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!

[Daniel]

following that li'l evaluation as close as i can ^^ what i was trying to say:
Blame has its place as a motivator, by appointing responsibility, giving a point of focus when influencing a situation for the better. when a person is made responsible, i guess :P in the cheesiest way i can think to explain ^^... a student is born, a person in need of teaching. that's why i feel responsibility is important, as that person responsible then becomes the target for positive influence (ideally being understanding of their actions + consequences + what problems there were + how to fix them).

i DO admire the "no blame" (/ removal of negative emotions), though feel it's only half of the step toward dealing with a situation ^^

"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"
pretty sure i didn't mean to suggest that at all ^^ though am unsure of where it might've seemed that way, i think i'm losing my way in this discussion :P

"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"
that's exactly what i said up there in that "confusingly written" post ^^ (i get that a lot :P) i was just trying to emphasize the importance of actually solving the problem following the avoidance of negative emotions ^^ which i didn't feel was the focus at all within your original post.

"Ned Flanders" is a character on the tv show "The Simpsons" ^^ he's the perfect example for such a "half step" i was talking about a couple of paragraphs up.
his personality sees him to seek out the silver lining in absolutely everything. when any kind of negative situation arises, he suppresses all negative thoughts and emotions, and forces himself to see the positive ^^ without actually dealing with the problem. he kicks in a defense mechanism to help him cope with the world, which sees him justifying the actions of another, outright denial by manipulating evidence in such a way that proves their intentions to be good. this is the extreme ofcourse ^^ though, i'd hate to think that, by taking the "no-blame" philosophy too far ^^ rejecting negative + seeking positive, might see a person to become a little warped :x when Ned Flanders can't find a silver lining, he CREATES one ^^ by intentionally misinterpreting information
(i'm so tired... >.<)

ok wait.... i just read all of that :P (even the silliness... the... Big Bang? :O what ^^):
"But *problem solving* is *far* from ridiculous"
that's just a statement right? ^^ because... you almost sound like i don't agree with you on that :P even though, that was kinda the whole point in my last reply :x
for the record, i DO think "Responsibility" should be appointed to the river ^^ as it's part of the problem solving process. without any kind of responsibility, without seeking out the source of a problem, how can it be solved? :x
the river should be recognised as being responsible for the damage, and appropriate action should be taken to help prevent the event repeating itself (which is where the enlightening would come into play with anything able to learn <3). any problems we're able to influence positively ^^ i believe we should do so! holding the big bang responsible for a problem is all good for understanding / fun :) though it wouldn't help much in solving anything, as it's FAR from directly related to any situations at hand... solving the problem simply wouldn't involve considering the Big Bang at all... bit weird... tbh :P

"All responsibility means, quite literally from its roots, is being "answerable" for what one has done. It does *not* imply that one is blameworthy":

"blame (blm)
tr.v. blamed, blam·ing, blames
1. To hold responsible.
2. To find fault with; censure.
3. To place responsibility for (something): blamed the crisis on poor planning.
n.
1. The state of being responsible for a fault or error; culpability.
2. Censure; condemnation."

as i said in my first reply ^^ the negative connotation involved, being that second definition... is exactly what i was avoiding :x i've been fairly careful to use the word "responsible" where possible ^^ i haven't been talking at all of any emotional regard for situations :S which i'm pretty sure is apparent somewhere in that mess of a first reply hmm :P
(ie, "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"" is NOT the definition of the word blame i've been referring to when i've said responsibility is a good thing ^^ i've been referring to that first definition up above Blame = Responsibility in my eyes, i don't care for being angry ^^ the only negative reaction i'll give to a situation is to be dismissive :) and that's only when i don't see there to be any acceptable / easy solution, though :) the difficulty levels / lengths i'm willing to go to depend on the importance of the issue ^^)

[David John Kunz]

I really think we agree much more than we disagree, and we should both pretty much just chill together and enjoy how much we really are in agreement and are really mincing words with each other, and just having fun mincing words with each other. :}

