Taking Responsibility

This post was originally intended to be nothing more than a reply to a December 2008 Washington Post article titled “Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security,” but ultimately I felt that these ideas deserved some attention; a chance in the infinitely populated world of thought. It is my hope here that the ideas I present, those that I am accountable for, foster, if in the very least, an uncertain but positive purpose for others. In some sense this particular mode of sharing thought enables full, unrestricted participation and response-ability (for obvious reasons, here we should not focus our explicit attention on aspects which deny it, however I do not wish commit any injustice to any and all individuals by disregarding a sense of interaction that is arguably necessary for the being of each and every individual that is apparently lacking in this particular form of communication.)

 In light that this form of “discussion” enables a certain sense of the unrestricted ability to respond, I invite you to offer your own account as it relates to concepts of liberty and freedom for both the individual and the group. I believe that through discussion (as positive interaction) we can, as ourselves, as individuals, and as a whole, formulate a working ideology of progressive, and positive change for ourselves, for individuals, and for a whole. In this instance I do not mean to presuppose change as necessary, but rather hope to invite and encourage the possibility of active and engaging definition of change itself. Please excuse (and therefore be forewarned of) any aspect of my writing that serves to mystify rather than clarify. As long as one can establish from these “thoughts-as-they-are” some meaningful relation of ideas, then a positive purpose is served (even if the relation that is made is itself perceived as negative.) If anything, respond. The very lungs of the argument draw in an atmosphere that is formed out of the ability to respond. We are that which breathes. There is no issue without response.

All the beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, mental attitudes that characterize our time are really designed to sustain the mystique of the Party and prevent the true nature of present day society from being perceived. Physical rebellion, or any preliminary move toward rebellion, is at present not possible. From the proletarians nothing is to be feared. Left to themselves, they will continue from generation to generation and from century to century, working, breeding, and dying, not only without any impulse to rebel, but without the power of grasping that the world could be other than it is. – 1984

Soon we’ll be housing the (our) oppressors (a modern-day Quartering Act) as if we hadn’t been already.

 Currently, as victims of the search for unattainable satisfaction by a small group of elites, as objects of the distancing of (un)satisfaction so as to avoid its acknowledgment, citizens of at least 130 nations have come to bear forcefully imposed government and military presence. At present, billions of worthless dollars (and most importantly life and freedom) are being “spent” by a government, obviously disconnected from those it governs, toward a – personally defined – means to an end that has proved itself so far to be unattainable.

The general public’s conception of the government entity is no doubt floating on a carpet in the realms of the magical. Almost an enigma, government is perceived as necessary in some certain sense, but without the need or room for the habitual, natural analysis and consideration of its end and function by those who are supposedly meant to give it meaning and purpose. 

In some sense it is understandable how the citizens of a governing “body” that legislates militaristic command and action at its own discretion, in a nation that supposedly stands for and represents the very opposite, would not be aware of, and therefore, not feel responsible for this annihilation of liberty of those “others” who inhabit a nation with borders that exist outside the world of their own, the others whose borders come to signify and mark the location of the unapproved, and in an important sense unacknowledged, action of corporate fraternities under the guise of “government.” On one level it may seem right to say here that there’s no permission without asking and that the government does not, in fact, ask. But the government shouldn’t have to ask. There should be no question of asking. Not in the sense that “government” dominates individuals and is the arbiter in all matters, but on the contrary, in the sense that government (albeit possibly only ideally) is the product that, because it works both for, and on behalf of the citizens which define it, is directly representative of each and all those individuals that are affected by its definition.

This of course draws a discussion about the role and purpose of the citizen in interaction with his government – ultimately himself. This is becoming increasingly important as tyrannic corporate psychopaths from a long line of in-bred families continue to narrow their sights on the minds of the citizens of this very country. There is a war on for your mind. There is a war on for your body, and for it’s product – labor.

Based on the structure of the constitutional republic upon which our country was framed, the interaction described above necessitates a sense in which the individual citizen is responsible for himself, his fellow citizens, and his government.

