A Perceiver object which is static is ‘dead.’ In contrast, I suggest that a Perceiver belief can be made ‘alive’ by adding a sense of time. We see this principle when we look at the rituals of religion. People may die, places may change, civilizations may even rise and fall, but religious rituals seem to live on. They are transferred endlessly from one person and one generation to the next.

Like most aspects of religion, rituals contain the essential ingredients of an internal world object: They are supported by Perceiver belief and they claim to help a person navigate his way through the emotional stages of living. Rituals, however, also include a sense of time—they connect together experiences which occur one after another—and I suggest that it is the addition of time which gives them life. Think, for example, of the ritual of the Holy Eucharist. There is the breaking and the eating of bread, and the lifting up and the drinking of wine. These experiences do not all occur at once but rather occur one at a time. Perceiver strategy looks at this succession of experiences, sees that they are always connected together and concludes that this set of connections is a fact. Because this fact includes time, it ‘lives.’ [A]

A fact must include a sense of time to be compatible with life.

· Static facts are, by nature, dead.

I suggest that government provides another example of the presence of time creating ‘life.’ First of all, government, like religion, is an internal world structure: Governments establish laws—facts which we are supposed to believe, they meddle constantly in our personal lives, and they give us all sorts of strong emotional reasons either to love or to hate them. Now, let us suppose that a government was only a spatial object. This would mean that I could go to a certain building, point to the structure and the people in it and say: “This is my government. Here is the palace. And there is our leader, Frederick the Conqueror. May he live forever.” History suggests that these types of governments are rather unstable. If Fred breaks his neck and dies, then the whole system of belief is shaken—it too will die. We see this illustrated in the history of barbarian kingdoms, third world dictatorships, banana republics and inner city gangs. Whenever the leader dies, then there is usually civil unrest until some victor can declare himself to be the new Conqueror.

What happens when we add a sense of time? Let us say for instance that Frederick the Conqueror states that he is Frederick the First and that he will be followed by his son John the Magnificent. We now have a solid Perceiver connection between two experiences which are connected by time as well as space. John is not just beside Fred, he is also after him. Add a few more timely connections and you come up with the process of government. We sometimes call it bureaucracy, and it also develops a life of its own. Of course, maybe we do not like the type of ‘life’ which develops—that is another question. But, it is ‘alive.’ People and laws may rise and fall, but governments which include time and sequence within their laws are able to continue.

Let me give you a further example. I may step on a few toes with this illustration, but I already know that I will not win an award for ‘politically correct man of the year.’

For some time, South Africa was built upon the doctrine of apartheid. In essence, this system was based upon three fundamental Perceiver affirmations: First, it was believed that all whites belonged together. Second, it was asserted that all blacks could also be placed into a single group. Finally, there was the Perceiver beliefthat no connection existedbetween whites and blacks. Obviously, a system like this was flawed; no one can live under the curse of being racially inferior—and no one can survive as a human being under the delusion of being racially superior.

So what exactly was the problem with apartheid? Many people condemned the idea of using Perceiver belief to classify human beings: “How dare someone say that one group of people is superior to another.” However, I suggest that the flaw did not lie here. I think we have learned by now that democracy is one commodity which cannot easily be exported; it only survives when it is grown domestically. Furthermore, the history of post-colonial Africa has taught us that democratic government is incompatible with tribal society. When the Western powers left, almost every African country turned into a dictatorship. Therefore, when the Western settlers of South Africa tried to build a modern society in the middle of tribal Africa, some general distinction between groups of people had to be made.

I suggest that the real problem with apartheid was that it did not include any provision for time. It was as if someone took a snapshot of the entire country and marked every occupant either with a check—these people are permanently ‘in,’ or with an ‘x’—those are forever ‘out.’ Suppose that apartheid had included the following provision: “Any black person who meets a certain standard of education will become a full citizen, and every white person who fails to meet this standard of education will be denied the rights of full citizenship.” With this clause, it might have been possible for South Africa to make a somewhat smoother transition to a fully integrated society, avoiding most of the hatred, suffering and bloodshed which has infected that country with crime, today at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

Actually, I suggest that the only reason that South Africa and other African countries will survive their transition into democracy is that the element of time has entered through the back door. It was during the time that blacks were suppressed, either by whites or by their own black dictators, that lessons of democracy were being learned.

