Blame: Anatomy of the Skull

Liliyan Hassan Free Will, General Psychiatry, Self-Control Leave a Comment

To blame someone is to hold them accountable for causing harm or wrong doing.

Here is what I want to do, however, given that “blame” is a place that we do not want to reach since harm and wrong doing is something that we should  try to avoid… I want to rewrite what blame means in order that we can find the fruit of logic in relation to what it means for us to not reach a place of blame…hence:

Blame is responsibility as a legitimate reason for the reason that we are held accountable for our actions as we are expected to act in a manner that is reasonable enough not to force another person to have to react to our actions in a fashion that makes our action their duty as to impose our actions onto them into becoming a part of their duty to a point where it creates unnecessary responsibilities for them to need to uphold which would make them not able to carry on the duties they have towards themselves. Hence, blame tells us that responsibility is indeed a reason where otherwise we might not have evidence to show us that it is so. For without blame, responsibility  is merely a role taken up by a person as to make the act of “responding” into a role one “forms” (out of whatever) in order to answer another (aka “replying”). And since that is what would be considered, “responding” (or answering/replying), then with blame, we know that one needs to “respond” (or reply/answer) as to take that role and to require of the answers to be reasoned, reasonable, and logical lest they become incoherent, illogical, and/or gibberish in order to for that to become its “form”—thereby making up that which we know to be: the “formulation of answers” and “formulation of thoughts”.  Hence, blame is formless even if  it is formulated and calculated…and no-blame is form and that form is “correct”. And blame is in relation to a coherent problem having been formed and no-blame is in relation to a coherent correctness formed in regards to action in so much as to make coherence a thing that allows for both a correctness and  a lack of correctness  since it is a thing that is called, “room for options”—where such “room” is one under which two people can come to two different conclusions and where both are correct in relation to the conclusion they have made for themselves although both would be incorrect if one was to impose his/her conclusion onto the other person. Hence, it is coherent for one to impose but such coherence is a  problem. Meaning: despite it making sense that you tell me what to do in relation to me being able to understand you enough to carry your orders, that does not make it correct for you to do so—hence, making it true that imposition is, at its roots, an abuse of understanding as it is an abuse of one’s coherence and one’s ability to comprehend.

Thus, responsibility and blame allow us to see that “choices” are made through/by reason where “allowing” is a choice of reason and “forbidding” is a choice that is “unreasonable” and where reasonable “choices” are in regards to a problem not being a valid option as one needs to be “allowed” for reasoning and one needs to “allow” for reasoning —-hence, taking a skull as to make a space in it that allows room for that which allows room for “comprehension of reasonable options” …thereby placing a brain inside of  it in order for the brain to be allowed to reason as a function within a skull; thus, physicalizing the  “not allowed” to become an aspect of the skull as “not allowed” becomes an objection that a skull raises in regards to anything penetrating the brain where that becomes the “protection” it grants the brain as that protection penetrates to the mind to become a reasonable idea that defines the “not allowed” as that which harms and does not protect so that both the brain and the skull are separated by the two different forms of the “not allowed” (bone/idea) while one having its form (idea) inside of the other (bone) as correct in relation to another person and his/her brain (in relation to the person we want to blame) where  “the skull” takes default “blame” as part of its own responsibility to provide protection (takes the hit if the one was to get hit on their head for doing something blameworthy) as the blame (aka: skull) is that which is also responsible for the brain’s lack of feeling its own existence as a brain since the skull allows the brain the ability to abandon the protection it needs to have towards its own physicality in relation to outside as to allow it to focus on its functionality in relation to the body it is made for. Meaning: the skull provides protection in order that the brain does not feel the way a hand is able to feel but in order for it to feel the way emotions are felt instead. For the room that the skull allows expands from newborn until age when it is fully developed as that movement speaks about the nature of the skull being a room of options asserted by the movement of the skull into a locked position. And as such, the skull is a room of options made by the brain as that room speaks about the brain as a choice picked to be placed inside of it with a size that is in regards to reason and comprehension as the size becomes what the skull is “full” of and as the shape becomes the form of correctness where that correctness is “capacity” in relation to size…hence, allowing for one to ask, “to what capacity is this skull?” as one can answer that it is “to its brain’s full capacity” as to say that it is “healthy” and of the correct shape and size.  And so, as blame is formless, we get a sense of what it means for something to be formless if that was to become physical: as the formless embodies and surrounds as to engulf in a manner that is shape-able as to take on a shape and in a manner that is “too bending” that this “too bending” is what is fixed and in a manner that interferes not with that which it engulfs as to create the element of “default” in its regards and in a manner that can be easily broken into as it is air thin whereas if one was to give that air an actual physicality nothing will get past it as it would engulf everything —whereas if one was to quickly tape all these elements together and pause, one gets a skull thereby becoming evidence of the formless as it gains a physicality that is fixed by that which it engulfs as the skull moves from a formless physicality to a fixed tough version of that formless that allows room for one to experience the formless of the air when they breath it and allows one to take a form and turn it into a formless as one chews food down to swallow it and as one takes in sounds and words and to imagine and envision that which is forming and that which has been formed and that which is merely a vision and that which is a formless memory that begs one to repeat it.  And so with age and formation of the formless comes the determination of this “allow” and this “allowed” in relation to “reason” and one’s ability to reason in order to provide for us further evidence of how “blame” is tied to “reason” given that one is not correct in casting blame on those who are merely children. And with that, we see that this “allow” is movable as it is a swing in relation to blame forcing us to see that one who has “not allowed” to be one we must first blame. Indeed, those who force and those who we constantly blame are ones who have too thick of a skull.

