Three Distinctions of the Victimhood and Responsibility Paradox in the Evolution of the Source Code
The short introduction is taken from a spontaneous live talk given on the weekly broadcast of One Mountain, Many Paths, which Dr. Marc Gafni co-founded together with his evolutionary partner Barbara Marx Hubbard. These are unedited and unplugged excerpts of Dr. Gafni’s talk created by his students. Thus, the style of this story is the spoken word and not a formal essay. We recommend you to watch the featured clip and watch Dr. Gafni’s teaching on this topic below.
The first is the distinction between three positions on responsibility. The first position is the Buddhist position, which says we have to move beyond our story. The second position is the classical American therapy position, which says that our story is somehow distorted and we are unable to function in life because of something that happened yesterday. They are both right. But what we are saying is that although these two positions are critical, there is a third position, in which we are called by the future. The responsible person says: I’m going to create, with my response to the situation, a new future.
The second distinction is to move from “the blame frame” (someone did it to me) to realizing “the contribution system.” So yes, we are a victim, and we deserve compassion. And there’s also a contribution system. We’ve always got to be willing to be responsible, to have the capacity and power to respond, which means to identify what’s my 10% in the contribution system, and then to take 100% responsibility for my 10%. To be powerful means, I’m going to take 100% responsibility for my 10%.
The third distinction is to realize that we are not alone. We’re not alone, we’re in a field of value. We’re in a system. That’s what systems theory means. Systems theory means, which Sartre didn’t get, that we’re never the “uncontested author of anything.” We’re always a partial author. It might be just 10%, but we’re not the only player in the field. We’re always holding hands. We’re always in communion. And we’re always holding hands with the Infinity of Intimacy that knows our name. With the field of evolution, with the field of evolutionary love with the personal face of evolutionary love, the Infinity of Intimacy. The God force, the Divine, that never drops us, and every place we fall, we fall into Her hands.
So this is the paradox. The victim responsible dimension can only be held when the victim responsible contradiction is transformed into paradox.
On the one hand, Sartre is right, we’re all alone. When you see something that needs to be done, become an atheist. There’s only you; there’s no God, it’s yours to do.
On the other hand, the reason we know we’re going to be able to go the whole way in this lifetime is because we’re not alone, because we’re not in the field by ourselves; we’re being held in every second.
This Week’s Evolutionary Love Code:
“A manifestation of Global Intimacy Disorder is the embrace of victimhood and the avoidance of responsibility. Love and responsibility evolve in tandem, at every new stage of consciousness. We participate in the evolution of love even as we participate in the evolution of responsibility.
Love and responsibility are First Principles and First Values of Kosmos.
There is no split between joy and responsibility.
We are not naturally good. We are inherently good. Goodness must be trained. Training goodness is ecstatic joy. Victimhood is natural. Victimhood tends to be our default mode. Responsibility is not natural. Responsibility is inherent. Responsibility must be trained. Training responsibility is ecstatic joy.
Responsibility means I have the capacity to respond to my reality and to turn fate into destiny. To turn fate into destiny may impact what happens in reality in its exteriors. And it may not. Turning fate into destiny changes my experience of reality. Turning fate into destiny transforms my interiors. In the deeper view interiors drive reality. In the deeper view interiors always transform exteriors.
Responsibility does not necessarily mean that I am the “cause” of my reality. To believe I am the sole cause of my reality is often a disguised form of narcissism. To believe that I am the sole cause of my reality embraces the first Principle and first value of autonomy but denies the first principle and first value of communion. To believe that I am the sole cause for my Reality is not Eros but pseudo-Eros.
Responsibility is not generic, it is unique. I am responsible for playing my unique instrument in the Unique Self Symphony. There are no pure victims in the Unique Self Symphony. Responsibility is not some external thing you either take or don’t take. Responsibility is perspective. It is a lens through which and within which Reality occurs.”
- Dr. Marc Gafni