Responsibility Definition
Aboodi Shaby
Thanks........
Tony Pay
abo...@globalnet.co.uk (Aboodi Shaby) wrote:
> Can someone please repost the original Werner Definition.
>
> Thanks........
Here's what I have, plus a useful commentary by Werner that someone else
(Fred) posted:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of Responsibility
Responsibility starts with the willingness to experience yourSelf as
cause in the matter.
It starts with the willingness to deal with a situation from and with
the point of view, whether at the moment realized or not, that you are
the source of what you are, what you do and what you have. This point
of view extends to include even what is done to you and ultimately what
another does to another.
Responsibility is not burden, fault, praise, blame, credit, shame or
guilt. All these include judgements and evaluations of good and bad,
right and wrong, or better and worse. They are not responsibility.
They are derived from a ground of being in which Self is considered to
be a thing or an object rather than context.
Ultimately, responsibility is a context--a context of Self as
source -- for the content, i.e., for what is.
Copyright Werner Erhard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JARGON: WHO'S RESPONSIBLE?
(copyright 1983, The Network Review/A publication of Werner Erhard &
Associates/All Rights Reserved)
One of the ways you'll know that you are excluding people is that what
you discovered in the training will begin to be jargon for you. You'll
use terms used in the training and they won't create anything for
anybody; in fact, they'll be a kind of battering ram. One of the worst
words in this respect is "responsibility".
Almost any use of the word responsibility is jargon, and is a use of the
word as a battering ram.
If I say to you, "You are responsible" that statement is false. I'm
literally lying to you when I say you are responsible for the quality of
your own life, for the things that happen in your life. What makes it a
lie is the context in which I express it.
Responsibility is true only when you are the cause. Yet the only way
anyone can hear the statement, "You are the cause," is as the effect of
it. If in any way I talk about responsibility and it makes you wrong or
me right, you can be sure that it has become pure jargon.
The only place that responsibility really lives is in the domain of
declaration -- in the domain of bringing forth. It is not a prior fact,
it is created.
One brings forth responsibility, thus making a statement of empowerment,
not a statement of blame or burden or guilt, not a statement of
liability, not a statement with which you manipulate anyone. If you
feel bad bout something you did because you are "responsible" for what
you do, then you're lying to yourself. You aren't responsible for it.
You can only feel bad when you are an effect, not a cause. You don't
feel bad in a domain of bringing forth, of creation.
Don't get caught in jargon. It doesn't work. It doesn't communicate.
It belittles you, it belittles the beauty of the training, and it
belittles the person with whom you use it. Jargon just plain doesn't
work.
When you can use words you heard in the training to create new
possibilities for people, to bring forth new distinctions for someone,
that is wonderful. But remember, you did not "get" the training.
There's nothing to get in the training. The training -- and that
includes the language of the training -- only lives in the moment that
you bring it forth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd To...@stsm.demon.co.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
tel/fax 01865 553339
hi...@acm.org
abo...@globalnet.co.uk (Aboodi Shaby) wrote:
> Can someone please repost the original Werner Definition.
>
responsibility: the concept of being able to care for, to reach or to be;
the ability and willingness to be cause. To accept responsibility for
something is to accept that one operated as cause in the matter.
It should be clearly distinguished from such lower-level considerations as
blame or praise, which include the further evaluation of the goodness or
badness of the thing caused.
Anyone interested in the origin? Not that it would surprise anyone here...
Markus
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Khnu...@aol.com
> Definition of Responsibility
>
> Responsibility starts with the willingness to experience yourSelf as
> cause in the matter.
>
<snip>
When you get past the ramblings of Werner, it comes down to something what
John Lennon said in the 1980 Playboy interviews (a slight paraphrase): "I
can't wake you up, you wake you up. I can't cure you, you cure you. If you
want to save Peru, go save Peru, it's quite possible. , But don't expect
Carter, or Reagan, or Dylan to provide it for you."
But the trainers and trainings have twisted and convoluted this simple premise
of self-awareness, into accepting the evils of others around you. To obtain
control and power over you, they have you believe you are "responsible" for
these actions.
What is more important is to understand that it's the "resonsibilty" that
changes come from within, from inside of you, not from any external stimulis,
and that includes the trainings.
Khnu...@aol.com
hi...@acm.org wrote:
> In article <35ecfeea...@news.globalnet.co.uk>,
> abo...@globalnet.co.uk (Aboodi Shaby) wrote:
> > Can someone please repost the original Werner Definition.
> >
> Not exactly Werner's definition, but even more original:
>
> responsibility: the concept of being able to care for, to reach or to be;
> the ability and willingness to be cause. To accept responsibility for
> something is to accept that one operated as cause in the matter.
> It should be clearly distinguished from such lower-level considerations as
> blame or praise, which include the further evaluation of the goodness or
> badness of the thing caused.
So, our pettyness, greed, avarice, and negative things are all sanctified as
long as we are "responsible", and thus to be at cause? Once again, we are
dealing with twisted and convoluted understanding. For there is a far deeper
meaning of Cause and Effect.
http://www.pymander.com/AETHEREAL/PRINC~1.htm#VI. The Great Principle of Cause
and Effect
"When this law is used with conscious effort, desired results can be
produced in a person's life by steering him or herself along definite
paths of causation. When the law is used in an unconscious and
haphazard mind, the effects could become potentially disastrous for
the individual or group of individuals. So called "accidents" could occur
without warning to individuals who toil through life without
awareness. We are responsible for the very thoughts that we
produce and the final result of our own mental alchemy."
