Childhood Beliefs

In his book What To Say When You Talk To Yourself, behavioral researcher Shad Helmstetter recalls an experience from childhood:

I still remember the time when, as a grade school student, I wanted more than anything I could think of to play a musical instrument and be a member of the school band. Along with ten or twelve other students from my school class, I decided to try out for the band. After being handed a completely alien musical instrument and trying to get it to make music in front of the band instructor, my class teacher, and the other students, I was dismissed.

I knew that I had not done well. But it was an hour later, after the last student of the day had performed, that I overheard the band director telling my class teacher that not only could I not play in the band, but I had no musical ability and would never be able to play a musical instrument! What incredible programming for a twelve-year-old boy who had his heart set on learning how to play!

It worked. I heard, from someone else, that I had no musical ability and I believed it. I accepted as fact that I had no musical talent and that I never would. It wasn't until years later that I finally got up enough courage to rent a piano, learn some notes, and play it secretly when no one was around to remind me that I could not play. I never did develop the skill I wanted. But I learned, after some twenty frustrating years, that our school band director was wrong. And I had believed him.

As children, we often come to believe many things we are told by adults. But how much of what we were told, particularly about ourselves and our abilities, is true? Could it be that many of the things we have come to take for granted about ourselves—things we may have allowed to define or even limit us—are, in fact, false?

Understanding Your Tendencies: Lesson I

Beginning with this post I will be offering my comments on the individual questions found in the Understanding Your Tendencies sections that are located throughout the book. Thus, what follows is my commentary on the questions from Lesson I: Perception and Belief.

1. Do you believe every problem has a solution?

Yes I know, this question is very broad. But few things can undermine a person's ability to solve problems in general more than believing that some problems cannot be fixed or remedied. Problems, whatever their nature, are often not solved or corrected quickly. Indeed many require a great deal of time and effort. But if you believe that a given problem has no solution or cannot be corrected, odds are that it never will be.

2. What do you believe about yourself?

Since our beliefs govern our actions and determine our potential, it is worth identifying the things we believe about ourselves. If you were to make a list of things that you believe about yourself, what things would your list contain? The purpose of this is simply to help you develop an awareness of the things you believe about yourself.

3. Do your beliefs build you up or tear you down?

Through analyzing the list of things that you believe about yourself, ascertain whether or not these things are beneficial or detrimental. The purpose of this is to help you develop an awareness of the nature of the things you believe about yourself.

4. How often do you say you can't do something?

Generally speaking, when I person says they “can't” do something, they probably don't believe they can do whatever it is they have said they cannot do. But such beliefs can normally be traced to a person's unique perception of a given experience, and often reflect a naive or baseless conclusion on their part. In other words, for most things, the reason a person “cannot do something” is simply because they don't believe they can.

5. If you succeed do you call it luck?

If you attribute your successes to luck then it is very likely that you believe very little in your own abilities. I am not denying the reality that things can happen which may be partially or wholly credited to “luck,” as it were. But to equate your successes to luck by default is essentially to deny your involvement in them. To say “I was just lucky” is akin to saying “I'm didn't do anything” or “I'm not responsible for my actions.” If you succeed in a given endeavor it is because you have acted in such a way as to result in success.

6. How do you perceive what happens to you?

When something bad happens do you react by thinking something like “oh, here we go again, this always happens to me”? Do you realize that this is a perception? Do you realize that such perceptions lay the groundwork for your beliefs, which in turn govern your actions and potential?

7. Do you believe in yourself?

Flat out—do you believe in you. Do you believe in your ability to learn? To grow? To improve? To adapt? To change? If not—why not?

8. Have you allowed other people to determine what you believe about yourself?

Many times people allow others to tell them how to perceive and evaluate things that may happen to them. Thus, a student labeled “stupid” or “dumb” by his or her peers will likely perceive such a label to be true. If they don't, it is because they do not allow other people to determine what they believe.

9. What have you done to change limiting beliefs?

A limiting belief is a belief that limits your potential (to hazard an extremely broad statement). If you want to do something, but believe you can't, what have you done to change this belief? Have you taken the time to identify and change the perception that has led you to believe what you believe? Is it really true that you are incapable of doing something, or do you simply believe that to be the case?

10. Why do you believe what you believe?

Another way of asking this question is “why do you believe what you perceive”? In other words, if you perceive something about yourself to be true, and it just so happens that this perception has resulted in your limiting your potential—then why do you still believe it? You will always believe what you perceive, but you need not always perceive things in ways that are limiting or self-defeating.

