One of the most ancient of revered traditions throughout the world is the art of denying personal responsibility for one’s actions (or lack of actions), and instead blaming the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune on anyone, anything, or... well... outrageous fortune. The key is to find a scapegoat. Another human is often the preferred route, in that not only can someone else be blamed for your “stuff”, but you also have a convenient target for your retribution, loathing, and claim for monetary damages. Blaming someone else for anything done to you, however, is detrimental to you. It implies that you are not in charge of your life, but are dependent instead upon the whims and evil doings of others, who, obviously, have far greater power than you do. You’re a nothing, and they’re better.
Or... If you assume your own empowerment, then for whatever exalted purpose you might have determined, you have drawn someone to you in order to aid you in working out some nefarious scheme which you yourself have concocted for your enlightenment, transformation, and general entertainment (the latter being the longer term view). This of course means you cannot sue them for their actions -- unless, of course, the drama in which you have chosen to participate involves the drama of legal actions. The basic key is to assume responsibility for one’s self, and recognize that the parts others play in your life is by your permission and acquiescence.
Everything said of an individual is also related to the collective. In the United States, for example, an indicator of getting beyond the blame game was initiated by what is known as “no-fault” insurance. The idea was to get past the legal monstrosities of trying to determine the scapegoat in an auto accident. For the most part this hasn’t worked, and instead, the insurance companies have taken on the task of determining who’s at fault. This is supposedly better for the customers (as they don’t get into the legal mess), but it also denies them their power in terms of taking care of themselves, of being responsible for their lives, choices and actions.
On a grander scale, virtually every country in the world likes to blame other countries and their leaders for all manner of evils, just in order to be able to deny the first country’s complicity in the problem. Upon the occasion of 9-11-2001, the primary emphasis was in finding a scapegoat. Osama bin Laden was selected, and he’s been an excellent target for a country’s wrath. He may not have been to blame, but he seemed eager to accept the wrath of the United States -- for whatever purposes he chose to pursue. The difficulty is that almost no one asks if, perhaps, just perhaps, the United States (in particular, the U.S. federal government) had perhaps been committing such flagrant acts against others so as to incur their wrath. Of course, from the viewpoint of the average U.S. citizen, they had done nothing wrong, but were wounded nonetheless. Outrageous! Unfortunately, this is just an example Cleopatra style thinking (i.e. “De Queen of De Nile”). If one allows one’s government to commit atrocities throughout the world, one is likely to reap the rewards/liabilities of such acquiescence to high government officials and their crimes.
But blaming the government is also scapegoating! In other words, this self-responsibility is really a bear! It means taking responsibility for yourself, accepting that others will do things you perhaps wouldn’t -- or you figure you’d get caught, even if they wouldn’t -- and then just letting it go. Resolve to do better, but stay away from the blame game.
This includes not assigning the problem(s) to the Fates. Basically any finger pointing to external causes beyond the realm of human power is inherently a belief that in the mix of Determinism and Free Will, predestination rules. In other words, everything is fixed by the Fates and one must just accept one’s place in the greater scheme of things. Predestination and/or determinism is always appealing in tough times, when rather than getting tough, the preferred mode is to roll over and play dead.
Free will, on the other hand, assumes that each of us can direct our lives in any manner we choose. In essence, we have the inalienable right of Multiple Choice, to pursue our happiness in any manner we choose -- consistent only with the free will of others. Free will doesn’t get as much press when times are bad, primarily because we might have to assume some portion of the responsibility for the dismal state of affairs in which we find ourselves and the world. But when times finally improve, it must have been our charm, frequent meditations or prayers, and/or our general worthiness which turned the tide.
Free will choices may appear to be clearly limited by the free will of others, and to some degree this is true. However, we always have the choice of how we react to any event, news, or other people’s choices. In Creating Reality, we must still contend with the realities of others -- as in allowing for another's Free Will, even in the case of a new born in inducing labor. How we react to external realities is the key. It’s a case of keeping one’s balance amidst Intermingled Realities. It’s been said that an optimist is defined as someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds, while a pessimist is defined as someone who fears that this is true. Clearly, the world is the same; only the perception of one who reacts by either smiling or eliciting fear. Free will among the collective is the basis of Common Law, where you can do anything you like provided you don’t infringe upon the equal rights of others. This does not include requiring that others go along with your possibly warped sense of what is right and what is wrong. Your sensibilities are not at issue.