"In every minute thought of intention, action, and emotion that is performed,
a person sets into motion unseen chains of Causations and Effects which will
vibrate from the mental Plane throughout the entire cellular structure of
body, out into theenvironment, and finally into the Cosmos. Eventually the
vibratory energy returns to its originator upon the return swing of the
pendulum. All this in less time than the twinkling of an eye. The effects of
this principle can be observed in the current status and events of various
political, social,financial, religious, and commercial upheavals. When
observing the commercial stock exchanges in the world, the Rhythms can be
observed in the rise and fall of stocks on the exchange board. What is not
understood, are the true forces back of and behind all these things that
cause the rise and fall in everything which is Principle of RHYTHM. The
seven principles of Universal Cosmic Law work synergistically and animates
the Universe with LIFE."
> Anyone interested in the origin? Not that it would surprise anyone here...
I already know the origin, thank you.
hi...@acm.org
Khnu...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <6sjr6i$rv9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> hi...@acm.org wrote:
> > In article <35ecfeea...@news.globalnet.co.uk>,
> > abo...@globalnet.co.uk (Aboodi Shaby) wrote:
> > > Can someone please repost the original Werner Definition.
> > >
> > Not exactly Werner's definition, but even more original:
> >
> > responsibility: the concept of being able to care for, to reach or to be;
> > the ability and willingness to be cause. To accept responsibility for
> > something is to accept that one operated as cause in the matter.
> > It should be clearly distinguished from such lower-level considerations as
> > blame or praise, which include the further evaluation of the goodness or
> > badness of the thing caused.
>
> So, our pettyness, greed, avarice, and negative things are all sanctified as
> long as we are "responsible", and thus to be at cause? Once again, we are
> dealing with twisted and convoluted understanding. For there is a far deeper
> meaning of Cause and Effect.
>
> http://www.pymander.com/AETHEREAL/PRINC~1.htm#VI. The Great Principle of Cause
> and Effect
Or in the definitions I cited above:
cause: could be defined as emanation (something coming forth from a source).
It could be defined also, for purposes of communication, as source-point.
See also communication.
effect: receipt-point and what is received at the receipt-point.
See also cause; communication.
communication: the interchange of ideas across space. Its fullest definition
is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from
source-point across a distance to receipt-point, with the intention of
bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication and understanding of
that which emanated from the source-point. The formula of communication is
cause, distance, effect, with intention, attention and duplication with
understanding. See also cause; effect.
>
> [...]
>
> > Anyone interested in the origin? Not that it would surprise anyone here...
>
> I already know the origin, thank you.
Hint (for the others): It's neither the KYBALION nor Buddha and not even
Landmark.
Markus
pat...@kdi.com
> > cause in the matter.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> When you get past the ramblings of Werner, it comes down to something what
> John Lennon said in the 1980 Playboy interviews (a slight paraphrase): "I
> can't wake you up, you wake you up. I can't cure you, you cure you. If you
> want to save Peru, go save Peru, it's quite possible. , But don't expect
> Carter, or Reagan, or Dylan to provide it for you."
>
> But the trainers and trainings have twisted and convoluted this simple premise
> of self-awareness, into accepting the evils of others around you. To obtain
> control and power over you, they have you believe you are "responsible" for
> these actions.
>
> What is more important is to understand that it's the "resonsibilty" that
> changes come from within, from inside of you, not from any external stimulis,
> and that includes the trainings.
to put it in a nutshell, the programs (with your permission) remove your
way of thinking and install their way of thinking. plain and simple thats
a lot of it. no one stops to think that maybe this new way of thinking has
benefits for someone else. ie recruiting, volunteering
its so simple, in the programs there is no right or wrong, anything goes,
there is no truth so again anything goes, u have no correct perception of
reality so you cant make any judgments other than what they give u. its so
simple and yet no one can see it ( attendees that is). u combime that with
people who are not ok with themselves before their programs for whatever
reasons and u have people who want to do better by themselves but cant
for some reason, and they become so attached to anything that they perceive
makes them feel better and presto, u have a convert.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
What if what is isnt true, what if what is isnt you
Smashing Pumpkins
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
--
Patrick Darcy
Love, just think about it
Khnu...@aol.com
pat...@kdi.com wrote:
>
> to put it in a nutshell, the programs (with your permission) remove your
> way of thinking and install their way of thinking. plain and simple thats
> a lot of it. no one stops to think that maybe this new way of thinking has
> benefits for someone else. ie recruiting, volunteering
>
> its so simple, in the programs there is no right or wrong, anything goes,
> there is no truth so again anything goes, u have no correct perception of
> reality so you cant make any judgments other than what they give u. its so
> simple and yet no one can see it ( attendees that is). u combime that with
> people who are not ok with themselves before their programs for whatever
> reasons and u have people who want to do better by themselves but cant
> for some reason, and they become so attached to anything that they perceive
> makes them feel better and presto, u have a convert.
>
Well, it's more than simply replacing one way of thinking for another.
Rather, they depend upon feeding off your mental energy, and bank account,
even if it's only for the short term. But this is a societal problem as
well, the short term gain, the quick solutions. Sometimes, the parasite will
feed for years, other times it's a short stay, as the host will notice. This
is true for religions as well.
Khnu...@aol.com
hi...@acm.org wrote:
> > > Anyone interested in the origin? Not that it would surprise anyone here...
> >
> > I already know the origin, thank you.
>
> Hint (for the others): It's neither the KYBALION nor Buddha and not even
> Landmark.
>
> Markus
::clap, clap,clap:::
Very good Markus, very good.
Now I'll give you another hint: It contains everything, and nothing, all at
the same time.
pat...@kdi.com
khnum i guess its time we had a little talk. would u please explain how
religions feed off peoples mental energy or whatever. this could be very
interesting.
thanks pat
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
What if what is isnt true, what if what is isnt you
Smashing Pumpkins
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
--
Patrick Darcy
Love, just think about it
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----