Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

I`ve been seeing a few topics dealing with fear, how it affects us in starting a business, and what can we do to overcome that fear. There isn`t a natural place to post an article, so forgive my using a topic for that purpose. Feel free to comment, add to, or disagree.

Consider two words: light and dark. We use those words all the time. Does that mean there are actual "things" belonging to those words? Or reverse the question and ask, are there two things that actually exist which require a word for each of them?

Light is a thing. We can measure it in physics, understanding that when a particular form of energy affects the surrounding reality, we call that "light." But what about dark? Is that a "thing?" Isn`t it instead, the absence of light?

Human beings are unique (as far as we know) in our capacity to work with non-existent ideas, things, concepts, and symbols. It`s our Imagination that allows us to see into the future or past, envisioning what doesn`t physically exist. Without an imagination we wouldn`t be able to manipulate symbols. We wouldn`t be able to use written words. After all, a bunch of black pixels next to white pixels means nothing.

Our ability to form patterns, generate symbols, and work with intangibles comes from this Imagination that nobody wants to define. We don`t understand how it works, but we use it all the time anyway. Many people have no idea how an airplane stays up in the sky, yet they fly in planes all the time.

Because of this ability to manipulate symbols, we also have the ability to form sets of information. We have sets of numbers, vegetables, cars, plants, fish, and everything else. As such, we have "the thing" and we invent a word for the "not thing." It`s for the purpose of contrast, logic, equations, arithmetic, and thought itself.

Too many people believe that they`re defining "light" by saying it`s "the opposite of dark." In fact, light has its definition, founded in energy physics. However, the definition of "dark" is actually "the absences of light." It`s the opposite of light. Without knowing the difference, we get all confused.

Does fear exist? Is it a thing? No. It`s like dark.

So what`s the thing that`s missing when we feel fear? Understand that no feeling "Just happens," either! It`s a complex interpretation of a series of biochemical reactions taking place in our body. Fear arises out of adrenaline and cortisol, along with all sorts of associated chemicals.

There are 5 great fears we all come to understand:

• Fear of death
• Fear of insanity
• Fear of dependency
• Fear of abandonment or isolation (being alone)
• Fear of embarrassment

These aren`t instincts, they`re learned responses. When we`re born we don`t even think about death. We can`t "think" yet, since we don`t have the cerebral cortex in place to handle that thinking. We react, based on the underlying "lizard brain" but that`s not thinking. We simply live. We don`t know we`re alive until someone teaches us the word.

It`s when we get older and learn to distinguish between "alive" and "not alive" that we also begin to develop a fear of not-life. We could spend our lives without ever using opposition words, but it would be very inefficient. So we learn the term for "not alive" is "dead."

As we learn about being alive, getting invested in it, enjoying it, revelling in life, we discover the upset to our comfort when something we value dies. It can be a pet goldfish, our pet horse, our family member, or whatever else. But when we first associate what "is" with what "not is" we look for a word to hold that concept.

Fear is a "not thing." On the highest level of generality, the opposite of Fear is Certainty. The measure along the scale between Certainty and Fear is Doubt. Any doubt reduces certainty, thereby increasing fear. It`s the gradual loss of the "thing" of certainty that we intepret as something else. But it isn`t something else! It`s the absence of that certainty. We have lots of words to describe increments between totally certain and hysterically panicked.

Certainty is an "attribute" of Truth. Right or wrong, in a subjective sense, when we believe we have a proof of the logical "true," we say we are certain. The degree to which we hold that certainty then generates another attribute: confidence.

The problem with any set of articles that try to set forth a single way to overcome fear is that the author(s) don`t account for the five separate realms of fear and certainty. So for example, we have a thread about the fear of delegating in a business. Is that a fear of losing control? What`s control in the first place?

Control is a certainty of resources. At 10 weeks, a newborn takes control of their vision tracking. Before that, the eyes automatically track any moving thing, with both eyes moving together. Our eyes provide us with the resources of vision, which then give us everything descendent from that vision and ability to see, extract set information, learn, and develop.