Life and Generality

We have seen that a system of belief must include time in order to support life. While this is necessary, I suggest that it is not sufficient. The one other requirement which seems to be needed is generality. This is because life is spontaneous. People are not just robots. When statements of belief are too specific, then there is no room left for individual creativity. It is only when belief is stated in general terms that ‘breathing room’ is left for living. For instance, suppose that I could predict the future perfectly and I told you that you would be married to Fred McDoodle, have three children—a boy and two girls, buy a cute bungalow on Pine Crescent, and play bridge with your friends every Tuesday afternoon. Would you want to believe what I am saying? After all, my system of belief definitely includes time: I certainly hope that the events of getting married and having the three children occur one after the other. The problem is that my words are too specific. Imagine knowing exactly what you would be doing for the rest of your life. How boring! What would be the point of getting up in the morning? [B]

In contrast, suppose that I said, “Some time in the next month you will meet the man of your dreams.” Now we have a statement which would inject life and excitement into your routine. Fortune tellers make big money with these types of predictions. Who? When? Where? How? All these questions come tumbling through your mind. Notice that the example which I have given is still a statement of belief. I have asserted that there is a connection between ‘you’ and ‘the man of your dreams.’ The difference is that while I have told you the Perceiver fact and given you the approximate Mercy label, I have not supplied the specific Mercy experiences.

In mathematics, this is known as working with variables. For instance, I could tell you that a rectangle which is five centimeters long and seven centimeters wide has an area of thirty-five square centimeters. This is a Perceiver fact in which you can believe. But, it is also a specific fact. On the other hand, I could state that a rectangle which is ‘L’ centimeters long and ‘W’ centimeters wide has an area of ‘L times W’ square centimeters. This also is a Perceiver fact describing a solid connection between a certain set of numbers. However, this type of fact, stated now in terms of variables, will tell you the area of anyrectangle: Just multiply the width times the length and you have the answer. Stating a fact in general terms does not make it any less true, nor any less real. A general fact can be believed just as strongly as any specific statement. The only difference is that it is much more useful.

A fact must contain both time and generality to support life.

· This allows change to occur—within a system that remains solid.

· This permits freedom—within a framework which is stable.

Here is another example. Suppose someone tells you that “God has a specific plan for your life,” or suppose that your boss informs you that your company has a detailed plan of work and promotion laid out for you. It might be that you do not want to step on a conveyor belt and be shunted along for the rest of your life. Maybe, just maybe, you want to choose what you will do. Again, I suggest that we have a problem of being too specific.

Suppose instead that the company tells you of the various options which are open for training and advancement: “Whoever takes a course in this subject will get a pay raise and a promotion.” The Perceiver connection is still there: ‘Taking the course’ is connected with ‘pay raise and promotion.’ However,who takes the course, what he takes and when he takes it are left undecided; human freedom and spontaneity are still possible. Similarly, I suggest that a religious system of belief can leave room for human will and freedom if it is stated in terms of ‘cause and effect’—do a certain action and you experience a specific result.

I suggest that these same two qualities of time and generality are present in democratic government. First, there is the process of government. Laws and leaders are not inscribed in stone forever. Instead, they can both be changed over time. Second, there is the institution of government. The leaders and laws are not the government. Rather, they represent the government.

It is this second characteristic of generality which distinguishes a democracy from a monarchy. In the latter, it is the monarch who is important. He is the source of power. In contrast, a democracy places the emphasis upon the office and not the person. The specific individual who fills the position may change. For instance, the President of the United States has a lot of power. However, this power comes from the position which he holds and not from the individual himself. If someone else is elected to the position, then the power is transferred from the old leader to the new one. On the other hand, when a monarch is deposed, power is not automatically transferred to the new king. He is often regarded as an usurper, who has stolen the political mantle from its legitimate owner.

The principle of generality also determines how leaders are chosen. A monarch is chosen either by his parents or by some select group of nobles and advisors. In other words, specific people choose a specific person. In contrast, the leaders of a democracy are chosen in a general way. The choice is based upon the decisions of many people, voting in an election.