Belief and Evidence

It appears that when we do something for the very-first-time, there can be no empirical evidence to support our individual ability to do such a thing successfully, regardless of what it may be. Empirical evidence, of course, being evidence which is derived solely from experience. There may indeed be evidence which suggests that someone else can or has done something similar or exact, but there is no empirical reason to conclude that “someone else has done it, therefore so can I.” Thus, we cannot have any personal experiential grounds to support our ability to do something if we are attempting to do it for the very-first-time, nor can we appeal to the experience of others as evidence of our own abilities. In other words, when we set out to do something for the very-first-time, there is no empirical reason for us to believe that we can do such a thing. And yet somehow we still believe that we can do things that we have never done before.

As an example, consider a graduate student preparing to write her dissertation. She, at this point in her life, has had no experience writing dissertations. It may be true that she has successfully completed a thesis for her masters degree, or that she has successfully written other things. But she has never written a dissertation. She may rationalize her ability to do it, reasoning that she has successfully written many other things, and many other people on earth have successfully completed their dissertations, so why not her? But the fact remains, she has never personally written a dissertation. At this point in time, there is no personal empirical evidence to support her endeavoring to write a dissertation. But despite this, she believes that she can and in fact does write a successful dissertation.

Whenever we set out to do something, especially if we are doing it for the very-first-time, we are setting out, in large part, on a basis of faith in our own abilities. When we act, there are never any absolute guarantees that we will succeed. Yet, often without realizing it, we set out to do that which we personally have never done, on the basis of belief. In this sense, everyone who attempts to do something for the very-first-time, is attempting to do something which is “apparently impossible,” in the sense that there is no personal empirical evidence which could directly suggest that they can succeed in doing whatever it is they are attempting. It is only after a person succeeds in doing something for the very-first-time, that they may appeal to personal experience as evidence of their ability.

In the scientific world, the absence of empirical evidence is said to suggest that something does not exist or is impossible, or at the very least that there is no reason to yet believe that something exists or is possible. In the world of human actions and endeavors, it is often sheer belief which dictates that which can and cannot be accomplished by an individual. Now, my reason in writing this post has to do with the fact that many people appeal to a lack of positive empirical evidence as grounds that they cannot do something. But this is absurd. As we have seen, there cannot, even in principle, be any empirical evidence which suggests that a person can do something if they have not yet done it. If a person wishes to demonstrate that they cannot do something, they must therefore concede that they simply don't believe they can do it.

The Poe and the Possible

As unusual or creepy as it may sound, I have been an avid Edgar Allan Poe enthusiast since I was approximately seven or eight years old. Initially, it was the cover art (pictured) of two separate compiled works of Poe that I had found in a Scholastic catalog which had caught my eye. In addition, the concept of a “short story” appealed to me, as it was an obvious alternative to reading an entire book. A proposition which I quietly dreaded as a child. I can still recall the day the much anticipated books were delivered. To my surprise I actually enjoyed reading them. If you have read Poe, you know that he has a certain style and flair to his writing, which I immediately noticed and admired. Though, I confess, I didn't have any living clue what I was reading and thus couldn't have comprehended more than 20% or so of what was actually transpiring in each narrative. But that didn't seem to affect my enjoyment. Meanwhile my parents were under the impression that their son was some kind of child genius, reading stories filled with words and concepts that neither of them knew or understood.

Since then, I have compiled many different editions of Poe's works, including a ten volume set of his complete works, letters and notes which itself is over a hundred years old. I have also made it a habit to read Poe in the fall or autumn of the year, as many of his stories have a Gothic or “Halloween-like” feel to them. At present, fall is upon us, and naturally I have set aside some time to revisit my oldest literary acquaintance.

I recently re-read “The Murders in the Rue Morgue.” Having read the story many times, I consider it to be among Poe's best narratives—if not his very best. Some people believe Poe's stories to be the kind that only a boozy, bumbling idiot (whose so called literary genius is, at best, highly overrated) could possibly write. I emphatically disagree. Irrespective of his personal habits (which I do not condone), Poe's writing, if properly understood, can be considered no such thing. While re-reading “The Murders in the Rue Morgue,” I came across the following sentence, having noticed it for the first time: “It is only left for us to prove that these apparent 'impossibilities' are, in reality, not such.” I couldn't help but notice the similarity between this particular quote and the concepts discussed in Lesson XII: Possibility and Impossibility and Lesson I: Perception and Belief.

