Adopting a philosophy of "No Blame"

[David John Kunz]

Something I've been doing in the last year or so is taking a cue from the Chinese _I Ching_ or _Book of Changes_, which to many questions has as part of its answer the words "no blame." I find these words to be immensely practical in day-to-day life as part of my own self-development. I've been working pretty hard at adopting a philosophy of "No Blame" at a deep level in my own psyche, just to be practical.

"No Blame" makes sense, because while I believe in causation, I believe that causation is so tremendously *complicated* in practice that to attribute blame for something to some narrow category of phenomenon is to miss out on the complexity of interrelationships of the nature of the problem. Much better to say, "No blame!" and get on with the really *practical* question of, "So, what do I (or we) *do* in light of whatever this problem is?" Admittedly, having *some* idea of causative elements can be useful in terms of amelioration of a problem, *sometimes*, but absolute blame-casting is taking too absolute an intellectual position in all likelihood no matter *what* the case in this highly complex and interrelated world.

One of the great virtues of the "No Blame" mentality is that it stops cold the rejection of people for problems that they have, really, little control of *when they occur*. And it lets one lovingly step in and help them *take* control once they're ready to do that, without enforcing useless guilt, based on pure practicality. I think that kind of attitude is very important to self-development and especially self-development in a *community* of self-developers who help each other out in the process.

No Blame, No Useless Guilt, No Useless Guilt-Based Fear! And it all starts with the words, "No blame!" If someone hurts your feelings, especially if it was obviously by accident, try telling han (for a definition of "han" see my profile) that "it was a no-blamer" or words to that effect, and feelings should be smoothed out, all without ignoring the real problem to be solved! Please, I challenge you, give "No blame!" a try. Maybe even reply here with results, if you'd like to do so. I've personally found it *very* helpful even just as an internal mental skill for my internal mental repertoire. It helps me focus on the practical instead of on bad feelings, which is always an improvement. May "No blame!" do the same for you!

[Lakatos]

Blame is good. Blame is the foundation of science, of technology. Blame is what drives humanity forward.
Of course, just blaming things is bullsh*t unless you do something about it. It's like when your roommate breaks a vase. Going "no blame" would mean that you don't blame your roommate for breaking the vase, and to solve further vase breaking incidents you devise a system to clean up the broken vase each and every time it is broken. Or if you take blame into consideration, that the roommate broke the vase, you devise an even better solution by listening to your roommate why he broke your vase, and come up with a solution so that further vase-breaking won't occur.

Blame is a very important step in problem solving. Think about it...



Also, I'm not sure if I completely understood this philosophy you're talking about. It's a bit hard to understand from your description, and I don't have the time now to do the research. Hey, don't blame me :P

[David John Kunz]

As you might expect, I don't *quite* agree. I think attributing *blame* is not the same thing as attributing *causation*. Attributing *causation* *is* important, although it's trickier and more complex than one might like to imagine at first glance. Why did your roomate break the vase? The could be very complicated, and much less han's fault than one might at first thought expect, and casting *blame* instead of *causation* could lead to something uglier than necessary in the course of solving the problem. There's a, sometimes subtle but definitely real, difference between the two, and that difference is of practical importance.

And I wouldn't *blame* you for anything. :} I might request that you be locked up in a cage if you did something so awfully anti-social that I thought you were a danger to society, but I *still* wouldn't *blame* you. :} "No Blame" is *not* about being impratical!

And I have to disagree about the basis of science and technology. The basis of science and resultant technology is the theoretical attribution of causation, not the casting of blame per se, which latter is an absolutist (therefore unscientific) and emotion-driven instead of mind-driven factor. Science is much more impersonal a process than casting of blame is. Casting of blame has *hindered* science -- viz. the Galileo story and many other such stories -- while trying correctly to attribute causation on the other hand has advanced science almost beyond measure! The difference between the two may seem subtle sometimes but it is tremendous in principle.

And no, not casting blame on your vase-breaking roommate doesn't mean that changing your roommate's behavior wouldn't be part of the solution! It just means recognizing that the causation behind his breaking the vase is probably so complex that he didn't have much in the way of a choice about it, so casting personal blame is useless, while changing han's behavior *is* useful. And maybe you shouldn't have put your vase right on the edge of the table, too, where it was bound to get bumped into... :} Life is complicated...

[Lakatos]

Yes, yes, I know that. I was being very flexible with the word "blame", that's all. I wanted at first to put all the "blames" between quote marks, so you wouldn't take literally, only I was too lazy o type all of them in, so I left them out. Sorry for any misunderstandings.

[David John Kunz]

No worries. The quotations marks would have helped to clarify that you meant something a little broader, or at least somewhat different, than I did, by the word "blame," but people *do* use words differently, and that's just one of the hazards of human communication. That's why we follow up and clear up misconceptions! Thank you for pointing that out. That's helpful.

