctrine. Their doctrine is that their Jesus is ready to judge both the living and the dead, and so there is no escaping their loathsome judgementalism. However, I think it more plausible that the original doctrine was the same, Ophidian one stated in 370, 15. One has to judge (in the sense of distinguish between) what is life-affirming and what isn't. It is very difficult to tell, in whatever work, the essential character of things, and what path leads to life and what leads to death. Those lying spirits get in the way. But it is curious that the idiomatic use of the phrase has come to be closer to the L. 370 sense than the Biblical phrase it is derived from. -
@accipiter astralis said
"The problem with the assertion of Self as an ethical foundation is the pesky, little fact that, ultimately, it doesn't exist."
It doesn't exist as a thing. It does exist as a relationship.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@accipiter astralis said
"The problem with the assertion of Self as an ethical foundation is the pesky, little fact that, ultimately, it doesn't exist."
It doesn't exist as a thing. It does exist as a relationship."Meaning that you disagree with this:
@Pattana Gita said
"Even when deluded, asleep, tricked, manipulated, oppressed, etc. all these individuals at the end of the day are their own master. Their life and their bodies and mind belong only to themselves and no-one else. Just because a person cannot see it, or realise it, does not change that quintessential fact."
Women, to follow that view, do not own their own bodies as individuals and to resist being defined by their relations is to pursue a fantasy of selfhood and to indulge a delusion of self-mastery. Along with men, of course.
-
Huh