We know that, for the most part, the things which are possible or impossible for us, are largely dependent on and determined by the things we believe. As stated in the final lesson, both the possible and the impossible are largely the creations of our own minds. We know from the first lesson that we can believe X is impossible for us to accomplish and as a result we will not spend our energies in it's pursuit. Likewise, when we believe Y is possible, we act as though it is, and therefore work to achieve it. But many times, we cannot know for certain if we can accomplish Y, until—in fact—we do. In this sense, until our objective is actually attained, we are operating on the basis of a certain amount of faith in our own abilities. There may, in fact, be no empirically verifiable reason for us to believe that we can accomplish Y. In such a situation, many may assume that we are attempting something which is apparently impossible. i.e., we are attempting something which we have no rational reason to believe we can attain. Yet oftentimes we still believe that we can accomplish Y and may in fact actually achieve it. Indeed, three such historical examples are given in the final lesson. But are not such examples evidence that, in some cases, the so called and apparently impossible—is in fact possible?

It therefore seems that many of our objectives can be understood as determining that which is truly possible for us, albeit within the shadowy realm of that which is “apparently impossible.” In other words, “it is only left for us to prove that these apparent 'impossibilities' are, in reality, not such.”

Emotionalized What?

Always in reference to a specific form of thought, the word “emotionalized” appears at various times throughout The Catalyst of Confidence. But to what exactly does this rather obscure word pertain? The lexicon reveals the following definition: Emotionalized thoughts are thoughts which are linked to strong feelings (whether positive or negative), and are more easily recognized by the subconscious mind. The key words or phrases in this definition are “thoughts,” “strong feelings,” “more easily recognized,” and “subconscious mind.” The phrase “thoughts linked with strong feelings” is easily understood and requires no further explanation. “More easily recognized by the subconscious mind,” on the other hand, seems to stand in need of further illumination.

What then does it mean for a thought to be more easily recognized by the subconscious mind? To begin with, thoughts which are linked to strong feelings (emotions) leave a deeper and more lasting impression on one's mind. As a result, such thoughts produce an effect that is best described by the “speeding up” of one's cognitive faculties. For example, in Lesson I: Perception and Belief, we learned that a person's beliefs are created through the perception and repetition of information. A person encounters information through their unique experiences, which they then evaluate or pass judgment on. This is known as perception, or the first step in the creation of a belief. But before a given perception may become a full blown belief, it must undergo a process of reinforcement, called repetition. This second step (repetition) generally requires an amount of time before a person's initial perception may solidify into a belief, unless the said perception is linked to a strong feeling or emotion. That is, unless the initial perception has been emotionalized. If the said perception has been emotionalized (or linked with a strong feeling or emotion), the second step in the process of belief creation, depending on the strength or intensity of the feeling the said perception is associated with, may essentially be unnecessary. In other words, to the extent the perception itself is emotionalized, the time component that is normally needed to “reinforce” it, may be drastically shortened, if not eliminated altogether.

To illustrate this, consider the following example. A young girl has always wanted to be an artist, specifically a painter. One day she decides she is going to paint a picture for her teacher. Though she has never painted before, she acquires the needed materials and begins painting. She dedicates hours to her project, envisioning how wonderful it will look when finished, and how her teacher will adore it. Upon presenting the finished painting to her teacher in front of her classmates, she is greeted with laughter and ridicule. Her fellow students begin making fun of her and her ridiculous painting, while her teacher, who is a little embarrassed by the whole scene of being presented with such an odd looking piece of art, quietly snickers along with the rest of the class. The young girl is naturally heartbroken as her secretly held dream of becoming an artist is quickly drowned by the laughter and mockery of her peers.

Such an experience will surely be evaluated and judged (step 1: perception) by the little girl, and it is reasonably likely that she will conclude that she has no business painting because she isn't any good. But because her perception is so intimately connected with strong emotions, it is likely that her perception will become a complete “action governing” belief immediately after having the said experience. In other words, she may not necessarily need to suggest to herself that “she isn't any good at painting” over and over again (step 2: repetition). Her experience and perception thereof was so very heart wrenching (emotionalized) that no additional suggestions were needed for reinforcement in order for her perception to become a belief. In this sense, her emotions have "speeded up" the operations of her subconscious mind. Needless to say, if she is like most people, it's safe to assume that such a belief will affect her for the rest of her life.