 Naturally, those who posit and conceptualize their government as some uninterpretable but necessary fact concede that they have no effect on their government, but only that government has an effect on them. Government becomes representation alienated. In this case it is the citizen that does give government its power, but it is not through active participation that the power is given, but rather through submission.

The inescapable responsibility of the individual citizen who is a necessary part of a nation that is in its foundation directly modeled on (and is still accountable for) aspects of a representative government that exists and functions under the interpretation of representation, not as an alienation, but a unification, certainly implies also in all citizens (thus, in each citizen) a type of responsibility for the mode of his government’s action. What I mean is that this responsibility on the subjective level requires active participation. Through interaction a “temporary ethics” can be derived, generally agreed upon, usually unique to a particular epoch (do the ethics define the epoch, or does the epoch define the ethics?), but never a concrete, determinate (if you will) ethics that is either always or instantly universally applicable. Again, here I do not wish to digress into, or instigate a discussion on the nature of ethics beyond which the term directly (and admittedly, vaguely) applies to this particular discussion.

 The individual who experiences a wanting – a longing even – for participation without responsibility in a system that in itself depends on both is sure to achieve at best a false sense of participation. This false participation cannot ever satisfy simply because it is false. It never serves to demystify that which it is participant of. Rather, it is a crucial part of the mystification itself. It serves only to ensure the inevitable presence of the mystical. False participation will not cease to haunt the individual who lives it. He is reminded of it in his every day actions. Even those aspects of life that are least influenced by this mystified government always remind him of it. The nature of his relationship to mystical presence is necessary to his particular mode of “participation” because it defines the ways in which he can participate, while at the same time constantly reminds him through this participation that he really cannot participate. Any possible upsurge of questioning is stifled by false participation. Questioning requires a sturdy foundation on which to question: responsibility. This foundation of questioning in responsibility requires that before the questioning of any empirical knowledge can begin, one must accept the pretenses on which knowledge can be questioned.

The acceptance of responsibility is the crux of the individual who exists amidst a world of social interaction (which is what makes “government” necessary.) This is simply because the individual becomes accountable. His views, his choices, they define him. He recognizes this fact in others. The responsible individual (by default a citizen) does not experience government as mystification the way that one who lives under the premise of false participation inevitably does. The individual who accepts responsibility feels a sense in which his participation means everything precisely because he is consciously participating. Participating in the sense that he attempts to consider all aspects of an act, posited or factual, past, present, or future and its relationships to freedom. All actions ultimately have inexhaustible implications. What is significant of responsibility is not the quantity of effects considered, but the facticity of the act of considering.

False participation is not distinguished from genuine participation based simply on a certain level of empirical knowledge of government. In fact, as has been established above, empirical knowledge cannot be considered in absence of some type of participation. Government knowledge and social-political awareness are ultimately notions derived from subjective interpretation of empirical knowledge. As there must occur an instance in everyone’s life where at least some (if not all) objects of consciousness are at some point “mystified,” or made “unclear,” in ways not unfamiliar to the apparent “mystification” of government by the general public. That is, the majority of the population has both the conception and perception of “government” that is more perplexing than palpable (this is changing every day as more and more innocent citizens of these States are being physically and mentally accosted, tortured, and man-handled by the elite masters.) In a sense, everything needs solid ground upon which to build; a point of evolution, an end toward which one can project action. Beginning from the conception of government as mystical, all thought of or about that government is also in some sense mystical or mystified. It inherently possess a mystical quality simply because it is directly linked to the mystical. As established above, any act of false participation is consumed by the mystery, thus can never elude it. But that does not have to be true. One can choose how they participate. False participation does not deny all forms of reflection.

 The mystification of government by the false participant – the constant recognition through daily action and interaction of the alienation from a necessary “structure” that creates, contains, and enforces “law” that governs, and also that the structure necessarily alienates; a realization of irrelevance for government that results in irrelevance for an individual – are precisely the terms in which the he can find motivation and accept responsibility, become a participant, become accountable.
From this standpoint it is easy to recognize a situation in which one is, in terms of freedom, importantly related to government. This realized situation forever gives birth to choice. At any given instant the possibility of facticity of a particular goal’s achievement at some point in the future is in a way meaningless. It is the choice of action in the present that reflects the particular end, regardless of the achievement of that end. This does not intend to ignore the undeniable positivities that result from achievement, certainly, and especially, when that achievement is reached by a responsible project. But achievement, no matter what kind is ultimately always unsatisfactory. However, taking responsibility for the approach to (un)satisfaction can be arguably stated as achieving the closest state to “true” satisfaction. 

