Thanks. I see how that could be a concern. To address it, there can be causality without fault. Fault is a kind of blame. Blame is when you take out a timel

Thanks. I see how that could be a concern. To address it, there can be causality without fault. Fault is a kind of blame. Blame is when you take out a timeline and put your finger down on an arbitrary part and say, "It's because of this." and fault is taking that arbitrary point and reducing the event down into actors by saying, "It's because of you everything went wrong." Looking closely, fault provides no benefit. You can grow and improve by looking at causality. You can learn why someone did what they did and learn from that, which is far more beneficial than the overly reductionist fault. Fault as a default is a lazy way of thinking. Instead we can see the ignorance in ones decision, or the defensiveness in ones decision when they assume another was being harmful to them (eg arguing or retaliation), or we can see the short sighted selfishness in some rare situations (eg, narcissism). Fault is not necessary. It's a hindrance towards a higher resolution view and from that greater awareness comes greater learning capacity, a heightened wisdom, and possibly even heightened intelligence.