This provides us with just one example of how “emotionalized thoughts” are more easily recognized by the subconscious mind. I will continue to elaborate in the future.

The Difficult and the Impossible

We often think that something is impossible to do when in reality it is simply difficult. Statements such as “I can't do—X” have been adopted by many, again, not because the act of “X” is impossible per se, but simply because it is or could potentially be, difficult, and has therefore been inaccurately perceived to be impossible.

When you say you can't do something, are you implying that it is literally impossible for you to do, or that you would simply rather not do it? Upon reflection, most people recognize that it isn't that they can't do something, but rather, if they did, it would (or could) prove to be difficult, and therefore they prefer to avoid doing it. The word difficult, in this case, may represent things such as fear, discomfort, lack of desire, genuine difficulty, or whatever. Naturally someone who is afraid to do something will exclaim “I can't do that!” without much thought. But as discussed in a previous post, such statements are largely inaccurate as they do not convey the whole truth of a given situation.

It is truly unfortunate that so many have come to believe they can do so little. But this has largely resulted from inaccurate perceptions, such as those described above where that which is difficult has become synonymous with that which is impossible. It seems that the use of the word impossible, or words which can be interpreted definitively as such (i.e., can't), should never be exercised with folly or negligence, but, on the contrary, with only the utmost caution and consideration in view.

How God Fits In, Part 2

This is the second post in a series, the topic of which is “how God fits in” with the content of The Catalyst of Confidence. If you have not read the first post, or the introductory post, I encourage you to do so before continuing.

In this post I will clarify the following specifics, which correspond to their respective lessons:

1. Knowledge of the origin of a belief does not affirm or negate the validity of that belief. (Lesson I: Perception and Belief)
2. The concept of morality can be understood as a goal. (Lesson III: Goals and Dreams)
3. Contemplation of that which is good invariably results in that which is good. (Lesson IV: Thought and Concentration)

1. Knowledge of the origin of a belief does not affirm or negate the validity of that belief.

It's possible that the knowledge of how one has come to believe that which they believe can be alarming. Primarily because it can be perceived that such understanding discredits the validity of a given belief (because a person could have easily came to believe something different through the same process). For example, the reason I am a Christian is because I was raised as a Christian. i.e., I was brought up in an environment which encouraged Christianity. In other words, my belief in Christianity resulted from being exposed to specific information. This information, in turn, underwent the process of perception and repetition in my mind, eventually culminating in my belief in Christianity. However, knowing the origin of my belief neither affirms nor denies the validity of Christianity itself. If Christianity is true, it must be true independent of my belief in it. This is why the responsibility of every individual to carefully consider the reasons they believe that which they believe cannot be overstated. Ultimately, having a mature understanding of how one's beliefs are created enables a person to choose one belief instead of another. See also: Rocks Have Souls?

2. The concept of morality can be understood as a goal.

If a person accepts the existence of God, then they are almost certain to accept the existence of objective moral values as well. Morality itself can be understood as a standard which mankind ought emulate to the greatest extent possible. Knowledge of this standard can easily be understood as a goal, in the sense that it directs one's thoughts and actions toward a defined end (the standard itself). However, such a goal cannot be attained temporally, but rather must be pursued ceaselessly by mankind. Having knowledge of this standard coupled with it being a point of consistent concentration (or focus) enables a person to better discern the methods of how they can adhere to the standards of morality. In short, the methods of achieving a goal or dream may also be used to better maintain a moral life. See also: Lesson III: Goals and Dreams in The Catalyst of Confidence.

3. Contemplation of that which is good invariably results in that which is good.

In the Selected Quotes section of Lesson IV: Thought and Concentration we find the following quote from Philippians 4:8: “Fill your minds with those things that are good, and that deserve praise: things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and honorable.” As explained in the lesson, the information one concentrates upon determines their dominating thoughts. Dominating thoughts, in turn, largely affect one's actions and behavior. Hence, the contemplation of good things (things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and honorable) will invariably result in good actions, which are more likely to produce external results which are also good.

Rocks Have Souls?

