“Who am I to say?”
By: Carolina Pedro
Tags: Self Improvement, Decisions, Choices, Self Knowledge, Confidence

This needs to be SEEN. The bottom line of an excessively doubting mode of mind is anchored in one exclusive big doubt. Yes, all kinds of doubt, such as “what path should I take?”, “is my opinion a relevant one?”, “what do I truly want to eat for breakfast?” and beyond, can be summarized in one only previous question. Can you guess whitch question that may be?

“Who am I to say?” The root of doubt: credibility dilemma.

If you can see humans as a source of power, energy, creativity, newness, reinvention, survival, skills, you can understand that we are not static beings. These cogs of how people exist and function are logically imbued to the people. We cannot run from our conditions as species, we are the ones capable of these capacities. To be able to say the “right thing”, “do best” and be known as a “better one among all”, you have to first consider, as a possibility, to BE the right thing, best and better.

Credibility dilemma works out like this: you question yourself on how/when/why should you do/say/act on something, because you cannot yet see clearly how should you judge the outcomes of those choices. However, is it really the possibilities that you are questioning or the one making those questions? Is the doubt true to its source or just a consequence of doubting the ones capacity of judgment in first instance?

If you know that in your doubting system there is simply curiosity and openness feeling, wanting to interact with all possibilities in life, that is ok! No troubled sense of doubt about that. However, there is a fundamental difference between doubting your judgment (“am I choosing accordingly?”) and doubting your ability to form a trusted and worthy sense of judgment (“am I able to choose?”).

We are in constant change — no discussion to that. That means we are not fated to a rock solid judgment, we change, we learn, we evolve and transit into multiples mentalities; but that is only because we CAN do that, we HAVE the disposal to do it. We truly have the ability to take an object of view and change into our mind and feeling’s desire, that is not exclusive to a particular type of person, this is human condition: if there is human, there is the human consciousness.

When the consciousness is doubted, you omit the credibility from the whole SOURCE of power of choice, of movement, of anything that comes from human life condition, basically. By analogy, it is no longer a matter of what toothpaste to choose at the market, but asking: “is my teeth really capable of being cleaned up?” and, confronted with this, no choosing can come with conviction. Doubted source, doubted outcome, meaning a doubtful life.

You can imagine that the person that doubts itself is naturally going to question the toothpaste choice and probably still feel lost and unfulfilled when making any choice; of course! It’s a discredit judgment, perhaps somebody else should choose, right? That is what happens to most people and their choices. They are questioning their source of power and capacities, not what they can do from that. Every question later on comes from a point of self-questioning is going to progress in instable ground.

Doubting is so important. Doubting is so rich to evolve, but only if the doubt does not question the ability of evolving. You see? Questioning should suit us, not lower our sources and nature. Could you imagine Albert Einstein wasting his time questioning “who am I to look out for universal answers?” We should pass from this point to be able to find real solutions, not solutions to reaffirm our low nature and low capacities in things/choices/paths, beyond ourselves. There is no such thing as “low humanness”, only not seeing the humanness already existent, so the value is in the observer’s low eyes and mind perception, not human condition itself.

Once KNOWING we CAN, we are able to ask for the universal answers and join Einstein’s club of confidence.

Really, there is no question nature cannot answer. However, when the nature’s nature is questioned, there is no sense that could fill its place. What I am saying is not that the answer to “who am I to say?” is “your saying is always and totally worth it”. I am saying even more than that: this question should not be asked, it does not make sense in the first place. There is no existing validation of beings, it could not be. If you have a consciousness, if you are a human, you exist and all your humanity’s “functions” exist. For a fact, believing distorted concepts about ourselves does not make us less existing, we still exist, have the consciousness and the power of modeling it, even if we don’t see it yet. It doesn’t matter if you think you are incapable of pursuing or deciding whatever, you still are. It’s a matter of sight, not credibility adjustment.

I invite you to see credibility as a side traveling companion to existence. They blend into nature’s facts. Do not waste your time questioning “who am I to say?”, give yourself some perspective and aliveness. Questioning “who are you” like that, as if the answer COULD BE somehow “nothing/nobody”, makes a non-existence answer even possible; and non-existing is not possible for those who do exist: all of us. You are because you ARE. If not, there would not be a pronoun for you. Facts of existence do not question value, everything in our living system has a function, if not, they simply fades out of the world.

Why create invalidation/validation to what’s natural? There is no healthy point to it. But, if you insist, the human race still stands. You stand. Let’s care to look, care to trust.