Taking responsibility can be considered a task that is both “easy” and “hard” depending on the perspective of which it is assumed.

It is certainly clear how false participation can be observed as the “easier” approach. This is because the false participant can still exist alongside the responsible and in fact must exist alongside the responsible by virtue of participation – that is the common denominator here – so in an external sense does not feel, at least in terms of government, any more limited than the responsible individual in the ability to respond. However, from the perspective of the responsible individual there exists an apparent limit to the ability in which the false participant truly responds. But the responsible one can never impose that trait on another individual. That would be against its very nature. An individual has to choose, in this case, and if not in all cases, responsibility. And with responsibility comes realization of choice, or responsible choice. But again freedom, participation, and accountability are not qualities that once adopted or represented in action are established indefinitely; they must constantly be reaffirmed. That is ultimate responsibility.

To reiterate, in some way it is understandable the instance of “self-governed government” springing forth from the very same entity that was (we are told) formed on the principles of individual freedom, liberty, and equality. To describe the country today in the same context as it was upon its foundation is a distinct act of false participation. It’s true, based on empirical fact, that our country has deviated significantly in ideology and practice from that of our country’s founders. We’ve trained ourselves, just as much as we have been trained, to not genuinely participate; to become both temporarily and permanently satisfied with pseudo-participation within the matrix. We must accept responsibility. We are human beings. Likewise, so are all those who keep government “alive” through thinking it, being it, participating in it. We make it. Why do we as human beings seem disposed in some ironic fashion to the thickening of the fogs of mystery?

The negative presence of our military is lived directly by millions of individuals each day. Still one rarely, it seems, ever attempts to see from the perspective of those other civilians, other citizens. They pose no threat to us, the way our government wants us to believe, those citizens of other nations but of our same status as human. But false participation accounts for their lack of consideration by the very community they are a part of. It’s of no direct concern to any one of us.

 Not until we’ve got those who are determined to enforce a certain concept freedom, distinguishable as such simply because it was in the past, enforcing on those of its own country who are supposed to be free! We can and must acknowledge, without also bearing a shame that is discouraging to action, the inherent selfishness implied in not recognizing the freedoms of others become jeopardized by an entity that we are associated with until that entity (that is in some sense ours) poses the very same threat to our own freedom. We can realize now a situation in which freedom is equivalent in its meaning for all humans. We can as a people reconcile the necessity of this freedom and the eternal importance of establishing it as fact for all individuals.

We must act now. If at this moment we recognize such limitations on responsibility, one can also imagine the limitations a total military state can impose. What if it takes a scenario such as the one forewarned in the news article? Are we consumed by materialism, 21st century distractions, or by mystification, alienation, and fear? Materialism is in effect an excuse for false participation. Involvement and consideration don’t imply abandoning a convenience, even in a material sense. In fact, involvement ultimately creates a sense of convenience.

There is absolutely no reason to have faith in the individual who acts under the pretenses of false participation, just as there is no reason to have faith in one who is at this moment responsible. That is the nature of the definition of responsibility. 

It’s not a question of teaching responsibility directly, or of being able to change the outlook or perspective of the individual. Only the individual can change himself. Those responsible can adopt the task of creating situations that serve to demystify concepts such as government and freedom through enabling the ability of response. The effort must necessarily be grassroots, all the way down to the individual root. Humans must encourage responsibility in every, and all other human.

Without adoption of responsibility we will continue as people, as humans, to be stomped on, crushed, annihilated, by those other humans who live falsely in power with the guise of language and its resulting concepts, such as “government.” We will be denied all forms of response. We will be denied. Our individual cessation is of no concern to their cause, for that cause in its very nature denies taking responsibility for any of its ends.