Beliefs are created from the perception and repetition of information. How they are developed and nurtured seems in little need of further explanation, and depending on one's memory and self-awareness, the genesis of a belief can often be ascertained quite easily. Every living person has developed beliefs. While certain people have convinced themselves they are utterly worthless, others have gone about donning the facade that they alone possess the true knowledge of reality. Then, of course, we have people who believe such things as rocks have souls, the man on the moon was a conspiracy, or that Jimmy Hoffa was abducted by space aliens. You name it, it's very likely that someone—somewhere—believes it.

It is the responsibility of each individual, however, to ascertain whether or not their beliefs are warranted. That is, whether or not there is sufficient reason for us to believe that which we profess to believe. “Does my belief correspond to reality?” is a question all people should wrestle with throughout their lives. Two opposing beliefs cannot both be valid. If I believe that “rocks have souls” and you don't—we cannot both be right. Either they do or they don't. Period. Granted, it may be impossible for us to know one way or the other, but that doesn't change the fact that contradictions cannot exist simultaneously.

It seems that so few people stop to examine the reasons they believe what they believe. If someone professes a belief opposed to your own, do you silently say “they're wrong” and dismiss the issue, or do you take the time to examine the reasons they may be mistaken? If you don't know why you believe something then why do you believe it? “I don't know, I've just always thought such-and-such” is NOT a good reason. We must always remember that our believing in something does not make it true. If it is true, it should be true independent of our belief, and we should have plausible reasons to demonstrate why it is. The same standard should apply to something we believe to be false.

You can believe anything you want—but you better know why you believe what you believe.

Student A and "I Fail at Life"

As a follow up to the previous post Joe, Basketball and Accurate Thought, I would like to make some additional comments.

Over the years I have had the opportunity to teach many teenagers, some of which, at times, have provided me with rather breathtaking examples of inaccurate thought. For instance, say Student A is talking with his or her friends during a break and (for some reason) explains that, while driving a car, it is legal to pass a “slow-poke” on the right-hand side and cross over into the shoulder of the road. Some other students (who perhaps have their drivers license?) quickly reply that, far from being legal, such a maneuver would be, in fact, illegal and quite dangerous. Consensus quickly rises in the room and many other students nod their heads to agree that so-and-so is right and passing on the right-hand side of the road is definitely illegal. Perhaps some even jest that “maybe it is legal—in England!” Laughter ensues and Student A grudgingly accepts that they were wrong.

Now, I would not consider this to be a good example of inaccurate thinking (though, strictly speaking, it would be inaccurate to think that one could legally pass a car on the right-hand side of the road) in and of itself. What often happens next, however, would be considered one of the best examples I can conjure. In situations such as these, where a so-called “Student A” is proven wrong (often by mere popular vote), many students will respond to their mistake by saying something like “oh well, I fail at life.” The first time I heard this I almost stabbed myself with one of my dry-erase markers, I was aghast.

“You what?—you fail at life?—because you thought it was legal to pass on the right-hand side of the road?”

In the loving and forgiving world of logic, there exists a term known as the non sequitur. Latin for “it does not follow,” a non sequitor describes a conclusion which does not follow from its premises. The response outlined above, “I fail at life,” is a non sequitur. In other words it is an entirely unjustified conclusion and yet, sadly, is one of the most common “teen-age” responses to challenges and mistakes. It is also one of the most profound and agonizing examples of inaccurate thought. Those saying such things may as well say something like “triangle x is isosceles, therefore I fail at life” or “the sky is blue, therefore I suck.”

When asked, students quickly point out that “I fail at life” is just a “harmless saying” and when they say it, they really don't mean that they literally “fail at life,” but rather, that they simply made a mistake. At first this may seem like a harmless conclusion, but imagine saying such a thing to yourself every time you made a mistake. Imagine developing the habit of communicating such a thing to yourself. It seems that eventually such a “harmless saying” would begin to take on a life of it's own in our minds, and would soon begin reminding us of our failings and shortcomings until such things dominate our thought life.

It is a known law of psychology that we come to believe that which we repeat to ourselves. Beliefs, as we have learned, determine our perception of reality, govern our actions and limit or unleash our potential. It appears that many teens have been communicating “I fail at life” to themselves for years in their internal dialogs. Imagine, if you can, adopting the belief that you-fail-at-life. How much faith would you have in yourself? How would you act?

Probably a lot like many of our so-called “teens.”

