Definition of Responsibility - self as cause

About: werner erhard

Definition of Responsibility - self as cause; self as cause in the matter. (somehing I found in an abandoned brain somewhere)
~~~

-Werner Erhard, "est" training: ...
Responsibility is not a burden, fault, praise, blame, credit, shame, or guilt. All these include judgments and evaluations of good and bad, right and wrong, or better or 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. Responsibility 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.Ultimately, responsibility is a context - a context as self as source - for the context, i.e., for what is.

...

In a Libertarian vs Progressive world which context would require the most responsibility? A nice quote from Steve Zaffron:

Steve Zaffron on one of his websites: ...
To know what is possible tomorrow, you must be willing to step outside of what is possible today.

... just in case you thought it might be impossible to go from here to there

Finally, in noticing that there is a great cache of his papers & work now online, I found this paper on the subject of Integrity (I am my word) which can be downloaded here. His stuff was influenced by Heidigger, Zen & ontology.

Comments

Seth says

I like it when he says self is not a thing rather it is a context, which agrees with my ontology. He doesn't say here what the context is ... but to me the context is what i do and the experiences i have. When i walk in a room, that is what walks into the room.

Mark de LA says

So Werner likes to write & speak long & complex sentences. He is talking about the distinction self not necessarily what we call "I". PR also makes such distinctions in BofNK. You & your body go into a room when you & yourself do. One part of that experience depends upon a thing & the other can be called a context. He is defining a context he calls responsibility & keeps everything at the contextual level. Responsibility can also include the ability to respond as etymology also defines it. Context is also a distinction itself. In the intellectual side of the mind (

- the intellectual or rational soul) there is little else but those two (context & distinction). PR defines context as the way you hold something - in the general sense of hold. Distinguishing is how you make something into a logical object - i.e. pull something out from everything to think about it - i.e. make something distinct. Self is not the whole of the Ego. Others further refine the distinctions here & here. BTW, Seth you teased it out nicely! I thought you would enjoy it. That's why I posted it. I am only elaborating & clarifying.

Mark de LA says

Context is an intellectuality not necessarily having all the strength of a truth or a reality.

Seth says

M 2010-09-17 08:56:24 14319

seth 2010-09-17 08:34:28 14319

M 2010-09-17 07:53:17 14319

Context is an intellectuality not necessarily having all the strength of a truth or a reality.

I disagree with that as stated. In fact, for me, the truth of a sentence is a sham without considering its context. For example, the same sentence in another context can have an entirely different meaning ... the literature of language understanding is replete with examples of that. When i use the word "context" i am always referring to that kind of context. I first learned about it from the work of McCarthy and Guha in my study of the Cy ontology. The context to which i am always referring is simply the collection of events and experiences (whether in the past or the present) that surround and give meaning to some current event or experience. In the case of automated language processing, this context can actually be enumerated ... it is very tangible, real, and necessary else we must needs throw truth totally out the window.

My sentence was worded very carefully & your Cyc ontology is proof of the point. It is an intellectual experience that takes reality & the language representing it and manipulates it so that an intellectual/linguistic device called a context shifts the meaning. I first focused on context through PR, LEC, Werner & others in the stream of latter day mentors which followed GW's death. The clause "not necessarily" is my fudge factor allowing that the strength of truth may require context. Truth is a thought/linguistic thingy or a primary category. OTOH, reality is pretty conclusively not an intellectual exercise. That's why the mythos of Zen masters has them whapping their students upside the head to bring them back to reality.

Well the problem with ignoring context goes deeper than its necessity to language and intelligence. It extends to meaning itself. I will venture that there is no meaning at all sans context. A sign, an event, a experience has no meaning whatsoever to any being outside of its context to that being. Without meaning can you even emote about something? Without meaning can there even be awareness? Without awareness what are we even talking about? Is that where your Zen is going? What would be the practical value of that?

Mark de LA says

seth 2010-09-17 08:34:28 14319

M 2010-09-17 07:53:17 14319

Context is an intellectuality not necessarily having all the strength of a truth or a reality.

Mark de LA says

Seth's above comment: ...

... Who said there is any practical value in Zen? There are two Zen sayings which apply here.

