Talk:Responsibility assumption

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 14 April 2021, see discussion.
no consensus, 30 September 2013 (UTC), see discussion.

All of this applies to the article before I reset it back to its initial 2003 revision to start again. Uncle G (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Metaphysics

I believe Buddhist metaphysics neatly unties this sea of knots. My intuition tells him the key is in the doctrine of emptiness, but its beyond me right now to set it out. Can someone help?

It seems people only untie this knot by becoming enlightened--whatever that is--and that all known doctrines only take one so-far. I suggest you explore binary plenum networks. This would be a network between two sets, one set organized by everything-the-same and the other by everything-is-different. By example, if you had thousands of alphabet blocks, you would have two maximal ways of organizing them: (1) piles of 26 letters each containing A-Z (all piles the same); (2) piles each of a specific letter, piles "A" through "Z" (all piles different). The interesting thing about (1) --everything-the-same-- is that such a set would seem empty by some measures. That is, no pile can easily be distinguished from the others if all piles look the same. This leads to the possibility of things in awareness that are not really empty but just initially seem so. An experience such as, I-am-creating-reality, which seems empty--at best--may in fact be loaded with awareness. WikiLen 21:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to have stuff like this in Wikipedia, but it is both speculative and original research on my part and as such does not belong. Your request, "Can somenone help?" should unfortunately be answered "No" as you are--in my opinion--asking for knowledge that has not been written yet. A Wikibook might be the place for such knowledge to show up. WikiLen 21:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Total Responsibility

I removed this sentence as original research:

They point to offsetting benefits if such a causation system is true, such as the absence of personal sacrifice and interpersonal guilt, or the absolute safety such a system portends for the causative mind.

And this sentence, also as original research:

In its absolute form, this doctrine approaches solipsism (the notion that only oneself exists), and strictly from this perspective causation may, perhaps, correctly be termed solipsistic.

Neither sentence is supported by the references I located. — WikiLen 03:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: "tRivia Sections"

Why does the "In Popular Culture" section bear a "Trivia" disclaimer? This section is well-written and deserves inclusion. I call for the "Trivia" badge to be removed. rowley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this any different to the belief in free will?

The article is confusing. Whoever wrote it didn't really seem to understand the concept and wrote one long confusing lyrics. 213.151.61.179 (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC) I more of less agree - see below. The connection to 'free will' would be a good section to add.[reply]

This article is narrow and negative

I think the definition of this term is too narrow and limited to two main degrees that suggest only the extreme expressions. Psychotherapy implicitly implies a greater degree of responsibility assumption than physical medicine. Even if the psychotherapy is of a very directive kind it still supposes the ability of the individual to respond to no more than a psychological intervention which is greater degree of responsibility assumption than the mainstream of our medical system. But even in physical medicine the WHO has just released a report saying that 40% of cancer is caused by lifestyle changes that are in our control. Our culture tends to a model when illness is largely seen as outside of our direct control. The medical model in psychiatry is an extension of this model to the mental illness field.

The more extreme example of responsibility assumption is certainly the most negative understanding of this. It is accurate that it portrays the way this is understood by many people, but is not the only way of understanding this.

I think the article needs to take a more nuanced approach than the two positions as described. A discussion of the general idea of responsibility and that our culture's present understanding would seem to be a deliberate downplay of responsibility.

One confusion seems to be the difference in responsibility within our legal system and the meaning within psychotherapy and self-development. Responsbility in our legal system is apportionaing blame for the past. Responsibility assumption in medicine is taking control of the future. I woudl love to edit the page but do not feel sufficiently able to make these kind of changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.140.230 (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]