When we lose control over our vision, going blind, we become dependent on outside resource management for visual information. If we were born blind, we don`t think about it much, until maybe we`re older. But if we first could see, then know someone who can`t see, we understand that we could lose our own vision. That`s when we lose our certainty in our eyes, begin to doubt the certainty of having vision, and begin to form a fear of going blind.

It isn`t that fear is a "thing" we have to combat. It`s that we`ve lost our certainty in some area of our thinking---our conceptual view of reality.

Some people are afraid to start a business because of the chaos. That`s the underlying foundation of insanity, which is an inability to form a cause-and-effect relationship. Others are afraid they`ll lose all their wealth and become dependent. But a very strong fear is that nobody will buy the product.

"Nobody wants me, nobody likes me, nobody buys my product." That`s at the psychological heart of a fear of isolation. We inadvertently mistake the product for the self. It`s the concept of "identification" in psychology. The fear of abandonment, with the resulting being alone, stems from birth. The newborn is utterly helpless for much longer than other mammals. Without someone to care for that baby, it dies.

To counter fear we have to focus on certainty. So in the midst of utter panic, verging on insanity, the immediate thing to do is stop and ask yourself: "What 1 thing do I know for absolute certain!"

Few people are afraid to start a business because they`re afraid of getting killed. Sure, if you`re in the daredevil business, it`s a factor, but not really. Most people start a business because they don`t "fear" dependency, they don`t like it. When that discomfort of being dependent upon an employer reaches a higher level than the anxiety (not fear) of failing in business, they act.

But during the initialization phase, we focus on the uncertainty of money. In modern culture, money replaces hunting-gathering, and money is critical to independent survival. So as the money begins to run out, without there being a certain source of new money, the fear of dependency begins to grow stronger. A "successful" business is self-reliant, and the opposite of dependency is Dignity.

We`re not really afraid of the "unknown." By definition, it`s unknown so how could we know to fear it? A baby has no information about a razor blade, and fears nothing at all about playing with it...or a rattlesnake. Only the known (true knowledge of it or not) can cause us to be fearful.

Rather than try to un-fear yourself from what you don`t know, try a different approach. Examine what it is you think you`re certain of. Then examine which of those things you`re starting to doubt. That`s what`s causing your fear. If you were certain you would immediately make a living from profits in a startup, as you begin to doubt those profits, you`ll shift from certainty, to doubt, to nervousness, to anxiety, to fear, to panic.

Let go of that false premise that provided you with false certainty, or false assurances. Instead of being uncertain, think of it from a risk assesment perspective. How much are you willing to risk? If you`re certain of that, then as the risks begin to take effect in reality, you`ll be certain that you can handle them. It`s because you know those risks.

Nobody is omniscient, and you can`t possibly know everything that will happen. So a fear of the "unknown," is actually to doubt your own sanity, your capacity to adapt; to learn, and to survive. Rather than fear the unknown, which doesn`t exist, how about choosing to believe in luck?

Craig, I agree with your point on "fear" and how we can allow it to debilitate our lives. It is so true, and so sad.

Yet you say that fearing the unknown doesn`t exist, but "luck" does exist?

I know many people believe in luck, that doesn`t make it real , though it is real to those that choose to believe in it.

The definition for luck (from Webster`s Dict) is

1a. a force that brings good fortune; noun .

How `bout that "force"?

-------------------------

I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. John 10:10b, NKJV.

Craig,

Thank you for your article.

Your brilliant study of the connection between knowledge and fear reminds me of the saying "what we don`t know can`t hurt us"

I`m a big proponent of being courageous with opportunity- i.e., advancing in spite of your fears (your knowledge of failures past) and erasing your doubt with what you know is certain.

Blind confidence is dangerous and foolish but I would take it any day over being so frozen with fear that I don`t even get the opportunity to fail.

~Eric

-------------------------

~Eric
JE Design Group, LLC
If all you do is what you`ve done, then all you`ll get is what you`ve got.
www.jedesigngroup.com

Hi Craig,

Interesting read, agree with the intent and what you state there. There are only a couple of things I would`ve worded differently.