Of *course* I'm for finding out what the source of the problem is, which is always only an intermediary source anyway, at *least* until we get to the initial singularity and maybe beyond, and if you want to call that finding something responsible I have no basic quarrel with that, it's just that I look at the word "responsible" and understand it to mean "answerable back" and find that unless we allow ourselves creative leeway, many sorts of sources of problems aren't able to, literally speaking, answer. It's a sort of pet thing with me, that with certain words, once I know the root meaning I'm a stickler for it and tend to ignore other conventional meanings. And with the word "blame," once I saw the "blame => be-lame" connection any meaning not congruent with that just sort of flew out of my internal vocabulary. It's a personal pet thing about how I deal with words. It doesn't mean the principle of "no blame" is merely valid for myself alone though, certainly, it's just that the way we're mincing words *does* relate to my personal idiosyncracies of usage, I fully admit. Let's be friends. And please don't blame me. Understand me instead. :}

[David John Kunz]

I just want further to make it clear that "No Blame" is *far* from being the whole *extent* of my personal philosophy of life, that it is certainly far from being my only working principle! No, it's just one aspect of my philosophy that, right now, I'm finding to be enormously important, and enormously liberating, including to a great extent internally. In fact, when I feel depressed, I sometimes *chant* "No Blame" over and over again, because for me depression often comes from suppressed guilt, and "floating" in meditation while chanting "No Blame" reminds me not to blame myself -- myself *per se* that is, but only find specific patterns that are problematic and deal with those practically, realizing that while I was under their grip I had little choice but to obey them, but that now, from a more detached viewpoint (assisted by detaching myself from the personal blame/shame/guilt/fear factor) I can terminate those patterns peacefully and satisfactorily and, if called for, build something to put in its place, like opening my eyes and looking around me for instance, or smiling (which is a very healthful thing to do, btw -- physically smiling, even if you don't feel like it, after a few minutes can produce the emotion of happiness, so with *this* you can fake it to make it!), or something more situation-specific if called for.

"No Blame" really *isn't* practicall all by itself as your only philosophical principle, to be *sure*. I completely agree with that. Despite that, it's very good for what it *is* good at.

[Demetra Sherwood]

First, I will admit that I did not read all of the responses or responses to responses or responses to responses to responses (I think you get my point) but from what I have read, the only purpose I see in the "No Blame" philosophy is in defusing your own anger/frustration and assuring the "offender" (and when I say offender, I mean the person whose actions were not quite laudable) that you are not upset with them. What this results in, however, is either one or more of the following consequences:
The offender...
1. ...taking advantage of your too forgiving attitude
2. ...failing to acknowledge their tactlessness (in the case of an accidental offense)
3. ...failing to acknowledge any other characteristic or habit that contributed to the cause of their offense

There are alternatives to defusing your anger/frustration and assuring that there are no hard feelings between you and the other person that will not cause any of the above consequences or possibly others that arise from this "No Blame" concept. Simply addressing the offender's faults or offensive words/actions in an inoffensive and polite way is just as effective in defusing your emotions and keeping everyone calm as the "No Blame" philosophy, not to mention it does not result in the previously stated consequences.

While I agree for the most part that you cannot totally pinpoint blame or responsibility for certain events on a single person, that person must take a share of the responsibility and blame for contributing or causing whatever event occurred. While responsibility is "complicated," as you have stated, you seem to avoid the complexity of responsibility for the sake of "practicality" which leads me to my next point.

You cite "practicality" as a central reason as to why you adopted this philosophy. I must point out that what is "practical" (essentially what will cause the least amount of conflict in this context [correct me if I misinterpreted this]) is not always just. If it requires effort to understand who is responsible for what and at what levels, then so be it. We should commit ourselves to sorting such matters out in order to promote responsibility. Humans in general require incentives to remaining responsible beings, and if there is a universal philosophy of "No Blame" I would be afraid that such incentives would cease to exist on a social level.

This reply has become much longer than I had originally intended, and there is so much more I feel I should address, but I'll keep it at this for now.