Joe, Basketball and Accurate Thought

Every living person has a voice in their mind. For example, if you just thought “I don't have a voice in my mind,” that is the voice I'm talking about. This “little voice in our head” is often referred to as our internal dialog, and essentially describes how we communicate with ourselves. It is through analyzing our internal dialog that we are able to garner great insight into our beliefs and—perhaps more importantly—our perceptions. This knowledge, in turn, helps us discern the accuracy of our thinking as it pertains to specific things.

Take Joe, for instance, who is currently in his mid 30's and has been an avid fan of basketball since childhood. Whether watching the pro's, college athletes or friends playing sandlot-style, he is fascinated by all aspects of the game. Joe, however, doesn't play, because, as he would say “I'm not any good at it.” When Joe was 10 he moved to a neighborhood that had a basketball court in a nearby park. Though he was new to the area, he finally got up the courage to go play with the other boys, who got together almost every day after school. It was his first time playing, and compared to the others, Joe was terrible. He had always wanted to play basketball, and though he now had the opportunity, he found that he wasn't any good. As a consequence, Joe resigned himself to the life of a spectator, and as he grew older, began following the sport on both collegiate and professional levels, but he never played basketball again.

Those who have read Lesson I: Perception and Belief can immediately draw some basic conclusions from the previous paragraph. First and foremost, the statement “I'm not any good at it” is a belief which Joe has adopted in regard to his personal competence in the game of basketball. We know this is a belief because it governs his actions and determines the fact (reality) that he doesn't play. This particular belief was created as a result of his initial perception that he wasn't any good, which probably originated itself as a statement by Joe in his internal dialog. But was this perception accurate? In other words, did it correspond to reality? It seems that it did because Joe actually was bad at basketball, especially considering it was his first time playing. However, upon closer inspection of his initial perception, and after taking into account a proper understanding of the concept of failure (as seen in Lesson VII: Failure and Adversity), we find that his initial perception was, on the contrary, inaccurate. That is, it did not correspond to reality.

How is this possible? Joe was, in fact—bad—wasn't he? Wouldn't perceiving himself to be good, despite his incompetence, be a form of self-deception? Yes. But the accurate thinker will note that the proper alternative to “I'm not good” is not merely “I am good,” but rather “I'm not good—right now.” The original statement posed by Joe in his internal dialog, “I'm not good” (which is the initial perception that led to the creation of this belief), is posed as a universal. That is to say, it is posed as a conclusive statement—something which cannot be changed—something which simply is. The proper alternative statement “I'm not good—right now,” accounts for his incompetence within a specific time and place, and as such, allows room for improvement. The plain truth is not that Joe is bad at basketball (in a definitive, all-inclusive sense), but rather, he is simply bad at this point in time, he is bad right now. While the initial perception (“I'm not good”) essentially dooms Joe to perpetual incompetence in the game of basketball—as it is an all-inclusive universal statement—the proper alternative statement (“I'm not good—right now”), frees Joe to acknowledge the reality that he is bad without removing his ability to improve over time. Had Joe perceived his inability to be a temporary affair (one which was contingent only upon his ability to improve), he would not have quit and would have most likely continued playing and developing his skills and love for the game. But as it is, Joe has unintentionally ostracized himself from a first person role in the game of basketball, and will, perhaps, never play again for the remainder of his life.

Examine the specifics of your internal dialog. You may be surprised what you find.

Why Is There 12?

While The Catalyst of Confidence is built around ten core lessons, which culminate in an eleventh, the acute reader will notice that there is also a twelfth, and no doubt wonder why it exists, especially considering that the eleventh lesson draws upon the functional understanding of the previous ten. In a sense, the twelfth and final lesson seems to stand out from the rest of the book, like a kind of black sheep, and though it adds to the consummation found in the eleventh, it is not merely a stand alone lesson, but rather, a more complex interpretation of the first. In other words, Lesson XII: Possibility and Impossibility, is simply a further explanation of Lesson I: Perception and Belief.

Our beliefs are curious things. It seems that, regardless of what we do or for what purpose, our actions can ultimately be traced back to a belief about something, while that specific belief can often be traced to a specific perception regarding a specific experience, which can ultimately be reduced to information, and from all this our actions and potential actions spring. (It is worth noting that throughout this entire process we have the freedom to choose how we perceive the information we associate with, and as such, are not necessarily reacting blindly to our environments.)