IMO the one part that doesn`t add up is the very last statement/question, “Rather than fear the unknown, which doesn`t exist, how about choosing to believe in luck? ” While using the dictionary definition there is no such thing as luck as Candee pointed out, I believe that what we call luck is simply the result in the belief in ourselves. If I believe that I am good at something I will `become` good at it or at least better than what I really am because I believe that I am. That being the case, the old adage `we create our own luck`, would apply. Someone who is fearful is so because he doesn`t believe in something, that, by it`s very nature, would produce the exact opposite of the desired results. We should avoid pitfalls by using those fears in our favor.

I`m convinced that we must believe in ourselves in order to be successful, but most importantly one should have the courage of his convictions. You`ll notice that to have courage is not to be fearless, rather, to face your fears turning weaknesses into strengths and move forwards.

Candee and Eli both bring out the apparent logical inconsistency of setting aside fear of the unknown in favor of luck. First, I`m gratified that the article makes sense, much less that people I admire (Eric too) would take the time to comment. Thank you ;-)

I have two points of clarification. The first is my intent to say that if you`re going to throw the weight of your actions behind something that doesn`t exist, fear of the unknown has a negative, pessimistic "flavor." If we say that luck also doesn`t exist, then why not throw that weight behind something with an optimistic flavor?

To the second point, human psyches can categorize into catastrophic and miraculous thinking or mindsets. You can determine your category if you`re an introspective type of person and can "watch" the chain of thoughts taking place in your mind. Many people can`t, won`t, or don`t know how to do this, but I`ll assume you do.

If you`re driving along, admiring the day, enjoying the world, and you see a car crash, with wheels all over the road, you can begin to think about how your own car might crash. You might contemplate the front end squeak, wondering if your axle is about to come off. That would be normal, reasonable thought, based on a logical chain of events.

You saw a crash, saw wheels, imagined the possibility of your own car`s axle breaking. Yes, it`s pessimistic, but it`s not "catastrophic thinking."

On the other hand, you`re driving along, admiring the weather, listening to some music, and out of nowhere you start to imagine driving off a bridge, having your axle fall off, the engine exploding, or hitting a cow. That`s catastrophic thinking. It`s the lack of causal relationship between observations and an imagined scenario. Usually, it`s a function of biochemistry and a "habit" of thinking, often arising from childhood.

When you fear the unknown, you`re essentially generating catastrophic scenarios out of pure imagination. You don`t have certain knowledge of something to fear, so you simply imagine a catastrophe. It might be something you can envision, or it might just be death and destruction, fire and rubble. Whatever it is, it`s a catastrophic scenario based on nothing whatsoever.

The odd thing about feelings is that they happen on their own, just as much as they happen in connection with thoughts. We don`t know how that connection takes place, it`s a mystery. But throughout our life we learn that IF we feel something, THEN it`s because something caused us to feel it. That`s just not true; medical science proves it repeatedly.

So if you have a feeling of fear, there`s no necessary connection to anything whatsover that you`ve observed or perceived in reality. It can simply happen for biochemical reasons (overload of cortisol is a good one!). But we`re so used to assuming there must be a reason for the feeling, that we search around. There MUST be SOMEthing that caused the fear, and so we dream up a cause.

How do you change a habit of a lifetime, when it involves thinking catastrophically? A good way is to "overwrite" the premise in your logical mind---your database of language. "Miracle" has a religious connotation, and doesn`t really sound all that exciting. But "luck" is similar to miracles, while being independent of some sort of spiritual being.

If you`re tending to be fearful of the unknown, my suggestion to "choose to believe" in luck, is a way to overwrite a program you`ve likely grown up running. It isn`t so important to define "luck," as to have a sense of the term---a feeling. Feelings don`t have words (that`s the intellect`s job), so if you want to replace a feeling of doom, practice holding onto a feeling of luck.

"Luck" is a fascinating abstraction to define. It`s an "objective" event, in that luck isn`t an internal part of the self. Luck is always outside the self. It requires some sort of agreement of an objective reality, and yet many people who believe in luck are almost entirely subjective.