I should clarify for everyone's sake myself, that when I say "blame," I mean attributing personal responsibility to an individual (be it a human being or whatever else) as a whole, without considering niceties of the complexities of causation, such as to by intention cause *shame* especially in human beings so blamed, *guilt* as a mechanism to change their behavior, and *fear* as a means of preserving that change of behavior. Thus, "blame" is a cruel mechanism of person-control which could be used for almost any controlling purpose, relatively right or relatively wrong, though if it uses blame it always incorporates, to my philosophy, an element of wrong inevitably. (I don't say that to blame anyone. Life is too complicated for that, and I believe we all work based on complicated programming we've picked up from early childhood [and before] onward, reprogramming ourselves and each other ongoingly.)

[Ewan]

"It helps me focus on the practical instead of on bad feelings, which is always an improvement."

This stands out for me. I've definitely found this to be true - in situations where I have a choice between blaming someone ("Why did you do that to me?" or "This is all your fault!") and just getting on with sorting it out ("I wonder what I can do to solve this." or "Yeah, that sucks, but will getting cross help?") then the second option often is the best. This kind of ties into something I was reading about in a book called Feel The Fear And Do It Anyway - someone here must have read it - where the author talks about how accepting responsibility for your own life, instead of blaming your misfortunes on others, is one of the most empowering decisions you can make. You're not blaming yourself instead of others, you're disregarding any blame and just working on solutions.

I believe there are flaws in this philosophy though and I have typed for ages then deleted it all because it got so long-winded and crazy and I was just rambling. I may post again later today if I get it sorted out in my head.

Peace

[David John Kunz]

I'm glad you see value in "getting on with sorting it out" as you say, for I think that's the basic point when there's a problem anyway, not potentially exacerbating the problem with personal accusations and personal blame (which I like to say "be-lames" us all...) On the other hand, I'm happy to hear any contrary thoughts you have, even if they sound crazy. Just recognize that I see a distinction between right attribution of causation, which I think is definitely a positive thing, and casting blame, which is a different phenomenon and a negative thing. The two *don't* have to go hand in hand. Attribution of causation needn't be done in a spirit of personal blame at *all*, I've found in very many personal experiences since I've taken up this philosophy, and I've applied it to hard questions too, even to standard old toughies like Hitler and the Holocaust. It's hard not to blame Hitler, but I genuinely think he was crazy and not in total control over himself, which makes him less responsible, less than blameworthy, even though I wasn't sorry to learn that he shot himself in the end, that he didn't just escape and "get away with it" as it were. But this doesn't come out of a sense of personal blame, but a sense of the overwhelming needs of millions of other people to see their feelings satisfied -- a sort of (vengeful, therefore to my mind slightly sick, even in a case like this) taking care of a more general good. Life really *is* *very* complicated in a case where life goes so wrong as in a case like that of a Hitler. I'm no Hitler apologist, by any stretch of the imagination, just because I think his probable insanity means his responsibility factor was low, but I do think that personally blaming him is like blaming the wind for knocking down your favorite vase. (Now I have vases on the brain... I dunno, maybe some of you would like to *apply* a vase to my brain...:)

But please, bring up any genuine flaws you see in this philosophy. If it's demonstrably wrong I want to know! I'd thank you for it in fact, my friend. Ramble, even, if you please. I ramble all the time! Nobody has shot me for it so far...

Peace to you too.

[Paladin]

Profound

[Maxim Ustinin]

I have actually been doing this no-blame thing for a loooooong time and the results are obvious that people start to like you more and what not, but the biggest disadvantage that I found was, some people will know that you will forgive them for alot of things so they will do what they are supposed to be punished for without alot of hesitation, eg: if someone breaks my videogame then I won't punish him if it was an accident but I will be really pissed that its broken and not pissed at him.

There are some people I know who don't know about this way of life and whenever I ask that person why something bad has happened to them they will usually reply "Blame it on this" or "Blame it on that" or something which doesn't do anything about the problem.

[David John Kunz]

Well, for me, part of the "no blame" thing is not to get pissed that the bad thing, whatever it may be, happened in the first place. Oh, I acknowledge that it was *bad*, of course, absolutely, but if I can't lay blame, how can I be angry? I just carry on and deal with the problem at hand, like getting the video game repaired or replaced, and maybe asking the one who broke it to pitch in on the cost of the repair/replacement -- not as a punishment, mind you, but acknowledging responsibility, which is something *distinct* from blame. Blame is about imposing shame/guilt/fear. Responsibility is about owning up to one's genuine part of whatever happens. It's an important distinction. Now, if my friend broke my video game and said no to helping pay for its repair or replacement, I wouldn't blame him for that either. Han has han's own reasons for that, I'm sure, and maybe momentary poverty is one, for instance. But the basic point is that "no blame" doesn't mean not calling for people to act responsibly when they've done something wrong. Carrying a "No Blame" sign is not carrying a "Kick Me" sign! :}

[Maxim Ustinin]

lol well said.

