Obligations, Responsibilities, and Limits

I've been known to argue that the condition of ownership does not create a constellation of obligations. In absolute terms, if one enters into a dynamic wherein the definition of the status is "property," then there is a realistic potential that an owner really does not have any greater level of obligation than to any other owned object -- a sofa, or an automobile, or a set of golf clubs for example. I do not believe that an Owner in a power dynamic has an obligation to entertain, or otherwise engage the property except on His own terms and purely for His own use and pleasure.

We might posit that an owner could choose, for good and sensible reasons, to care for and maintain property, but that is a matter of maintenance to preserve the investment and value -- not an obligation confered by the fact of the ownership. The (hypothetical) owner still has the absolute right to allow property to fall into utter dilapidation if that suits his whim or mood, and doing so does not diminish the fact of ownerhship in the slightest.

That is the plain reality of, and unvarnished definition of what does and does not devolve from the fact of ownership.

It was asked, a long while ago, eloquently and at some length, by Gabriel Montana (when we were still graced by His presence in our midst), what responsibilities an owner assumed for the human property in His or Her care -- an entirely different question. He argued, from an ethical and philosophical perspective (and I use those terms in the academic sense) that there are responsibilities that fall to one who takes on the mantle of the ownership of human property. I cannot begin to recreate His arguments here, and I (sadly) did not keep copies of what He wrote before He vanished from the cyber realm. I hope I might be forgiven if I very briefly summarize the idea that an Owner of human property has the responsibility for "creating" and developing and perfecting and protecting -- that the right to use comes with concommitant responsibility to leave the property improved in the exchange. Not everyone agreed with that premise, and I (most likely) don't do it justice.

The other side of the dynamic, on the other hand, takes on a whole host of "obligations" and responsibilities. It is the inherent "inequity" of the owner/owned exchange. There are obligations that relate to honesty and obedience and service and presence on a whole range of levels. To be honest, to be obedient, to serve, and to be truly and humbly present are seemingly simple undertakings -- until those become actual day to day realities lived out. Then begins the slow, deliberate, conscious remolding and shaping of the heart and mind to what is wanted by the One who becomes the focus... As that focus turns ever more away from what the world teaches and toward what is more pleasing to the owner.

There are responsibilities for those who take on the personal path of property. Of course there are responsibilities (usually) laid on the property by the Owner -- things to be done. Those are the simple ones: the chores. Those things are easy to see and easy to identify and easy to categorize. The deeper responsibilities are the ones that are less visible, less apparent, more subtle. There is the responsibility to stay vigilant against errors in thinking, assumptions that are rooted in social norms that don't apply, expectations that set up resentments, comparisons that create jealousies, and a dozen other mental tricks that take us out of our proper heart's place. There is the responsibility to continue to work to maintain the property, to keep learning, to discover the things that will bring pleasure and joy and delight in the mind and body and heart of the Master's property. There is the responsibility to be certain that in all things and in all places, we represent the Owner well to all we meet, and that in all we do, our work brings honor to the One who sends us out into the world.

And then there is the question of limits. Some declare, "NO LIMITS!" It sometimes gets looked at as a badge of honor. A measure of courage. A way to see who is and is not "real." There's a "strutting" sound that goes with that "no limits" boast, sometimes.

Not always. Philosophically, the urge to honestly surrender control drives some to say, "you can't give up control and then pull it back at some point -- can't give up control only so far..." Hence, no limits.

It sets up a variety of dilemmas. "No limits" can engender a competitive sort of pride that endangers the kind of humble presence that one who aspires to the slave path most needs to cultivate. No limits may even create a sort of continual "up the ante" fervor that generates its own drives and dynamics and potentially takes the control away from the very ones who should be in control. No limits can make it hard to meet the responsibility to "protect the property." There very well may be places where a careful slave would determine that the prudent stewardship of the owner's property would dictate the establishment of a reasonable limit.

There are ways to feel about the dynamics between us. Ways to think about it. Ways to follow the path. We are beings that are wholly integrated bodies, hearts, minds, and spirits. The balances need to be attended to . If we lose sight of the various parts, tending too much to one side or one bit and not enough to the others, the entire structure can get out of kilter. Best to balance all the parts and all the energies.

swan