What do you do before you were enlightened? Carry water & chopped wood. What do you do after you were enlightened? Carry water & chop wood.
~

If you understand, things are just as they are ... If you do not understand, things are just as they are .

Meaning & all that other shit is what you lay onto your percepts after encounter. Your perceptions exist anyway with or without them. Awareness does not require context, it is a consciousness kind of thingy. Integrity & responsibility, being abstract, depend upon creating a context in which you can achieve congruence with those notions. There are lots of different notions about what these words mean. Read the PDF if you are interested.

Seth says

source: MR above
Meaning & all that other shit is what you lay onto your percepts after encounter. Your perceptions exist anyway with or without them.

I would dispute that. Me thinks that perceptions and meaning are so intertwined that there is no practical way to tease them apart. Without meaning a perception would be just a reaction. An amoeba will react to changes in salinity in its environment, but is it useful for use to elevate that from a reaction to a perception. Even a thermostat will react to temperature change, does it then have a perception?

C says

seth 2010-09-17 11:12:55 14319

source: MR above
Meaning & all that other shit is what you lay onto your percepts after encounter. Your perceptions exist anyway with or without them.

That's what a percept is! You got it. It's something from one many of the 12 or more senses interacting with your body. That can & does exist without you soiling it up with all your meanings. These are somewhat teased out a bit in 3976 or RS's Theory of Knowledge

& Peter's explanation

C says

We seem to have strayed a bit from the original topic although interesting

. Have you ever seen something in the distance or within reach that you had no idea what it was? Then later you got closer & it finally became something familiar or a part of something familiar. That described what elsewhere I called the Big Dipper effect. It is said that Helen Keller (deaf & blind from 19 months old) didn't grok the World until she groked language. The people who created the material referenced in this item have created a context which I characterize as World or Life is a Conversation - everything gets into being through language. If I had to guess I would say that you probably agree with that over 50% of the time. That is a workable context for social interaction & especially the notion of integrity which they define well & push heavily. There are other contexts & other senses. Life & reality is a multi-dimensional multi-media moment. Its richness is expanded without much harm by not knowing while seeking & continuing to seek well beyond the satisfaction of each first answer.

Erhard & others say "I am my word" - an interesting ontological notion. I took a LEC 10 week course (1 day/week) on that proposition. I got it & the volcano has crusted over since then. With exercises & things to do during the week the challenge became interesting to keep my word.

I don't know that you've gone wrong in anything here. If your question has not been clarified within the context of this item please continue to ask.

Seth says

source: M above
It's something from one many of the 12 or more senses interacting with your body. That can & does exist without you soiling it up with all your meanings.

Well ok i can conceive of sensation without meaning ... like a blind man seeing for the first time ... he would not see any meaning in the signal from his eyes. I can also imagine that you can attain an altered state where some sensation which is usually interpreted with some meaning is experienced without the meaning. My question is what is that sensation customarily experiences as? What sensation are you talking about? What are the specific instructions to follow to arrive at this sensation or experience again?

I can pretty much suspend my natural focus on the of meaning of things, but when i do all i get is a kind of starry-eyed buzz. Is that the sensation you get? What am i doing wrong?

C says

On the not knowing thingy from today's #20 Tai Shu commentary:

P.2542 - #20,1 81-7-1-1-11-30-WED (28/11/29 ago or 29 yrs or 10,591 days)

"Dai yot yao gih #20, Earth of Sun, Netzach of Tipareth; kon P.1855 & P.1648 . It is easy enough to get lost in the forest of detailed symbolism to lose sight of the general rule which can show the way out of the maze or labyrinth & difficult to grasp the like gossamer thread handed to us. Quote from the TAO TEH KING Chapt 71 is appropriate here: "To know & yet think we do not know is the highest attainment; not to know & yet think we do know is a disease; it is simply by being pained at the thought of having this disease that we are preserved from it. The sage has not this disease. He knows the pain that would be inseparable from it & hence does not have it." Compare Bacon's "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". To be aware is the first step, then forces come to help us apply what we know!"

Mark de LA says

PR on Ontology short Youtube.

Definition of Responsibility - self as cause

About: werner erhard

Tags

Comments

See Also