Notice that I am not talking about principles that change. Rather, I am referring to unchanging principles which describe change and which are general enough to allow change—solid connections between cause and effect. Suppose, for instance, that we decide beforehand, perhaps through a constitution, that whoever wins an election will be chosen as president. First, this principle includes time: the event of ‘holding an election’ is followed by the event of ‘choosing a president.’ Second, it is stated as a general principle: “Whoever wins the election will be chosen.” While the person in office and his opinions may change, the general principle of holding an election remains fixed. It does not change.

I suggest that the health of a democracy can be determined by the state of these two qualities. If both time and generality are present, then a democracy will survive. If either of them are lost, then democracy will also die. If we look at western society today, I suggest that we see many symptoms of fading democracy: First, the sense of time is being lost. Many items that are created turn themselves into ‘spatial’ facts which cannot be altered or removed. Politicians hold on to their positions, and attempt to preserve the status quo. Bureaucracies are entrenched. Rules and regulations accumulate. Second, the idea of generality is also fading away. We elect our officials because of their personal charisma, and not because of the general ideas and plans which they represent. We lose faith in the process and look for a person who can solve our problems. We make legislation based upon specific regions, ethnic divisions or special interest groups, rather than the general well-being.

So what does democracy have to do with life? Quite a lot. If we look at the alternatives, we see mainly death. The history of Russia has shown us, for instance, that communism kills its citizens, both mentally and physically. Similarly, Nazi Germany has taught us that the logical result of fascism is genocide and warfare. If we examine tribal Africa, we find that their state of government leads also to conflict and brutality. Does this mean that democratic government results always in life? No. Rather, I suggest that democracy is one symptom of life. When people are alive, then they will demand democratic leadership.

What is Life?

What then is required for life? Let us tie together some of the threads which we have been following so far. That will give us the first aspects of a big picture. At the moment, we can only provide a skeleton of understanding. The rest of the book will flesh it out. Likewise, I suggest that life itself does not appear instantly. Rather, it is constructed, piece by piece. At the beginning, there may be only be a flicker. However, each additional aspect of development adds another dimension.

First, we saw that life involves Mercy experiences. We live in a real world of matter. If we want to be alive, we have to interact with this world, which means including Mercy experiences and feelings. Second, life requires an integrated mental network. When enough memories interconnect, then they become ‘alive.’ Third, life goes beyond automatic thought. Instead, it involves the internal world of thought. When emotional experiences enter the inner world of Mercy thought and form a ‘living’ network, for example, then personal identity emerges—me forms. Fourth, life requires stability. This is provided by Perceiver beliefs, which give solid form to Mercy thought. Without this constancy, Mercy identity is like a jellyfish, drifting on the sea of raw experience. The result of these four steps is a mental network living within associative thought. However, by itself, associative thought is only capable of coming up with spatial objects. And we have seen that these are static, incapable of supporting life.

If life in a true sense is to form, it must expand to include analytical thought; it must extend beyond the right hemisphere to involve the left. This is what happens when static objects, based within associative thinking, are augmented to include a sense of time. Time is related to the left hemisphere, which uses analytical thought. As we will see later, I suggest that it is Serverthought which is responsible for adding this sense of time. As for generality, the other requirement for life, we will learn later that Teacher thought, the other analytical mode, deals with generalized concepts.

This leads us to the following general conclusion: ‘Life’ requires a set of lasting, integrated memories residing within the Mercy, Perceiver, Server and Teacher internal worlds.[C] All four modes of thought are required, if any one is missing, then life will be temporary.

Notice that there is a direct relationship between mental ‘life’ and ‘death,’ and Perceiver labeling of ‘truth’ and ‘error’: Mental and physical integration make life possible. Fragmentation in contrast leads to both physical and mental death. In Perceiver language, therefore, life is ‘true,’ for it describes a permanent connection. ‘Death,’ in contrast, is ‘false,’ because its components do not remain connected over time.

Some Conclusions

I have compared this book to a journey through the contours of the mind. In a sense, I am like a tour guide, leading you from one tourist site to another. Except, what are the tourist sites? Which locations are worth visiting and which places are less important? Unfortunately, when it comes to a tour of the mind, just about everyone has different ideas about what should be seen and which locations should be ignored. Therefore, as we wend our way from here to there, I need to point out why we are visiting each location.