The real bugaboo concerning Free Will is the implied assumption of responsibility for what happens. For example, if one is diagnosed with a brain tumor or cancer... whose “fault” is it? Does one really assume that the “victim” chose a potentially fatal disease? Why not?
The very idea of “fault” is, of course, the essence of Scapegoatology. Why fault? Why not choice? Perhaps not a conscious choice, but a choice nonetheless. Perhaps not even a choice made in this particular Reincarnation, but one made in the space between lives, by one’s Higher Self, and/or as a means to accomplishing some goal not otherwise easily attained. There is nothing which grabs one attention (and potentially puts them on a new life path) like the trauma/drama of receiving a serious medical diagnosis, losing a dearly loved one, or other such event capable of causing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). And if that was the only way to get your attention...?
The universe and life in general is Cyclical. At its most fundamental level, it involves the specter of Death and Rebirth. Unfortunately, all too often, we focus on the first half and ignore the second. Considering that rebirth typically results in something far better than the pre-death situation, one may wonder why we don’t look forward to death more often.
One answer is probably that death doesn’t always scare us, but the process of dying does. It’s not the end of the world that’s scary, it’s the process whereby we arrive at the end, whether or not we arrive by first class travel or in the baggage compartment.
It’s noteworthy that the cycle of death and rebirth is applicable in our day-to-day lives. We lose something dear, let it go, and find something better. The critical element is that the something better would never have arrived in our lives, if there had been no space for it -- i.e. the letting go of the original something-dear. Such ideas apply to relationships, possessions, employment, activities, even health. (The latter manifests when we receive a diagnosis which causes a life style change, and ultimately results in better health.)
So, why in the world would there be “fault” associated with the traumas and dramas? By the same token, why assume a “victim”? Do all so-called victims actually draw to them the circumstances of their victimhood? Are they responsible? Were they driving too fast? Were they ignoring their intuition to stay home that day? Did they just flat choose to be in the allegedly wrong place at precisely the right time?
Obviously, this responsibility bit can be a real bummer! It can also be the death of a really juicy conversation, in which anything and everything can be blamed with impunity! It has been said that true freedom includes the right of people to complain about everything. If we begin taking responsibility for our part in the multitude of disasters we encounter, then we would really be into blaming ourselves.
But that would be equally ludicrous. Taking responsibility is not blaming anything! It’s merely smiling, perhaps wondering why in the world we did that, and then letting it go. If your Higher Self has as great a sense of humor as mine, it’s definitely pointless to try to logically figure it out, (Besides, humor is typically illogical.)
(4/1/07) One of the more problematic arenas of potential scapegoatology is the routine circumcision of males as infants and small children and/or female genital cutting in its many forms on helpless female infants/children. Clearly such genital mutilation is done at a time when the alleged victim apparently has no choice. This is not a case of someone knowingly and willingly choosing a particular path. Such a choice as an adult might be justifiable, but as an infants the multilated males and females can certainly be granted license to a degree of scapegoatology.
But to what advantage? It's one thing to rail about the injustices, the inhumane treatment regularly dispensed by governments, religions, and other authorities; it's quite another to pull oneself up by the boot straps and create an alternative reality. For example, foreskin restoration for the circumcised may be able to repair some of the damage of male genital mutilation. The problem, of course, is that there are currently no simples fixes, and the process may take months or years. Nevertheless, there are potential possibilities where damages can be mitigated.
Which brings us full circle (the cyclical thing) to choosing as our philosophy predestination -- "choosing predestination" sounding suspiciously like an oxymoron. It solves the free will responsibility gig, and makes the drama of our lives all the more exciting. Or apparently so.
An alternative is that, perhaps, in Creating Reality, you also find that the connectedness and unlimitedness of Connective Physics and The Fifth Element’s world, will ultimately imply that the sky is far short of any limit which our imagination might lead us. We can be anything! We can do anything! (Other than, perhaps, figure out a Florida presidential election ballot.) We can go anywhere! (Other than a Florida polling place, depending upon your race, age, or sex.) As said in the movie, Braveheart: “Your heart is free. Have the courage to follow it.”
One example of the unlimited possibilities are contained in an Affirmation, which might appeal to any Star Trek, The Next Generation fan who suspects that “Q” has the right idea about roaming the galaxy looking for amusing creatures and situations. Of if you’re not a fan... Wait, a minute... You’re not a fan? Are you Sirius!?
Well... I suppose if you’re not a fan, you can always blame your mother for your upbringing, and in the process not introducing you to science fiction at an early age.
Or forward to:
2003© Copyright Dan Sewell Ward, All Rights Reserved [Feedback]