We find in Lesson XII: Possibility and Impossibility, that those who have accomplished the so-called impossible, believed that the “impossible” was possible. We find in our own lives that our ability to accomplish the things we desire, to solve problems, build relationships, or communicate effectively, is determined by what we believe. Likewise, the impossibility or possibility of a given end is also largely determined by and dependent on what we believe. Believe you can solve a problem and you'll find a way. Believe you can't and you won't bother trying.

Wrestling The Impossible

Would you believe that someone could win the national college championship in wrestling with a record of 36 wins and zero losses? Most people will admit this is possible. But what if I told you that this potential champion has a birth defect, he only has one leg. Would that affect your response? It would for most of us, but not for an athlete named Anthony Robles.
-

-

While a majority will concede that such accomplishments are possible in the abstract, few would say so if they themselves were afflicted with such a condition. How many would even consider getting involved in a sport (let alone the sport of wrestling) let alone competing in high school and college championships? How many would more readily use a wheelchair instead of crutches?

Anthony Robles obviously doesn’t believe that having one leg is a good excuse to not do something. What many people would believe to be impossible, Anthony believed was possible, and what few wrestlers believe they could do with two legs, Anthony believed he could do with one. The affect our beliefs have in our lives is astounding.
-

Why do you believe what you believe?

Really? Why didn't you kill yourself?

It seems there is always a story in the news about some recent suicide. Usually it's a teen or young adult, from this college or that high school, located in... ect. The circumstances may change, but the message is always the same: someone has taken their own life.

Within days (or hours even) the so-called “causes” will be brought to light, and the experts will conclude that if only this or that hadn't happened—if only the circumstances were different—the victim would be a normal, happy person. Inevitably, new methods to help identify troubled individuals will be promoted so the community can work together to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.

I have no intention of addressing the “cause” issue at this time. That is another topic for another post. For now, however, I would like to discuss the fundamental assumption which accompanies suicide in general. Namely, an individuals perception that non-existence would be better than existence. When someone takes their own life they are essentially saying they prefer to not exist. (For the sake of example, let us assume that no life after death exists.) In other words, existence is perceived as “too much” or simply “not worth it” and therefore non-existence is more preferable.

I have always believed that existence is better than non-existence, for one simple reason: Existence implies the possibility for good. Our existence, by virtue of it's very nature, cannot be without potential and therefore, a person cannot exist without the potential to create good in their life. In sharp contrast, non-existence implies complete nothingness, annihilation, absolute zero and therefore no potential to do anything whatsoever.

But wait, if existence implies the possibility for good, it must also imply the possibility for bad, right?

Yes, of course. But rather than having something bad happen, is it a better alternative to simply not exist? No, of course not. Any person will admit to having something bad happen to them at some point in their life. Yet imagine how they would respond if you asked them: “Really? Why didn't you kill yourself?” The answer should be self evident: because of the potential to create good in their life. With reasonable standards, as long as someone is alive, the potential to create good always exists. How many people have been burned by a bad personal relationship and still continue to search for “that special someone?”

But what if there is no potential to create good in our life?

I was actually asked this question recently by one of my students. The question was basically this: “What if I'm locked in a basement and chained to a wall, and I'm constantly abused by 'meth-head' serial rapists who live above me, wouldn't non-existence be better in that situation?” While this situation is possible, it poses no real threat to the proposal that “existence is better than non-existence.” The fact that someone may be in such a situation does not necessitate that non-existence is somehow better than existence. It is a legitimate question, however, and it most certainly could be perceived by the captive, that non-existence would be better, especially in that situation. But it does not follow, even in such dire circumstances, that no potential for good exists. It is still possible that such a person could be rescued, or may be able to escape in some way and thereby better their circumstances.

Victor Frankl answers this question (What if there is no potential to create good in our life?) in his 1946 book, Man's Search for Meaning, where he chronicles his experience as a Jew in the Nazi concentration camps. I believe he would agree that an existence in this world, where there is no potential to create "good” (or as he would say "meaning"), is fundamentally impossible.

In summary, there is only one real reason a person (who isn't insane) may take their own life: they simply believe there is no possibility for good to exist within it. But, as we have seen, it is not possible to exist without the potential to create good. The “bad” which may exist in our lives does not nullify the fact that good can be created. In the same sense, regardless of what has happened to you, or how bleak things may seem, the possibility to create good in your life still exists. It is a characteristic of being human.

Existence is simply better than non-existence because there is always potential to create good in our lives.