We started our tour by looking at Mercy and Perceiver strategy. The reasons for this choice are fairly obvious: Mercy thought is the first to develop in the human child. Therefore, it is logical to begin our study of the mind with this ‘location.’ From there it is a short step to Perceiver mode and then to the interaction between Mercy and Perceiver thought.

Our choice also makes sense from the viewpoint of travel. At the beginning of the book, I suggested that a successful journey usually starts by looking at the map and reading through the tourist guidebook. We now know what these two elements are: The map is Perceiver thought, and the tourist guide is contained within Mercy memory. Therefore, again, we started our discussion with these two modes of thought.[D]

During the last few pages, I have tried to give an overview of the task of mental programming. Rather than just asking you to follow me blindly, I have shown the various places that we could visit and pointed out which directions would be most profitable for this job of programming the mind.

In summary, I suggest that so far we have come up with four main conclusions: First, the task of mental programming should start with Mercy and Perceiver thought because, in every person, they contain the mental map and tour guide. Second, we should focus our effort on the project of building aninternal world. Applying ourselves to this task will allow us to become individuals and to construct the type of mental home which we want, thus freeing us from the factory built, assembly line, row house version delivered by automatic thought. Third, any system of belief which we put together should leave room for time and sequencing. If we want to build something which is truly capable of supporting life, we will not settle for static facts. Rather we will look for something dynamic which can handle change. Finally, our statements of belief will need to be given in general terms. That way we leave room for human freedom.

Summarizing all of this, we should pursue ‘life.’

Conscience

So what is a ‘general principle within the internal Mercy-Perceiver world that includes time’ other than a mouth full of intellectual words? I suggest that this combination describes conscience. But wait. Didn’t I just relate this mixture to ‘life’? How can the same mental elements be connected with both lifeand conscience? After all, isn’t conscience the ‘little voice’ that stops me from living? Hmmm. Well, let us see if logic can get us out of this dilemma. We will dissect conscience and examine whether its components are compatible with life.

First, we need a specimen to dissect. Suppose that mother turns to Johnny, wags her finger at him and says, “Johnny, if you take a cookie from this table, then you will get a spanking.” First of all, we have a solid Perceiver connection: The Mercy experience of ‘taking a cookie’ is being linked with the Mercy event of ‘getting a spanking,’ and if mother’s hand is as firm as her word, this definitely promises to be a solid connection. Does this connection involve belief? You’d better believe it does! If Johnny wants to avoid a spanking, he needs to believe the words of his mother.

Second, this Perceiver connection involves experiences which are separated by time. ‘Taking the cookie’ is followed by ‘getting a spanking.’ Conscience would not work very well if father came home and said, “William, I have decided to punish you now for all of the cookies which you are going to steal from mother. So come here and bend over. Now tell me, how many do you plan to take?” Likewise, conscience is not involved when the crime and the punishment occur at the same time. That would be like mother standing guard over the cookies with a rolling pin. No conscience involved there. Instead, conscience requires a plate full of warm, tasty cookies with mother not present, followed by the reappearance of mother and an inspection of the cookies.

Third, conscience usually makes general statements. Johnny is being warned not to take any of the cookies which are on the table: “Please mom, can’t I have just one tiny cookie? That one over there is already crumbling apart. Nobody will miss it.”

“No, Johnny. If you take any cookie from this table, then you willget a spanking.”

Fourth, conscience also includes Mercy emotions and feelings. When Johnny looks at the cookie, he experiences an emotional tug. If he takes a cookie, then he will be able to savor the feeling which we call guilt. Finally, conscience definitely involves identification. Mother tells Johnny that he must not take the cookie. Guilt attacks my person. It makes mefeel bad. Punishment afflicts my body. The physical pain which it produces also makes me feel bad.

So, we see that conscience is precisely a ‘general principle within the internal Mercy-Perceiver world that includes time.’ Hmmm. We look for an ideal mental building site and search for the perfect material and what do we encounter? That nasty thing called conscience. You can see now why I told you firstwhy we wanted to go in this direction. If I hadn’t shown you alternatives, who knows what you might be calling me right now. Some of you would probably be demanding a refund on your travel ticket: “I didn’t come all the way just to see that!” As we know, building with conscience is tricky. Working with it is like handling dynamite; you never know when it will blow up, leaving you covered with grime and soot or worse.

Conscience is Perceiver belief in cause and effect.

