Help and Harm (was Re: Dying for Disney) (Tim)

[Guest guest]

Hi, Tim. You wrote two statements that I had a question about. First,

> A writer of words and music may not intend to encourage violence,

> yet may still over-excite those vulnerable to such influences.

> Responsibility would then be shared, in my view.

Second,

> Of course, if someone reacted crazily to something I produced, due to

> some glitch in their psyche, that really wouldn't be my responsibilty!

Where do you draw the line between these two? " Those vulnerable to

such influences " , it seems to me, have " glitch[es] in their

psyche. " That may describe most human beings, but it has always

seemed to me that the glitch is not so much in individual psyches as

in human nature. It's just how human beings seem to be much of the

time. They often respond to words and images in irrational ways (or at

least, ways that seem irrational to some other observers).

So are you responsible for the responses of your audience or not? Or

is that too simplistic a question? What would be a better way of

asking it?

Do you understand why I see something of a contradiction between your

statements I quoted above?

Tom

> " So, suppose I wrote a piece that was entirely about me, but when you

> read it you found it painful and hurtful. Would it be my words

> hurting you or your thoughts about my words? Can others be harmed

> *by* your words? " Tom

>

> Too much of the media put out images that incite violence, the

> creators of such disown any responsibility for this. 'If I sell you a

> Kalashnikov rifle, it's not my fault you use it to shoot people'.

> Sure, you thought they'd use it as a garden ornament.

> A writer of words and music may not intend to encourage violence,

> yet may still over-excite those vulnerable to such influences.

> Responsibility would then be shared, in my view.

> Much media seems to be mainly a catharsis for the author, i.e a

> dumping of negative emotions out into the world. The author feels

> better for a while, meanwhile ' Bond' (sociopath if not

> psychopath) becomes the role model of masculinity for a generation or

> two of boys. It's too easy to say 'It's not my business " , that's what

> these guys do while they count their money.

> Of course, if someone reacted crazily to something I produced, due to

> some glitch in their psyche, that really wouldn't be my responsibilty!

>

> " Does inquiring into the beliefs I have access to make the really

> > important ones more accessible, or is there no point in even trying?

> > Whatever the answer, how do you know this? I ask because I suspect

> > you're right, and I want to follow the thread. Thanks " love, Tom

>

> My experience is that it is possible to become aware of these core

> beliefs and identifications. I have to give up my attachment to who I

> think I am, to who I'd like to be. As long as I'm attached to an

> identity, I cannot allow myself to be conscious of any part of myself

> that does not fit in with that identity. I do have an identity, a

> self, but there's no need for me to be attached to it! Many thanks

> for raising this issue Tom, I've found it very helpful, Love Tim

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Tom,

Am 07.06.2004 um 02:13 schrieb Tom Barron:

>

> > ...

> > I find this perplexing.  Am I responsible for others' stories?  If I

> > made a gun and my story was that it was a thing of beauty to be a

> > collector's item and another purchased it and used it to kill another

> > - am I responsible?  Perhaps this is what the buddhists are aiming

> for

> > with right livelihood.  If one sells alcohol, one perpetuates

> > suffering...or are these just stories and anything that springs from

> > consciousness when you become not the doer and your ego is not your

> > source of identity...your responsibility ends.

>

> My understanding of non-duality teaching is that responsibility

> doesn't end, it never was. According to that teaching, our sense of

> doership is an illusion and we're all automatons faithfully and

> automatically carrying out our programming, which includes believing

> in our own (illusory) responsibility, until that changes, if it ever

> does.

Let's see if I can play this through. I make a gun. Then I buy it. Then

I use it to kill me. Then I read about it in the papers. Then I feel

bad about it, and at the same time want me who produced the gun feel

bad about it, too. Well, I win!

And how does that look in duality?