Of the two fundamental decisions we should make early on, the decision as to whether or not the universe and existence have an organization is the most important. (Whether some aspect of self continues beyond death is the second.) The decision can`t be proved or disproved, it`s a decision. Then we live by that decision with some level of consistency (integrity).

If we say existence has no organization at all, then there`s no such thing as luck. There`s only random chance and events that promote or demote our survival and life. But if we say that existence is organized, then luck is something different. It`s a confluence of events that provides us with an opportunity to further our desires.

Whether or not that confluence is orchestrated is a metaphysical question. If you believe in some spiritual component or higher consciousness, or meta- or super-consciousness, then luck is orchestrated. If you hold that organization applies but without some sort of conscious design, then luck is more correctly "serendipity" or coincidence.

It comes down to whether you have a "sense of life" within a benevolent or malevolent universe. It connects with if you believe in evil, or not. Since none of it can be proven empirically, it all rests entirely upon your own philosophy, your own consistent structure of reasoning, and your own choices to simply believe in various answers to certain questions.

Personally, I prefer the more poetic view of existence that there is a meta-consciousness to us all, there is organization, and luck is the result of principles such as the "law of attraction," and energy physics. Individualism lays out the arguments, but I`ll again emphasize they can`t be proven or disproven. It`s simply more Fun to hold certain beliefs than others. :-)

Nicely done Sir!

I agree that movement is better than intertia arising from fear. As I often ask folks, "What`s the worst that can happen? You die a horrible death!"
:-)

More importantly, though, I want to address this "what you don`t know can`t hurt you" phrase. The reason I`m slowly getting it in gear to write out a philosophy is that we`ve lost touch, in modern times, with the underlying meaning and wisdom our previous generations had when the encoded these phrases. Remember, it was Ben Franklin who made popular the shorthand tidbits of aphorisms in The Farmer`s Almanac.

With only a little bit of thought we can prove that what we don`t know, in fact, can kill us. Think of Marie and Pierre Curie, in their work with radium. People originally thought it was just a nice way to put some luminescence onto watch dials. The girls painting those numerals would lick the brush, then die of radiation poisoning later. When Marie Curie developed the knowledge, people stopped eating paint. (Although I have a few great recipes, still!) :-)

Then think about the kids dying in slums from lead-based paint. Not quite as bad as irradiated paint, but still paint. To demonstrate what I see of today`s use of platitudes and aphorisms, I could say that "paint kills!" Much better to say that "exercise will kill you!" Anyone who`s ever done exercise in all of human history has either died, or is on the way to dying!

Semantics is important in that it helps us choose our words. Those words program our mind through our use of language. "What you don`t know can`t hurt you" originally referred "know" to emotional hurt and pain, not physical damage. Rather, the phrase should be "What you don`t know can`t alarm you."

People say "ignorance is bliss." Judges say "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law." Now consider the difference between the laws of a society, and the laws of Nature. Our problem these days is that so many people actually go out and manage their entire lives through the use of catchphrases, needle-point philosophy (or that found on coffee mugs), platitudes, aphorisms, and cliches.

I`m not suggesting Eric, that you`d doing so. I know you enough through your posts. But you`ve generated a cool opportunity to flesh out another missing aspect of our ignorance of how fear operates, so I`m writing on it. :-)

"What you don`t know can kill you!" The issue here is whether or not fear of the unknown can kill you. No, since you don`t even know what it is that you would fear. But free-floating anxiety, panic attacks, and generalized fear (phobia) can easily paralyze one`s ability to act, to reason, to think, to imagine, and to function.

We`ve recently developed the medical science of pain management, understanding that pain is a helpful warning sign, but prolonged pain can interfere with a healing process. So too, I`d like to see psychiatrists and physicians apply further science to the field of fear management. So much of fear traces down to basic chemistry, without any association to reality.

Finally, "fear of the unknown" translates to a fear of Reality itself. This is directly descended from the bankruptcy of modern philosophy, and it`s gang of modern linguists, deconstructionists, and pragmatists. When we remove the possibility of certainty in association with reality, we paralyze the human mind totally.

Is there a Santa Clause? In one sense, no. He`s a mythological person (probably a liberal Democrat, since he`s giving away everything for free!). But in another sense, "he`s" a symbolic representation of an ideology, a set of character traits, and the spirit of benevolence.

Our problem in today`s culture is that we believe (for no reason whatsoever) that children are "the same as" adults. Not only is this absurd, it`s now resulted in massive damage to our entire social structure. Children are animals on their way to becoming human. They require certainty because they`ve yet to develop a complete facility for critical analysis.

We teach our children that reality is subjective, totally whimsical, and that they alone control all aspects of that reality. Imagine the tremendous stress that puts on a child? Then, as they go through secondary school learning "philosophy" as it`s now been diluted, educators "prove" that there`s no such thing as reality, it can`t be understood, and life is utterly chaotic.

With no certainty, no possibility of certainty, and no tools to formulate reliable thought structures, the end result is an all-pervasive "fear" of nothing-and-everything. That`s the "fear of the unknown" people refer to in the catchphrase. It`s a far deeper, and vastly more dangerous fear than the more simple fear of spiders or fear of bankruptcy.

Craig,

I`m in agreement with your analysis. For the record, I brought the "what you don`t know" phrase up only because your earlier writing had me thinking of it. I totally agree that what we don`t know can kill us!  One doesn`t have to think long to realize that.

I agree with you furthermore, on your overall "poetic view" on existence and the apparent order and the connection with the luck.....which I really do believe we find a way to make for ourselves in many ways. Not in the "I`ll bet it all on red...I`m feelin` lucky tonight!" sense. I`m going to take another view.
Was it "luck" that the Giraffe developed an absurdly long neck just perfect for reaching the otherwise unreachable? I could rattle of an endless list of animal evolutionary growth that developed for no other reason than a combination of their pure desire and the metaphysical connection and order (the organization that you speak of)  that allows a frog to think "Dang, if my tongue were just a little longer and stickier, I would have had that one!" and then actually make it so. OR the bat to think "ya know... look at all of those bugs out there that nobody is eatin` .....if I could just find a way to see them in the dark I could be chowin` when everybody else is sleeping why I`d be .........ooooh I think I just heard dinner fly by gotta go!"

Aren`t we doing that also? And yeah Craig, as long as we are teaching fear, we will evolve with fear, if teaching positivity, so will we evolve. If we teach the men to be strong, and the women to be subservient then that culture will persist as long as it is accepted.

Lately (past couple of millennia) we`ve been able to defeat the law of "survival of the fittest" through charitable efforts driven by another strong intangible (love of one another)....It`s just our human nature. But what has it done to our ability to drive our own destiny and evolve? How are we using our own ability to adjust ourselves when we require intervention from others for our own survival? Will it be that we reach a point where we can only manipulate everything but ourselves?

and then.............. 

How does that affect our luck? 

~Eric

-------------------------

~Eric
JE Design Group, LLC
If all you do is what you`ve done, then all you`ll get is what you`ve got.
www.jedesigngroup.com

LOL! :-D One of my all-time favorite lines from some comedian who`s name I`ve forgotten: "What luck that the wind eroded that Mt. Rushmore and happened to form faces like the Presidents!"  I love it!

Let`s say there`s zero organization or design to the universe. Humanity is a bacterial colony that formed on the surface of the earth sheerly out of an abundance of nutrients. Oxygen, after all, is a poison to so many living things, yet critical to human life. In that case, we`ll live and die, then vanish into the oblivion of history, with nothing to even know the word "history," or keep any record at all.

What a dismal way to go through life! Eric, I completely agree that although we CAN go through life with that sort of philosophy, who would want to? And yet, countless people advocate just that concept, proud in their reasoning and persuasive logic!

On the other hand, let`s say there IS organization to existence. What forms that organization? That`s a metaphysical question, and not part of this particular thread on fear. But postulate some form of consciousness that originates this organization.

We know that no living human being has the capacity to "create" the mathematical relationship of Pi, or the consistency of an atomic structure. So? If we postulate consciousness in some shape or form producing organization, then just because we can`t comprehend that consciousness, it doesn`t mean there`s no such thing.

Consider that a snail moves so slowly, an explosion appears to take place over long minutes of subjective time. Then consider that a fly experiencing that same explosion can take flight and move almost at the instant the explosion begins to combust. Do you think the snail perceives the fly? Using your frog, biologists have shown that frogs are incapable of perceiving something unless it moves. So how does a frog comprehend a 10-story office building?

It`s the utmost height of total arrogance to believe that all consciousness in all of existence must conform to a human understanding of consciousness itself. We have such a tiny capacity for sensory perception as to be nearly blind, deaf, and dumb! How hard is it to at least entertain the notion that Consciousness itself is vastly more complex than anything we can totally understand?

If you accept a "flow" of consciousness at that level, then it isn`t at all difficult to propose that all of humanity is being "moved" in an evolutionary course, regardless of if we understand that movement and pathway or not. No single giraffe had a context of itself as part of the evolutionary nature of the species. So too, millions of human beings can live and die, without any of them knowing how they moved the entire species forward in the scope of the entire human race.

We haven`t defeated the laws of survival. We`ve adapted to changing conditions. I`ve been pondering the definition of "human" lately, and I`m seeing that "rational animal" just doesn`t cut it anymore. I`d propose that "human" means the attribute of "articulate empathy."

That requires a breakout of the definition of "articulation" and of "empathy." Without taking the space, I`ll also say that "compassion" is optional, but it`s an almost unique feature to human beings. I only add "articulate" because we might prove that a gorilla has compassion, yet it isn`t human. And that`s because it can`t articulate either to itself or anything else WHY it`s being compassionate.

Nobody is required to love one another; not on a genetic level. There`s no absolute stating that even a mother must love her child. It`s a choice, made along the path of changing from an animal to a human being. So too, we have no "morality" gene, or "conscience" gene. It`s a choice.

We do, however, have an innate capacity for pain and pleasure. Depending on our nervous system, our tolerance for pain, and our individual experience, most animals, human included, can generate fear out of nothing whatsoever.

We`ve chosen to provide survival to those whose bodies can`t function properly. Is that counter-evolutionary? In many ways, yes. But we make that choice because of our empathy, then our compassion. The real question here is what exactly is evolving?

If we choose to belief only the human form and function are part of evolution, we end up with one philosophy. But if we introduce the capability of consciousness itself to evolve, we have a very different situation! All I have to do is propose that computer processing has evolved in the past 10 years, from the old 8086 to the modern dual-core Pentiums. Did it do so on its own? No. But it`s a fine analogy. :-)

Craig. Your posts read like chapters in a book.  Let me know when you get published  

Back to fear.

Where do you place it in relation to the concept of love or hate? We are after all talking about feelings. What about embarassment or courage?

Embarrassment is "fear light"

Courage is our ability to resist fear to accomplish goals.

Aren`t our feelings evolving?  Was it not that the original human feelings of fear were developed as a need for our survival? Fear of that which hurts or kills us.....ends our existence?

Our human nature.......our "articulate empathy" has evolved and our base fears have shifted. We don`t fear being eaten by bears on a daily basis though we know well enough to fear them. We are now more likely to fear losing our jobs which feeds our families and promotes feelings of contentment.....also an opposite of fear.

Moving on...

Take for example a Beluga Whale mother`s constant attention to her calf. Would you call the whale`s actions an act of empathy...a feeling of protecting her young....a fear of that which would hurt or kill her young....or a very basic self preservation with no real understanding of why....they just do it.  

If  fear isn`t a conscious decision then we would have to conclude that it is somehow hardwired. I think that it is both hardwired AND consciously manipulated. We (humans) have the ability to inflate our fears to unimaginable proportion....phobias. Or reduce them to the level where we think we are invincible. Either extreme one leads to an eventual thinning of the herd.

Fortunately, most of us have been able to balance our required base fears and our courage to the point where we can live a productive life and allow our articulate empathy to do what it does.

As you can see. I didn`t even approach love or hate. That`s for another thread and another chapter.

~Eric

 

-------------------------

~Eric
JE Design Group, LLC
If all you do is what you`ve done, then all you`ll get is what you`ve got.
www.jedesigngroup.com