Personal Responsibility, Mental Responsibility

Personal Responsibility, Mental Responsibility

Posted 10/27/06 (By Travis)

10/27/06 Neoperspectives.com

I can think of nowhere more exciting to pitch a tent than at the crossroads of politics, philosophy, science, and spirituality. This is sort of an eccentric way to begin an essay, but the endless seagueways present at this intersection increasingly beg delving into. The excitement is derived from a mix of personal topical interest, the pioneering rush of novelty creation, and the possibility of capturing and defining a net (as in internet) subspecialty.

Libertarian philosophy rotates around the central plank of self ownership, which ironically contrasts with the more Conservative slogan of 'personal responsibility'. Thus, you own your physical body, the property you produce with it, and answer to God, not government, for your actions and choices, the product of which advances your own understanding, knowledge, and morality. This coincides with the premise that free will exists and that the purpose of it, as well as the key to happiness, is self improvement.

Political positions arise from the former, if not the latter, premise, yielding the recognizable platforms of economic and personal freedom. However, if we can enjoy and are responsible for our economic and social successes and failures, are we not also equally responsible for our life experience? Indeed, it is arguable that an understanding of what drives the consciousness of our life experience is more important than embroiling oneself in the more tempting political discoveries. In fact, although concurrent progress and travel in either direction is certainly possible, as the underlying patterns are complementary, we might retrospectively :) advise a 'mental starting point'.

The tenant of this starting point is simple: no one makes you feel a certain way, no one besides yourself is responsible for your thoughts and emotions, and no event need enlighten you, one way or the other, with an involuntary emotional experience. We view the universe through our own conscious experience; it is entirely subjective. Like the political plank, this starting point is not deemed truly radical until its application, but, then again, consensus of common culture never was worth its weight in empirical value.

The easiest example is one without any other actors. Tonight I was writing a very long (pages) email to a friend (hi Libby!) when my gmail timed out and I lost nearly all of it. As you can easily imagine, I felt the surges of anger and frustration. But these feelings were not caused by the event; they came from within me; the event itself had no qualities other than those my internal computer, pardon the pun, assigned to it. And these aren't pleasant feelings. Ever see a happy angry person? :) Interestingly, I didn't 'choose' to feel this certain way; I just felt it. Actually, I had no control over it whatsoever. Pretty scary when you stop and think about it. No control over your feelings? What is your everyday experience but a product of your feelings? From whence do thoughts most often arise? Forget all the property government steals from us and all their asinine rules and regulations which conform and restrict us - we don't even control our very lives! How can we work on getting those in government off our backs when we're stomped into the dirt by our own boots? Do you see why the event itself, the email deletion, is more or less irrelevant? The important thing is my erroneous response. This response will continue to occur throughout my life until I recognize it for what it is, a qualitatively demonstrable flaw within myself. Negative emotional expressions are neither the 'natural' or ideal state of things. Turn it on itself; anger and frustration at the anger and frustration is an important first step. :)

In the same sense, when you become angry at someone else, they did not cause you to be angry; no one can make you angry besides yourself. Again, the anger you feel is really reflective of manifest imperfections within oneself. Most religions give at least lip service to this idea; eastern spiritual teachings label such persons, the ones who expose the flaws within us yielding anger or other unpleasant emotions, as 'Gems'. Gems because, how glad are we to have met these precious people who allow us to uncover previously undiagnosed defects simmering within? This, IMHO, is the proper perspective, any negative emotion or thought is not caused by anyone but yourself and before positive change can occur, along with increased happiness, you must take full responsibility for it. This is not to say we need to behave hedonistically, or even sadistically, although this is where some Buddhist traditions of viewing disgusting images of decapitations or rotting bodies stems from, as do the more Christian flagellations of self inflected pain and punishment. Probably the best is a sort of middle path, a 'razors edge', a pattern which is remarkable in its consistent emergence.

The idea that someone 'made us feel a certain way' is just as erroneously comforting as the jealous indignation towards people who happen to be wealthier than us, an emotion which is taken advantage of by the classwarfarests, notably our friends on the left. This is especially prevalent in the black community, where, upon occasion, charges of racism and economic slavery take center stage, to the occlusion of a more positive individualistically advansive agenda. Is it ever justifiable to be angry when someone acts racist towards you? What benefit could possibly come from it? Similarly, the constant outrage some Muslims profess over the insulting of the prophet Mohammad, is reflective of their own insecurities and flawed worldviews, as, of course, is outrage to the outrage :). How often do these 'political temper tantrums' take place in the media today? Someone says something and reporters call up any 'group' they think will be 'offended' or 'outraged', but the offence or outrage of the responding organization reflects only reversibly, and if anything adds false legitimacy to the provocateurs.

Let's take this a few steps further; a spouse or significant other is not responsible for your love towards them, you are. After all, who is doing the feeling? The smile on your face when your dog welcomes you home does not come from the dog; it was within you the entire time. It had to be, or you wouldn't have felt it! A certain situation did not 'bring out the best in you'; you brought out the best in yourself. Like a computer program, the output depends not on the input, but on the internal processing. Focusing on positively changing the internal processing, making the output better regardless of input, is the laudable goal. Only then will we truly be free.

There are a couple caveats which accompany this theory. The first is that, yes, input can affect the internal programming, particularly when we are growing up and our capacity for free will is slim to nonexistent. Yet, even if one is born with or develops defective software, it is still advantageous to consider it as it is, without comparison to others, and begin to attempt the long process of reprogramming, rather than chasing or blaming outside stimulus, as this is not only unproductive, it is the definition of blindness. Admittedly, in a previous post I discussed the benefits of a positive environment, putting oneself in a situation where positive energy exists and some level of self realization is facilitated. Is this a contradiction? I'd argue it is not, as the choice to seek out a positive environment still requires some sort of humility and self analysis.

Now, imagine if a government existed, which, in its innate humility, developed policies fostering a positive environment for all the citizens and nurtured and cherished them in such a loving and parenting way, creating so much positive energy that they all were liberated from their minds and lived happily ever after. While liberals and some social conservatives may dream of such a utopia, it can never be. Inevitably, their grand plans are doomed to failure. Morality and self improvement must be chosen and recognized independently. A life without challenge, bumps, and bruises is not a life at all as no self knowledge can be gained. We are better for our struggles, and government must leave us free to struggle, provided we don't struggle over the lives and property of others.

A true utopia is where every imaginable vice is available, legal, and plentiful, but yet, the people, and by 'the people' I mean each individual person, chooses, volitionally, without the coercion of government, not to partake in these deviations because they are enlightened as to the nature of themselves and are deeply reflective of their thoughts and actions. Sort of like the Communists, the laudable goals of these do-gooders are achievable, if only they would look over their shoulders, turn about face, and march back whence they came.

"[A] State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish." --John Stuart Mill, last paragraph in "On Liberty"

See also, 'Personal Responsibility, Mental Responsibility Part II'