Is There a Root Cause of All Problems?

In a previous article entitled, "What Are Problems?" we theorized that problems cannot or do not exist—at least, not in the way we've been taught to think about them. Because all we have are situations and our perception of them, that is all that can determine the behaviors and feelings that follow—including whether or not we feel something is a "problem."

In response to this, of course, it's easy to ask, “What? What do you mean problems don't exist? Look at all these horrible things in the world! Look at how many millions of people are starving every day! Look at how many people are homeless! Look at how much crime there is! Look at how my partner treats me! Look at what is happening in this country! Look at this pandemic! What do you mean problems don't exist?”

Our answer: Why are any of these a problem for you, while not necessarily for others? Is it that you are a better person? A more righteous person? A person with a bigger heart?

More importantly, why is it that there is a cohort of individuals who are homeless who are some of the happiest people you may ever meet—while others who have all the luxuries in the world end up dying by suicide? Why is that?

Why is it that one person makes a problem out of a situation, while another person makes an opportunity out of it? What’s that about?

The fact that one person makes an opportunity where another person makes a problem explains only part of how and why a problem is a construct that individuals create themselves. The other part of the puzzle lies in what we call the Problem-Solving Process.

The first five steps of the Problem-Solving Process Model are:

1. Identifying the problem
2. Defining the problem
3. Agreeing on the problem
4. Identifying the cause of the problem
5. Identifying the root cause of the problem

Step 4 is "Identify the cause of the problem," while step 5 is "Identify the root cause of the problem." Why the distinction? In the face of any negative situation, we tend to respond through either one or in a combination of the following ways, all of which are based on how we responded in the past to the same or similar situation:

1. We judge the situation—although we may barely understand what the situation is about. We may be operating based on the images going through our minds, which are the effects of thought. We forget that judging is often a matter of projection, and our indirect way of expressing how inadequate, hopeless, and helpless we feel—as well as how much of a lack of coping skills we have at the moment.
2. We get upset and jump to conclusions, often because we have no idea what things are for and we forget that we are not upset for the reason we think we are, which means we may be upset over something meaningless.
3. We become fearful, often because of a lack of awareness.
4. We attack both ourselves and the situation, often because we sense our self-image is being threatened, which intensifies our fear.

   What we forget, of course, is that the meaning we assign to things is often self-constructed. This helps explain why two different people who cannot have children view the situation differently; one may be happy while the other is miserable. Or why one person who is five days away from their rent being due is stressed out, while another perceives it as an opportunity to stretch him or herself. Furthermore, at times we fail to remember that problems are not physical things; they exist only in our thoughts.

5. We perceive ourselves as being victimized—not understanding that we can only be the victim of our own making, of our thinking, our illusion, and of our meaning.

As we can see, whichever of the above five ways we use to respond to any situation in life, none of these responses seem to have much to do with the so-called “problem.” In other words, we seem to be missing the root cause of the problem.

What if all the situations we called problems were called problems only because of our perception [3], and also because we missed the fact that they were not meant to be problems—rather, they're only indicators of the real "problem," which is our own relationship with what we call "problems," to start with? But even then, even when we understand that what we call problems are not problems but merely the indicators of a real problem, what would that real problem be [4]? And what would that mean in reality?

For example, when someone has major depressive disorder {5}, he or she may show a number of symptoms that include sleep disturbance, appetite disturbance, lack of energy, anhedonia, guilt, or suicidal ideation. In such a case, we know that the best way to address this is not to regard each of these symptoms as the problem itself; rather, it's to regard all these symptoms as the manifestations of one condition, notably major depressive disorder. This analogy implies that everything we call problems, and all the situations labeled as problems, are merely the manifestations of one problem and one problem alone. And that one problem is the root cause of all problems.

Do you know what the root cause of all problems is?