Responsibility for our thoughts - not blame!

I’ve just bumped into Consortium News (via the Bush/Bin Laden ‘symbiosis’ article and I appreciate its desire for honesty. This comment came into an article on 'who is to blame for Egypt's chaos) - but it is addressing our participation in a mentality as an extra step in our responsibility for our experience of our world.


- - -

This article uncovers some of what is going on but uses the headline ‘who’s to blame’. This mentality is part of the problem and not part of the answer.

I feel that the analysis of event in the world needs to be distilled to the mentality that is shared in one mind – albeit in different degrees and in different forms.

Only by identifying the mentality that we share within ourselves – can we ‘repent of’ or unsubscribe from it. Moral self righteousness over against the perceived (magnified or projected) ‘wrongs of the other’ or in a word ‘blame’.

The shift in perspective that comes automatically from disengaging blame leads not so much to a better analysis as to a clearer discernment. They are quite different, because an analysis breaks a thing into parts and decides, compares and weights according to a set of values or conditionings of one’s own self interest, but discernment opens an honesty that integrates and unifies to a Universal self-interest.

The goal, purpose, function or intent of our lives may not be ours to change (at the level of our sense of ourselves in the world) but it is a freedom as to how we get there.

When we lock into our own method as the only method, we make all else invalid to our sight. This is self-righteousness or ‘judgement’.

Awakening an addict to his or her addiction is not easy unless they have come to the end of their capacity to deny it. But such an education can be in all our communications.

Those who awaken to their insanity are defacto no longer completely insane. Sharing a willingness for regaining trust through a greater honesty invites renewal.

The basis upon which to live from is not covered by the past or denied by its extension into the future – but is a living presence of connectedness, relation or embrace – that CANNOT be substituted for with conceptual identifications and mutual definitions.

This comment may seem irrelevant to the particulars of the situation in Egypt – yet is relevant to every instance where a perceived conflict of interests leads to a breakdown of communication, and war of one kind or another.