Again:  responsibility and blame allow us to see that “choices” are made through/by reason where “allowing” is a choice of reason and “forbidding” is a choice that is “unreasonable” enough to make it “not a choice” and where reasonable “choices” are in regards to a problem not being a valid option as one needs to be “allowed” for reasoning and one needs to “allow” for reasoning. And again, the nature of this “allowed” and “allow” is shown through children as they develop this “allowed” in conjunction to becoming more reasonable as they grow up.  Since responsibility is a reason, choices are a reason and choices are not just a choice… although for  choice to be a reason, one needs to be responsible in its regards. “Because this is my choice”–demands responsibility in its regards lest it is no longer a reason. A choice speaks about what it is that a person is choosing to take responsibility over. And a limitation in regards to choices (restriction) is unreasonable as it turns a choice into an imposition: having no choice, we are imposed…and hence, this makes imposition an unreasonable gesture even if what is being imposed is that which is reasonable given that choice is an aspect of reason that makes one able to carry that duty reason demands of them towards it. We have no choice but to eat…this imposition takes a world full of options in its regards as to just balance its potency. Meaning: if one was to say that imposition yields to options, then such thing is already presented as “options” and where there is an actual imposition, it takes a world full of options in order for one to continue to assert it as so (it takes a world full of tress and plants for us to live in regards to the imposition that “subjects” us into having to eat). Hence, reason is a demand and it cannot be overridden by imposition and reason demands people whose choice is to carry its responsibility given that reason has responsibilities that one person alone cannot carry. For more than one reason exist for why one does something and if there are many reasons for one thing, then there are many things to account for. And due to this, we may accidentally get to the area of blame as one may have not taken into account all that was needed to be taken into account for something to be carried in a fashion that does not cause harm or injury (in a manner that may resemble one removing another person’s skull which would not allow them to take blame). Hence, blame is something that is reasonably unaccounted for as we are reasonably allowed to blame another for that which may be a result of a miscalculation, mistake, or an accident. This allows for one to raise blame in regard to an accident. Yet, one cannot say, “this is a mistake” or “this is just an accident” as to escape responsibility although if something was just a “mistake” or “an accident” it appears that the cost of blame is not that large for another person to object much and neither would the factors be too complex for one to not be able to point to the place of “error”.

Failure to reason and failure of one to carry responsibility in a fashion that is deliberate is not a thing that  can be reasonably accounted for as we are not able to reasonably blame another which makes “responsibility” to be a thing that is being misplaced in a deliberate manner as that becomes an aspect of “bad intent” and evidence of it. For blame gives one the right to demand proper action from others. And blame shows us that one has the right not to be imposed by the actions that other people take. With that, improper becomes a lack-of-reason and a lack of reasoning…and imposition becomes a lack of reason and a lack of reasoning. And so, if one was to ask the “why?” in relation to the “who?”, we have responsibility and if one was to ask the “why?”in relation to a “who?” imposing on us and onto the “why?” beginning since a past-tense into the present moment, we have blame—as blame is “why?” being imposed on by “who?” as to ask, “why is this broken?” to mean the same as “who broke this?” And due to this being the case, then “bad intent” makes the “who?” and the “why?” something that is not so easily known as “who broke this?” has been answered incorrectly and, hence, “why?” is that “bad intent” for? It is for the incorrect who: and an incorrect who wanted to be bad on purpose due to us expecting reasonable responsibility from others and since if “who?” is incorrect, it is no good and it is “bad”… which means that the “who” had bad intent as the placement of it is not correct and not easily known. And although fear may make one hide the “who” in regards to blame, this becomes evidence that the one who is begging the question to be one who is not so reasonable in how they raise blame.

In the name of justice, things should get mended. And if one wants to ignore that as to say that he has acted in a manner that is “blameworthy” due to a “foolish mistake” or a “foolish error”, then let the error and the mistake truly be so. When it comes to sexism however, one cannot claim that such behavior is a thing of an accident nor is it a thing of a mistake or an error due to us not being able to point to blame so easily which is proven by the fact that women often blame themselves as they have collectively blamed themselves and continue to blame themselves only for later to be able to say, “this is not our responsibility and this is not our error”. When the “who?” is made bad (women are bad), then how can they  not have bad intent? And when this “who?” has been swung over to women when it should have remained on men’s side, then how can that not be “bad intent” on their part? For responsibility has been misplaced, choices have been taken away, protection has been negated, harm has been asserted as a default, mental abuse under which the skull is rendered nonexistent has be carried, abuse of comprehension and ability to understand has been asserted, and restriction in regards to our conduct and movement and our abilities have yet to be dismantled….  such abuse makes it difficult for individuality to be respected. HENCE: who? and why?

About the Author
Liliyan Hassan

Liliyan Hassan

Founder: Go for Women

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *