A Sufficient Substitute

“Have you a sufficient substitute?” We mustn’t forget this question in our efforts toward self-improvement. Whether our aim is to get out from under an addiction, break a bad habit, correct a personal shortcoming, or adopt a positive behavior, we require substitution. If we could simply make a decision and successfully follow through, we would have done so long ago. Willpower can produce immediate results, but not lasting results. After a while, we succumb to our previous state because we had neglected a key detail: need.

Every self-defeating attitude or action was developed over time. Its root exists in meeting a human need—how we learned to cope with life’s circumstances. Initially, the maladaptive behavior worked. It hardly appeared maladaptive because it satisfied our need. Given its nature, though, the behavior eventually wrought consequences we could not ignore. We attempted to manage the details, to control the outcome. Failing, we chose to change our ways. We corrected the effect but not its cause, the symptom but not its condition, the behavior but not its function. Without receiving due consideration, our underlying need drives us back to our maladaptive behavior.

When we remove some feature of ourselves, we are subtracting. Subtraction defines the difference of two numbers (“values”)—x minus y, minuend minus subtrahend. Minuend comes from the Latin minuere: “to diminish, or reduce.” Subtrahend comes from subtrahere: “to take away.” In Latin, the –end signifies “that which is to be … [the object of the verb].” Ergo, minuend means “that which is to be diminished or reduced” (the value away from which something [the subtrahend] is taken), and subtrahend means “that which is to be taken away” (the value taken away from something [the minuend]). As one would assume, the difference of the minuend and subtrahend is a value less than the value of the minuend. Thus, the minuend is us, the subtrahend is the unwanted feature, and the difference is less than what we were.

If you’re a geek, you know that a negative-value minuend and/or subtrahend won’t necessarily have a difference that is less than the minuend. For example, 5 minus -2 equals 7. We often apply this logic syllogistically to ourselves: If we are good people who get rid of a bad behavior, then our negative value is subtracted from our positive value; if a negative value is subtracted from a positive value, then the value will increase; therefore, if we are good people who get rid of a bad behavior, then our value will increase.

But the reason 5 – -2 > 5 is the inverse property in subtraction. Subtracting a negative integer from a positive integer is the same as adding the opposite of the negative integer. When we remove a negative behavior, we are not adding its opposite; we’re just taking away some characteristic of ourselves. Its purpose served a need. Without this characteristic, the need goes unmet. So actually, the value of the negative behavior’s purpose is not negative—it is positive. Creation designed us with needs, which we are intended to meet. The issue is how we go about meeting our needs. What should we do, then, to remove unwanted behaviors without denying our needs, without placing ourselves in a position to default, without decreasing the value? The answer lies in the inverse property of subtraction: adding the opposite.

“Have you a sufficient substitute?”

Character defects are the opposite of spiritual principles. And like the heads-or-tails of a coin, a character defect is one side of a characteristic. The other side is a character asset. This, I believe, is why God does not remove all our character defects (plus, they keep us humble). If we examine the nature of our character defects, we find their root. We find that these defects were developed in response to our instincts. We find that there were instances in which they worked effectively and may still prove efficacy. We also discover that we can satisfy our needs in other ways, through other methods, by the ethical opposite of our behavioral habit. You see, the opposite of stealing isn’t not stealing, for this fails to address the motive for stealing. We might steal because we want something that doesn’t belong to us. We haven’t earned it. So the opposite of stealing—the ethical opposite—is earning what we want. Lest we forget, covetousness is also a sin. Shall we trade one defect for another? Dishonesty for tactlessness, pride for self-deprecation, hostility for people-pleasing, sloth for useless busyness, manipulation for repression? Too often, our attempts to improve involve superficial rearrangements. We address the behavior without addressing the reason for it. We have an unresolved issue plus a new behavior to correct. We’re worse off than before—like the alcoholic who quits drinking but becomes unbearably irritable and still cannot manage life’s difficulties. Relapse is inevitable under such conditions. We mustn’t forget what looms beneath the observable.

“Have you a sufficient substitute?”