Blame has surface tension.
It has accusational rhetoric
and self-authorized permission to use it.
Blame is contextually buoyant
and thrives specifically in the land of conclusions.
Blame appears to be topic driven
and thereby securing an audience
and possibly some measure of response.
But blame is also ventilative.
The energetic force for driving blame
has complex and concealed origins.
The fact that there is a restimulation occurring
yields the possible origins and volume for blame.
Blame actually does the work of separation.
Blame places the initiator as separate
from the actualities of the event in question.
Blame, as a topic framing style, does several jobs.
It frees its source person from inclusion as cause.
It allows for the callout and the expectation
that other parties are involved need to be dealt with.
This furthers investigation for media concerns
and public or judicial account.
All of which frees most observational parties
from actual first person involvement.
Blame as a method of separation is highly valued.
It gives us personal freedom to do nothing relevant
but have strong opinions or invincible positions.
Blame is a stir that bystanders can absorb.
Blame is a positional stance of assertion and regard.
Most seriously of all, blame is an impotence revived.
With blame there is a preoccupation
towards a permission for distance
as if one, as the blamer, was the injured party.
The assumed logic falsely behind blame is offendedness.
That somehow, ones first line of response
is to feel for offendedness and then a reaction to that.
Blame, as a position, requires the least empathetic
investment
and continue to come from that.
Blame has no resolution the merits worth.
Blame does not truly address the actuality of the situation
either for the parties directly involve
or for any further occurrence of like kind in the future.
Blame releases one from any further action
of reframe, reconnection, rekindling, or realization.
Somehow blame gives an entitlement position
and observational leverage to do nothing more
than conclude.
Blame does not give constructive leverage to intervene.
Blame is polarization, as if there is a need
for more of that to guarantee that life will occur
without these encumbering circumstances impeding.
Blame places one free and clear
as if a moral majority exists.
Blame, as a mechanism of cultural process, is antiquated.
Blame has no efficiency nor means of upgrading
the situation or circumstance to gain insight.
Blame trashes the ability of people to be empathetic,
to be deeply insightful and to learn from pressing disorder.
Blame is a ritual of distance and distrust.
It is self-igniting and a cleverly distracting aloofness.
It hides frustration, anguish, pent-up-ness,
restimualtions that have no direct bearing
on the event in question as to merit or worth.
Blame is a frozen position becoming statuesque.
Every action can be construed into a frame of blame.
We can all volunteer to be victims at the affect of others.
Almost any other option is more appropriate and effective
than blame in any ongoing situation or circumstance.
Blame is the representation of fear that is unresolved
in that person who seeks blame as their first option.
However that self judgment is conjured,
by external representation,
the real truth resides internally,
and each of us is both privy to its means
and cursed by its overwhelm when it happens to us.
Blame has cultural heritage.
We have all been indoctrinated into the blame ritual.
The true work of blame is to realize its frame,
move past its internal workspace of fury and frustration
and seek clarity and connectedness as a course of action.
The true work of blame is to answer that knock at the door
and open up to deeper empathetic realizations
more so than the position occupied and concretized
by the stance of blame . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment