Posted by mattdds on June 7, 2003, at 13:19:21
In reply to Re: But if I do bad things, aren't I bad?, posted by Dinah on June 7, 2003, at 11:39:22
Hi Dinah,
You are asking two questions.
1) If I do bad things am I bad?
2) If I am responsible for making myself better, then, am I to blame if I don't improve?1) This is a belief that involves an error in thinking called "all or nothing thinking", "should statements" and "labeling".
First of all, I don't even know what "being bad" even means. It seems to make sense, but really does not hold up under closer scrutiny. We could try to propose definitions for "bad", but these would be very arbitrary. Let's say that being bad means you have committed 500 "bad acts". That definition would include the whole entire human population, so at least you'd be in good company. We could lower the standards, but any number of "bad acts" that we set as the mark for all of a sudden becoming "bad" would be arbitrary and senseless, right?
We all do bad things, some do more, some do less. Where do we make the cutoff line as to who's bad and good? It is learning to think in shades of gray, rather than black or white, or good or bad. Even the definition of "bad *things*" is very arbitrary, which compounds the problem even more.
So why bother with the label of "good" or "bad"? We learned to think this way when we were younger, because it served a heuristic function back then (strangers = bad, mommy = good). Now that we are older, if we think about it, these words really do not make much sense as labels to highly complex things like human beings.
Labels like "bad" do nothing to solve problems. They merely place a vague label on something that disctracts from what is really going on. This robs us of opportunities for growth, because we are not defining the problem in *specific* terms. After all, how can we solve problems if we do not define them? Let's say for the sake of argument that you yelled at someone while angry (bad behavior). What is the advantage of calling yourself "bad" over defining exactly what the problem is (you yelled at someone when you were angry), and coming up with a highly specific problem for dealing with it? You see, life is nothing more than a series of discreet, definable little problems. If we deal with each of these individually and rationally, this would make a whole lot more sense, and we would grow much more.
2) I think you have a different idea of what responsibility means that I do. I defined it earlier for you, but perhaps you missed the post. However, embedded in your question about responsibility and getting better is a hidden "should statement", "I should get better"
But why *should* you get better? And what do you mean by this? Should can mean a couple of things. It can imply that something is morally unacceptable. It can also mean that something will probably happen (e.g. or the sun should rise tomorrow).
Getting better is not a moral issue, as being mentally ill is not against the code of any religion (that I'm aware of). Thou shalt be happy at all times? Never heard that one ;).
Another way of writing your statement is "I shouldn't be feeling bad". Shouldn't in the *non*-moral sense means "probably will not" But the fact is that you are feeling bad. So this doesn't really make sense either.
So now that it reality that you are indeed feeling bad, and we've decided that it is useless to compound the problem by beating yourself up about it, there is a question: what can I do to make myself feel better? This is responsibility, in my opinion.
*Responsibility* - a sense of awareness of the things that one can do for one's own improvement. It also includes an awareness that some things are outside your control. These things are accepted and dealt with. The focus of responsibility is what you *can* do; that is where you are directing your attention. Responsibility in the therapeutic sense has no moral implication, it is not like being "responsible" for murder. This is a different meaning of the word.
*Blame/Fault* - selective and arbitrary negative attention to one's own role in a complex problem that contains many variables. Blaming does not take into consideration the other variables that were involved in the problem.
Another reason: if you don't take responsibility for doing all you can to improve, then who will?
I seem to need to stress that this is *not* a moral issue. If you do not get better, then it is OK! It is not your "fault". Faulting yourself is just compounding the first problem (feeling bad) with a second problem (beating yourself up about it). Taking responsibility is just doing all you can do and accepting the rest
This may be hard to grasp, it took me a while. But once it did, and I saw that these terms really did not make any sense, I slowly stopped feeling "bad", and began to see things in more discreet, definible ways. People being "good" and "bad" seems a bit nonsensical to me now.
From a religious standpoint (You are Christian, right? I think I remember some of your posts on the faith-babble), Jesus said to separate the sin from the sinner. I think he was saying essentially the same thing here. People may do bad things, but there is no such thing as a bad person.
Does this help at all? I hope so.
Best,
Matt
poster:mattdds
thread:230572
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20030529/msgs/232176.html