[Daniel]

oh my <3 i was so close to a topic similar to this not so long ago ^^, one step up from Causality - being the whole Determinism thing... if we really are left in the driving seat of our lives, yet without a wheel :P then... well ^^ what we're really holding responsible, Determinism or not, is the result of a person's past...

in "blaming" a person ^^ you're appointing responsibility, which is a pretty freaking important step to solving problems imo. linking in nicely with your talk of causality, where we should really be looking is at the "reaction". "Blame" brings with it a somewhat negative connotation, as if to say "find a fault + bring on the emotion! / get maaad".
Reaction is where the awesomeness should take place ^^ by "No Blame", i'm assuming what you're really targeting are the negative emotions (anger in particular), which is awesome sure ;) though that doesn't help anything other than your ability to be passive of the mishaps in life. Reaction should = Resolution ^^

i DO think it's a great idea to remove all negative emotion (still assuming here :P), though i also think it to be necessary to attempt resolution nonetheless, which... in adopting this "no blame" philosophy of life, would make rational thinking a whole bunch easier hmm ^^ i think "No Blame" alone, would run the risk of taking the "Ned Flanders" approach to life tbh. when things go wrong, although it will help a LOT for you to continue on undamaged ^^ that doesn't make the situation "ok", it's still best to solve problems. (not that i'm saying that wasn't your next step ^^)

anyway, that stuff i mentioned at the start! :O when talking about something similar, what with us being in the driving seat without a steering wheel... if all that we are, is a collection of past and present influences (i guess instinct :P also being a past influence), when dealing with an undesirable situation / mishap what we should really be looking to do imo :) is influence... rather than punish. punishment seems to be the "bad guy" in this movie is all ^^ trying to teach a lesson without any understanding other than "that is wrong" seems silly imo ^^. it's far better for a person to understand a situation and WANT to be "good", rather than have their actions be rejected, than being punished, and leaving them with no real reason to be "good" other than fearing further punishment ^^ kinda leaves a person in a neutral state non? :P "i'd totally be bad if i could get away with it" kinda sucks ;)
Enlighten (positively influence) > Punish (negatively restrict)

(i just can't help but freaking stray..... every tiiiime :x)

[David John Kunz]

This is slightly confusingly written, but I think what you're trying to say is that blame has its place as a motivator by using negative emotions in a positive way, though you admire the "No Blame" intention to reduce negative emotions generally speaking. Also I think you're saying that we should claim as much power in this sometimes seemingly deterministic universe as we can, if only to feel better about ourselves.

"No Blame" *does* help solve problems. It *doesn't* make one only passive about problems. Rather, it disposes of negative emotions that get in the way of rational thinking so that we can all the *better* solve the real-life problems that come our way. And remember, "no blame" does not mean "no assignation of causality," even though assignation of causality is a tricky and complicated business in a complicated universe, and getting it just right is harder than one might think when one is trapped in conventional simplistic thinking models.

Of *course* solving problems is the next step! In fact, "no blame" is just an approach as a first step in order *to* solve problems. It rids one of negative and usually unfounded thoughts that get in the way of pure reasoned analysis of the problematic situation.

Who is Ned Flanders, by the way?

"No Blame" is equally valid whether we have some degree of personal choice or not. Even if we do have some degree of personal choice in the universe, those choices *are* affected by the past and by present (and theoretically even by future) influences. Our choices are at least *partially* determined -- they are at least heavily *influenced*, which makes attributing blame to a person, as a whole integrated being, which after all changes and shifts from moment to moment anyway, a pretty silly thing to do. We are all heavily influenced, and ever-changing, beings, and to blame someone now for what han did in the past is blaming a river for a flood last season. It's not the current river's fault, and besides, the river at the time was just too "swamped" with water from higher up stream to be able to restrain itself when it *did* flood anyway, so where's the blame to be laid? On the whole water cycle of the planet? And do we go back and blame the dying stars that bore the oxygen atoms in the water that flooded? Where should we attribute the blame really? Should we all just blame the Big Bang singularity for everything? What good would that do? Would that solve any of our personal problems? I personally doubt it. Besides, there *might* have been a prior cause to the Big Bang singularity that we don't know about yet, so we might not be laying blame at the right feet even then! You see, the whole blame-laying thing gets ridiculous when you start to really think about it. But *problem solving* is *far* from ridiculous.

Absolutely, punishment, per se, is ridiculous when understanding can be given through our influence. Blame itself is a punishment mechanism, if you think about it, because it uses the shame/guilt/fear mechanism to try to "scare someone straight" instead of a nice enlightening really *educatory* mechanism which uplifts all concerned to something like a higher level of awareness.

I should specify that what I'm targeting with "No Blame" are not only negative emotions, but also unfounded forms of thinking, wrong forms of attribution of causation that are over-simplistic and, frankly, out-dated. We have ongoing, shifting responsibility. We have no blame, unless we are to be-lame each other by our mode of thought/speech/action. Responsibility good, blame bad. :} All responsibility means, quite literally from its roots, is being "answerable" for what one has done. It does *not* imply that one is blameworthy in particular, necessarily, and to me it doesn't imply that at all. It *does* mean that what caused you to do any particular thing should be open for analysis at need, that you should be able to answer for what you did in the *causal* sense, *not* in a blameworthy sense. That's *true* responsibility, the ability to respond about yourself in all cases to the best of your ability, not to submit to blame/shame/guilt/fear.