Us & Them

A friend of mine has a really good quote on one of his slides presentations.
I thought it relevant for sharing here:

Cut the “Us & Them”-crap! It’s never them, it’s always YOU.

  1. imu
    2009-10-19 at 08:55

    why don’t you say ‘I’, instead? 😛
    i think you and me makes WE, unless I am the only existing being in the universe. WE is inclusive and states similarity between all beings, not denying each one’s uniqueness, though. if it’s a matter of YOU only – or should i say ME 🙂 – we would have to end this conversation right now. who would i be talking with? yeah, i know, myself. since after a while it becomes boring, i had to create a game called separation, so i could see myself from different angles and have several vias by which to communicate. there are other levels of boredom, like having too many games to choose from. for me that is not a problem as i prefer to be bored than having problems 😀 just having fun and playing with all this ^^ hugging us, them, you, me, we, screw the personal pronouns! all is full of love 🙂
    words are so crapy, i keep on postulating a whole different universe ^^

  2. Robert
    2009-10-19 at 10:12

    Sorry but I’m not the guy punching people in the face and extorting millions. I get the responsibility argument but I had good intentions while in and could never have imagined that a group supposedly with the purpose of saving man could have possibly been run by somebody so corrupt. That’s a weakness of good people, they have a hard time understanding evil.

    • 2009-10-19 at 11:40

      You may have missed a point… the point is included in the UsThem part, and the way to stop the UsThem that is so prevalent in both the Church of Scientology (CoS) and in the Rabid Critic Camp (RCC), is to get down to specifics. The specific is YOU.

      • Alex
        2009-10-19 at 13:24

        Sorry, I don’t get the point on this one.

        • 2009-10-19 at 19:43

          It’s a point of responsibility and individual action, rather than the more usual bitching about “them” and their outpoints.

      • Robert
        2009-10-19 at 20:31

        Sorry I guess I didn’t really get what you were going for on this one.

    • Jim Logan
      2009-10-19 at 13:10

      No you aren’t the guy punching or extorting. WILLINGNESS to assume the status of full source and cause over all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics is Full Responsibility. That doesn’t say you are punching or extorting. It’s a whole new level of cause we’re looking at. Give it some thought and I’m sure you’ll feel the boost up it gives when you can take that viewpoint. It sure does obviate ‘victim’ and effect. (And I’m not saying you’re sitting in either of those.)

  3. imu
    2009-10-19 at 12:03

    my little big me? however right i may be, i only see myself in the others i see.
    this whole situation is so significant and analogous to the world we live in. exposing this is exposing us, our actual educational, economical and health systems and i really don’t know if we should start here or go to the earliest similar incident »:o) maybe handling this will make all the rest show up as an automatic domino downfall process. i hope so because i can’t see it as a scn question, only.

  4. Tomas
    2009-10-19 at 12:23

    Hi Geir
    Intresting quote. This of course is very appropriate with this: Scientologist inside and outside the church – situation today.
    I think about auditing, responsibility, dynamics and the ARC triangle ( yes – this is the whole subject of Scientology in a few sentence ). In auditing you handle sometimes things in 4 flows ( me to you, you to me, others to others, and me to me ). Philosophical that means to me that the difference between me and them are not as big as one can think, you can wiew it as a part of your case or responsibility. Thats why it works in auditing.
    The dynamics communicates the same basic idè – it`s about taking more and more responsibility for more and more beings and aspects of life. It`s not to put up a ridge or US – THEM . The ARC-triangle also come in here – maximum ARC with another person IMHO would mean that oneself nearly is that person, you understand him so much.
    All this does not mean that I advertise the idè that we are all one – I do not do that – and the reason is simpe: I don`t know. I just wanted to communicate this wiewpoint. One must also remeber that the ability to differentiate is very important in all auditing, training and everywhere else.
    Well -my conclusion is basicly: Cut the “Us & Them”-crap! It’s never them, it’s always YOU.“

  5. StarsAwait
    2009-10-20 at 01:17

    This is another way to define responsibility, which LRH did in several different ways to make it clear for people, if anyone’s still confused. My favorite responsibility def is this one:

    “The nonrecognition and denial of the right of intervention between oneself and any being, idea, matter, energy, space, time or form, and the assumption of full right of determination over it…

    “Full responsibility is not fault; it is recognition of being cause.

    “Responsibility also means a state, quality or fact of being responsible, and responsible means legally or ethically accountable for the care or welfare of another. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority. Being the source or cause of something. Capable of making moral or rational decisions on one’s own and therefore answerable for one’s behavior. Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable. Based upon or characterized by good judgment or sound thinking.”-LRH

    I couldn’t find the full quote

    • Soderqvist1
      2009-10-20 at 06:49

      Soderqvist1: There is lot of talking about taking more and more responsibility here without putting forth a practical example what you have in mind should be done, which we are not doing today. I have a more down to earth point of view in accord with how it works. According to the Law of the Jungle I take what I want, in a sum; might is right! But that doesn’t work in The Civilization, imagine for example car drivers in New York City which doesn’t have the faintest idea about traffic laws, it goes without saying that it would be impossible to drive at all.

      You (readers of Isene Blog in general) are free to drive, as you want as long as you obey the traffic law, and you are responsible for what has happen, if you break the law. In example; two victims blame each other for a car accident where the car (A) behind the first one has bumped into the hind of the first one (B), according to the traffic laws in Sweden, the car A can be blamed for it, and is thus responsible for he didn’t have a enough distance to the car in front of him, and thus the car A is a violator and B is the real victim, and if A thinks that B is only nattering, it doesn’t matter, A is still responsible, and vice versa.

      I am not interested to take more responsible than that, because I want to enjoy my driving, and I obey the law, and I require every driver in my surrounding to do the same. Do more responsibility than that stand to reason?

  6. a simple observant
    2009-10-20 at 20:49

    responsibility is like freedom: mine ends where ‘theirs’ start. more than that means insanity, tons of guilt (when the responsibility is not met) and arrogance. more than that is assuming one can do more than others by not believing in their own capacity of being responsible.

  7. a simple observant
    2009-10-20 at 20:50

    by ‘more than that’ i meant ‘beyond that measure’.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: