Beliefs  –  The structure of ‘Reality’? 

Preface

This piece attempts to explore the nature of ‘belief’.   In doing so some techniques are suggested.   Though they may have practical application, bridging the gap between exploring and exploiting potential, that is not the primary intent in this context but hopefully, to illuminate the nature of our relationship with our ‘beliefs’.

The suggestion here is that individual, intertwined and interdependent components of ‘belief’, are arranged in a hierarchical network.   From this, supporting belief-combinations, lead to an essential, illusion of ‘reality’ upon which we depend and which, ultimately, defines our individual ‘identities’.

This illusion, is perhaps limited by our ability to imagine, for what, if we cannot imagine it, what has any ‘reality’,?

Finally, that we can only understand something in terms of that which, our existing and interacting ‘beliefs’, allow us to understand.

It follows from the argument in my piece that considered fundamental aspects of ‘Managing Personal Effectiveness’, in which, ‘belief’ was proposed as one of four, core (manageable) skills, determining ‘personal effectiveness’.

It suggests the same process model in which, ‘awareness’, of the current ‘reality’, is led by ‘choice’, to the development of a ‘response’ (appropriate to a desired ‘future reality’ and aligned with the fitness-of our, fundamental motivation or ‘purpose’).

It is an attempt to investigate the nature, structure and assembly of ‘beliefs’ that define and limit the that process.

In the same vein as that model, it is purely a posit, to which all criticism is invited.

‘Beliefs’.

We have a, recursive, system that permits us to code, record and evaluate experiences.   From one or more, presuppositions, we make assumptions from which we create ‘beliefs’.

We have an ability to relate them, one to another, so that each element can reinforce others.   From this, we can build larger ‘pictures’, which lead to our forming individual, ‘realities’ ( and ultimately, our ‘identities’).

So, for example, if I were presented with an oak leaf, I would, likely, have a ‘belief’ that enabled me to recognise it from previous experience.   In this case, an amalgamation of codings of experiences of (at least) colour, shape (3D), plants, trees, etc., etc..

From its colour, I might estimate, when in the season, it was taken from the tree.

I would also have beliefs around the nature of an oak tree and the quality and uses, past and present, of its timber.   I would recall the aroma of the wood, when worked and have a ‘belief’ that I liked that aroma.

The foregoing is but a fraction of my experiencing around and directly associated with, leaves and oak trees and miniscule in terms of a life experience.

This leads to a catalogue and matrix composed of ‘beliefs’ supporting my illusion of ‘reality’ upon which I depend, for the basic level of ‘confidence’ I need, to pursue my life with any ‘purpose’.

The outline proposal

Our ‘awareness’ may be regarded as the best ‘reality’ we can create from the data available to us.   We apply our system of (experience-derived) beliefs as standards of reference that enable us to translate this data into ‘information’ adequate to form a ‘reality’ acceptable to our imagination.   This must be the ultimate arbiter, for if we cannot imagine ‘it’, how can it have any (personal) reality?

Where we judge our awareness of a prevailing circumstance to present a challenge, we use the same process to assemble possible ‘future realities’ from which we make ‘choice’ to offer ‘response’.   (This ‘response’ can include offering no intervention.)

States of confusion and dilemma arise when we are aware that we cannot acquire or develop an acceptable ‘reality’ (one we can ‘believe’ in). 

Though, many times, ‘awareness’ and ‘choice’ may seem clear and irrefutable, it is essentially a process of confidence and ‘valuing’.   

It may be useful to regard all our beliefs as metaphors so that, say an ‘apple’, is not absolutely an ‘apple’ but is enough like our model of one that we can, conveniently, so label it.

Geo. Box suggests:

“All models are wrong though some may be useful”.

(From this, models viewed as a metaphors, can inspire new beliefs without reference to their veracity)

Goleman expands this in his book “Vital lies – simple truths”.   He suggests a process in which it is ‘vital’ that we simplify complexity in order to be able to act with confidence and that when we find our modelling inadequate, we elaborate it, sometimes several times.   As the model becomes less elegant and less functional, we eventually, discover a new and simpler model  –  The new ‘Simple Truth’ is of course similarly ‘vital’ and the next ‘lie’.   He suggests groups (mind-think) as well as individuals, expressing of this model.

As for ‘truth’:

1 minus 1 is in the range of +/- 2 times the confidence limits imposed.

1 – 1 = 0 is merely a (very useful) convenience.

Such ‘truth’ can impede practicality.

Our behaviours are determined by our beliefs.   Though we may, at times, be aware of a behaviour being in conflict with a particular belief, where another has overridden it.

We do not, normally, need to express our beliefs to justify action and could, then, regard them as ‘transparent’.

A situation akin to, if not one of, ‘hypnosis’, in which the ‘critical factor’ (‘curiosity’?) is suspended.    Indeed, in Milton Erikson’s modelling, ‘hypnosis’, is a normal prerequisite to every action.   The situation, where a stage hypnotist’s subject eats an onion as if it were an apple, is merely, an extreme, metaphor.    It does, however, demonstrate that the belief driving a behaviour is not necessarily apparent.

Though our ‘reality’ may be relative rather than absolute, in order to be of use, it must be relevant to engagement with our environment(s).

The beliefs that support it are initially obtained from our environmental experiencing.   Our beliefs are thus, at least initially, externally referenced to those environments and influenced by our interactions with others in them.

As our experience expands, we review, order, maybe modify and prioritise our beliefs.   In this process of review, we can acquire increased ownership of some of these ideas and they can become increasingly internally referenced.

The framework of the resulting structure supports each of our personal identities.

Societies similarly have identities derived from a framework of (shared) beliefs which are formalised in traditions, laws etc.   The consensus, upon which, such sharing rests on has inertia.   It develops slowly lagging behind invention.   A society’s very existence necessitates substantial elements of rigidity and conservatism in its identity.   It is therefore required to encourage conformity in its members, which is aided where they can gain confidence from accepting, internalising and not questioning, its conventions.

Whilst individually, we may recognise that our beliefs develop, it is, maybe, helpful to consider any belief as capable of improvement.   It would, however, be courageous beyond reason, for a society to accept that its values are (at best) adequate only to the moment.

The following two examples may illustrate some of the nature and structure of our belief systems.   If you engage with these, I suggest that you do so rapidly and instinctively.

The objective of both, is to illustrate the automatic prcess of our normal, intuitive responses

It is later, that the results merit logical critique.   Please do not attempt to logicise or justify your responses whilst you are making them, as we are attempting to reveal some of the ‘intuitive’ nature of individual beliefs and then, their interrelationships

Also, in order to capture a belief or an idea, write your impression as briefly as possible.   It is necessary, merely to be able to recover an impression from any note that you make.    Ideally a ‘key-word’ is adequate clue.

The first example may illustrate the nature:

In the table below, make a few entries where you feel stimulated.   It is not necessary to complete or even address any particular topic  –  six to twelve entries is fine  –  more if you wish but do it quickly without thinking about or dwelling on anything.   The final rows allow you to nominate your own topic(s).

Once you have made your entries, return to each one and against it in column ‘A’ note how strongly you held the belief at the time of writing and enter a score scaled between one and ten (note that zero would mean that you did not hold that belief).

Having assigned the scores, in column ‘B’, note whether you rate a belief as positive and helpful to you or negative and unhelpful, marking the result as ‘H’ or ‘U’.

As we obtain our beliefs from elsewhere – they are ‘given’ to us, finally, in column ‘C’ note  whether a belief is truly owned ‘O’ or still has significant givenness ‘G’.

You can now audit those beliefs.

Some aspects for audit:

Some implications from results of the questionnaire:

Scores of ‘ten’ indicate statements of ‘faith’ rather than of belief and that you have left yourself no freedom to question them, that in essence you are servant to and ‘owned’ by them, rather than owning them.

If you have labelled any entries as (still) ‘given’, they fall in two categories:

1.    If ‘helpful’, could they be more so if you were able to more fully ‘own’ them?   How could you do that?

2.    If ‘unhelpful’, you are effectively blaming the donor for any deficiency and moreover, since you do not own it, how can you address it, if you wish to?

Where beliefs are (generally) ‘unhelpful’:

What other belief options/variants are there and how strongly could you hold them? (note that they do not need to sum to ten and commonly, do not).

I have seen clients aware and holding unhelpful beliefs as low as three, who on reflection have an alternative (usually ‘owned’) rated as high as seven.   In many cases that awareness, alone,  has been adequate without further address.    Where not so, consideration of the degree of acceptable ownership and maybe, modification of possible alternatives, has sufficed.

It is not uncommon for people to find that they can, most easily, access an ‘unhelpful’ belief (which determines their response) whilst at the same time having a ‘helpful’ belief held with equal or greater strength.

Where beliefs are ‘helpful’:

Do-you / how could-you own them?

What other beliefs might support them?  –  and  –  What other beliefs might hinder them?

In my experience, most clients and course participants find this exercise illuminating in how their responses are influenced by beliefs which though they hold and are not brought into focus to validate those responses.   Also, in the range of choice offered by other beliefs (occasionally but not unusually) some of which, they hold with greater intuitive conviction.

It commonly, illustrates and supports Erickson’s model.

The exercise can be used more specifically, where one collects a few beliefs around a single subject rather than a broad range as above.

If the previous example illustrated the nature of individual beliefs and their subtle influence, the next may indicate the ‘structure’ or how a network of beliefs may act in unison without our conscious awareness.

It demonstrates our selection and ‘concentration’ as a continuous process.   It can maybe help us access our underlying patterns of thought.   We may then understand better how these patterns influence our response(s) so enabling a wider range of choice.

To explore this opportunity, it may be useful to take an example of some recurring issue of confusion but of the most minor concern on which you are somewhat unclear.

Take some lined paper and having numbered each line from ‘1’ to say ‘12’.   Relax and reflect lightly on your chosen issue, noting how it makes you feel.

Staying with that feeling, quickly note the thoughts that cross you mind and capture each (preferably with a key-word) on a separate line.   You only need a few entries.   So stop when the flow seems to dry up  –  six or so should suffice.   Do not attempt to judge or force the process but rather, try to act as an independent observer of your own consciousness.

You now have a numbered list.

Starting at the top and holding in mind the key word for that line, allow your eye to scan downwards and note which of the remaining words seems to most “want to be associated with” the idea encapsulated on the first line.

Note the line number of the strongest association and write this at the end of the line.   Now repeat this for the entry on the second line, scanning swiftly and lightly downwards to the last entry and then back to the start line.

That is, as if you were scanning entries, not a vertical list but as if on a drum.   At no time TRY to do, contemplate, or justify.   Should you become stuck on a particular line, just move to another, returning to it later.

You will have completed the exercise when each entry ends with an association-number.   Once you have captured all the associations, you can draw a map of them.

The table above and map below are of a real situation.   Detail of content would, too easily be misleading and therefore omitted.

(Though moving from a consideration of a ‘problem state’ and towards the potential for ‘solution’ falls beyond the intended scope of this piece, there will be an entry in the ‘Odd Bits’ section, as supporting notes to a YouTube hypnosis recording.)

From the map, you may note the logical linking between the separate elements that supports the original condition you were contemplating.

Summarising:

At the individual level:

• Beliefs are proposed as tacit standards of reference for value judgement.

• They guide our responses and determine our behaviours.
• They act in concert and define our identities.
• We have but limited awareness of them.

• Those that we ‘own’ can augment our flexibility of choice.
• The greater our awareness of them and the less rigidly we hold them, the greater our degrees of freedom (and opportunities for exploitation).
• If we wish societal membership, we must (sometimes) compromise our individual beliefs to retain that membership.
• There is potential in one’s assembly of beliefs, for tension, conflict, confusion and dilemma.

At the societal level:

• Beliefs are proposed as the value-judgement standards of reference.
• They are expressed as ‘laws’, to guide its members (limit their behaviours).
• Acting in concert, their structure determines a society’s ‘identity’.
• The more rigidly they can be held, the greater a society’s (short-term) stability.
• Societal beliefs have greater inertia than those of individual members.
• In order to retain membership, societies need to aid members compliance and develop strategies for social conditioning.   (Balanced by a degree of compromise.)
• Similarly, there is potential within the structure of a society for tension, conflict, confusion and dilemma.

At the personal level:

My most liberating learning occurred, when I shifted from pursuing flawless truth, to appreciating any available value gain that I could add to my core metaphor. This perspective allows me to more easily accept and welcome confusion and dilemma as indicators of opportunity.   Unfortunately, it doesn’t obliterate frustration.

This piece leans more towards ‘expertise’ with the suggested exercises, drawn from my experience as a therapist/coach.    I admit to being less than comfortable introducing such content in this medium but hope that they can be taken, solely as an attempt to illustrate a proposal for understanding of some of the aspects of our our ‘operating system’.

In Conclusion

If we can only understand something within the terms of our ability to understand,   then that is the limit of our ability to create reality.

There is confusion surrounding this, ‘NLPers’ say “The meaning of your communication is the response you receive” but I think this is flawed – there are at least two points for distortion of interpretation.   Wittgenstien (probably misquoted) said  (in effect) that the meaning of what someone says is what they intended to say – and that , at least, seems logical.

A proposed strategy for managing beliefs might be:

• Seek to understand and own one’s beliefs.
• Seek to understand new opportunities with reference to one’s existing model of believing.
• Seek to add value to that core model with each new belief.
• Strive to remain aware that as the core model is dynamic and beliefs, being constructs, are capable of improvement.
• Such improvements, in adding value to the core model, can, occasionally, make significant adjustment to the core model (popularly – a ‘paradigm shift’).
• Although changes to the core model add robustness, awareness of this process can also encourage confidence and flexibility, without which, both process and progress are impeded.
• The core model is the basis on which we operate and if and where, change may seem catastrophic, we may take encouragement from the fact that it has enabled us to survive, so far!

Similar to my previous piece, these are my musings, presenting a model that I acknowledge as flawed. While I find it useful, it falls short in addressing many of my predicaments.

Your criticism and comment are essential to furthering direction and development.

Post                                                                                    Script

Supplementary Notes from Discussion and Reflecting

Reality:

May, perhaps be viewed as a personal construct, where: Each individual’s reality, is an assessment of confidence emerging from a framework of interconnected beliefs.

Defined by limits of ‘uncertainty’ and supported by supposition, reality is thus, less an absolute truth and more a probabilistic assessment

Cultural realities arise from Social consensus, though personal interpretations remain distinctly individual

Our Beliefs:

Are derived from an ocean of presupposition and form and are formed from a recursive system of evaluation, rising to an assessment of probability, of confidence, adequate for us to be able to presume ‘truth’.

Our perceived reality is thus defined by the limits of our uncertainty, supported by a dynamic network of beliefs that continuously reshape our understanding of the world.

This modulation of our reality, is represented by our experiencing personal ‘learning’.   Cultures use ‘teaching’ in an attempt to acquire desired outcomes.

As the ‘reference standards of ‘reality’, our beliefs govern our ability to assess, choose, and respond to experiences as proposed in the, fundamental model proposed.

In that model, each of the stages; – ‘Assess’ – ‘Choose’ – ‘Respond’, are, in effect, themselves probabilistic assessments (of ‘reality’).

Further Comment Please!