Tom makes a gun, Eve sells it, Jan buys it, kills her x with it. Tim

reads about it in the paper. Tim blames Tom and Eve and maybe Jan and

maybe even x? (How does that feel?) Then Tim hears how Tom says that he

doesn't have anything to do with it, he is just producing it. Now Tim

thinks that is not a nice thing to do, and we are supposed to be nice,

and that Tom should apologize for having made it in the first place.

(How does that feel?) And he maybe wants him and Eve, and probably Jane

to feel sorry about it. (This goes on, but I think I have got the

picture. Did I miss something?)

So we have:

Lots of people who should feel guilty and responsible, and they

*don't*. Not in our experience.

And all these people don't even know that Tim exists!

And Tim has not even tried to contact one of them.

So who is the one who got most pain?

Tom and Eve say that they have nothing to do with this (they may or may

not play their role here, that's not the point).

Jan got rid of her problem: x.

X is over it.

Leaves Tim, doesn't it? Looks like he is the only one who didn't get

this settled. And of course I can't know it, I haven't talked to him.

Third way: I see how it is, and eventually investigate, if it gives me

some pain. Everyone could be a little confused here, I can't even know

that. But I may experience everyones innocence, including mine. Wich is

the only one that existed in the first place, anyway. And did it?

By the way: All names are invented. Possible relations to real living

people are not intended and pure coincidence.

> And *I* still think I make choices and feel guilty when they turn out

> " badly " and want credit and recognition when they turn out " well " , and

> I want you all to know how wise I am and how much I've studied and how

> close I've gotten. Silly, silly me.

Oh, Tom! I hear you. And I love you. There is nothing you can do about

that. Not even take bad or good choices or being smartass.

> And I'm terrified to post this because someone may think it unkind.

I hope this wasn't your best shot, was it? In a range from 1 to 10 in

being unkind: maybe a lousy two, three at most!

> > Interesting....food for thought - Jan

>

> Yes, grist for the thoughtmill. (Thanks for the word, Tim.)

>

> Tom

Having fun playing with you, too, Tom. Having fun, too.

Love,

[Guest guest]

" We could probably create stories to justify anything. I really think

that's what the Work is trying to teach us.

I try to take it one step further and just step back and listen to

what my ego is trying to get me to believe--it can really be quite an

amusing adventure! "

Eddie

That's a good tip, Eddie, many thanks, Tim

[Guest guest]

> ...

> Let's see if I can play this through. I make a gun. Then I buy it. Then

> I use it to kill me. Then I read about it in the papers. Then I feel

> bad about it, and at the same time want me who produced the gun feel

> bad about it, too. Well, I win!

> And how does that look in duality?

> Tom makes a gun, Eve sells it, Jan buys it, kills her x with it. Tim

> reads about it in the paper. Tim blames Tom and Eve and maybe Jan and

> maybe even x? (How does that feel?) Then Tim hears how Tom says that he

> doesn't have anything to do with it, he is just producing it. Now Tim

> thinks that is not a nice thing to do, and we are supposed to be nice,

> and that Tom should apologize for having made it in the first place.

> (How does that feel?) And he maybe wants him and Eve, and probably Jane

> to feel sorry about it. (This goes on, but I think I have got the

> picture. Did I miss something?)

My thoughts went to " Tim " feeling so upset with " Tom " and " Eve " that

he buys a gun and shoots them.

> ...

> By the way: All names are invented. Possible relations to real living

> people are not intended and pure coincidence.

> > And *I* still think I make choices and feel guilty when they turn out

> > " badly " and want credit and recognition when they turn out " well " , and

> > I want you all to know how wise I am and how much I've studied and how

> > close I've gotten. Silly, silly me.

> Oh, Tom! I hear you. And I love you. There is nothing you can do about

> that. Not even take bad or good choices or being smartass.

You're right. Thanks for reminding me.

> > And I'm terrified to post this because someone may think it unkind.

> I hope this wasn't your best shot, was it? In a range from 1 to 10 in

> being unkind: maybe a lousy two, three at most!

Well, there you go -- the worst that can happen. I'm a miserable

failure at being unkind!

love,

Tom