· Perceiver mode knows two Mercy experiences belong together.

· The second experience occurs after the first one.

These two Mercy experiences have differing emotional labels.

· The first experience feels good.

· The second experience feels bad.

· The pain of the second experience is greater and lasts longer than
the pleasure of the first experience.

Denial, though, is not a solution. This is because life and conscience appear to be inextricably linked. As long as we are alive, we will have some sort of conscience. Likewise, if we want to create mental life within our internal world, then the resulting mental structure will involve conscience. This changes the fundamental question. The issue is not whether or not we will have a conscience. Instead, the question is what type of conscience do we desire? [E]

Notice that I am not suggesting that conscience is life. Rather, I am suggesting that mental life is constructed out of bricks which involve conscience. If we want to build something as awe-inspiring as life, we need powerful materials. Internal mansions cannot be constructed out of mental scraps.

I should also emphasize that acquiring a conscience does not lead automatically to life. We can see this by observing people with an operating conscience. However, I do propose that a search for lasting life will include conscience as an intermediate step, and I also suggest that an absence of conscience makes life impossible. This conclusion can also be reached by observing society. Thus, if we want to pursue mental programming—the process of bringing lasting ‘life’ to our minds—we will have to begin with a detailed discussion of conscience. Everyone ready? If so, let us start, using the example of Johnny, the cookie, and Johnny’s mother.

The Mechanics of Conscience

I have suggested that conscience involves an interaction between two modes of thought: The Mercy internal world contains a pair of emotional memories separated by time, and the Perceiver internal world contains a Perceiver belief which links these two Mercy experiences together.

We could divide the Mercy aspect of conscience into a ‘bait’ and a ‘hook.’ First there is a ‘bait,’ some tasty morsel of pleasure that we would just love to sink our teeth into, like that chewy chocolate chip cookie fresh from the oven, lying so invitingly upon the kitchen table. In other words, the ‘bait’ is a Mercy experience with a positive emotion which Mercy strategy would like to draw into the internal world. There is a desire to identify with this experience. Johnny would love to grab the cookie, stuff it into his mouth, and make it part of me. That is the bait.

Next we have a ‘hook.’ This is a painful result which we definitely want to avoid. For Johnny, it may be the memory of the stinging sensation that he feels after his mother applies the ‘board of education to the seat of learning.’ The hook always comes after the bait. No fish would bite if it saw the hook right away. The ‘bait’ is a pleasant experience which Mercy strategy wants to have within the internal world. In contrast, the ‘hook’ is a bad experience which Mercy strategy does not want within its internal world—something with which me does not want to identify. It is this identification which makes the hook so nasty; it becomes part of me; it enters into my ‘flesh’ and cannot be removed.

The effectiveness of conscience depends upon the size of the ‘hook.’ If Johnny thinks that taking a cookie will only be punished by a slap on the wrist, then he might decide that this is a reasonable price to pay for the cookie. On the other hand, if mother tells him that an infraction will result in an appointment with father behind the woodshed, then the mere sight of that cookie will remind Johnny of painful Mercy experiences.

Remember that, within each mental context, the Mercy experience with the strongest emotion becomes the emotional absolute. Mercy thought interprets other similar situations in the light of this experience. This means that if mother’s punishment is not very painful, then images of cookies move to center stage within Johnny’s mind and spankings play only a peripheral role. In contrast, if the consequences of violating the rules are sufficiently unpleasant, then punishment becomes the primary concern, and thoughts of cookies are pushed to the side. In other words, altering the emotional severity of the punishment changes the mindset of Mercy strategy. It does this by determining which experiences become the emotional absolutes.

I suggest that conscience, guilt, and punishment are all slightly different. Conscience could be compared to a warning sign. It is like the bold black letters on the cigarette package, “SMOKING CAUSES CANCER.” It is the connection between cause—in this case smoking, and effect—cancer. Conscience is the internal voice that tells me what will happen if I take the bait and swallow it, if I identify with the pleasant experience and pull it into my internal Mercy world. Note that this identification has not yetoccurred; I have not yet put a cigarette into my mouth and started to puff.

Guilt, in contrast, happens when I identify with the bait, when I light up the cigarette and stick it into my mouth. The internal voice of conscience warned me that I would get cancer if I smoked. The voice of guilt tells me that I will get cancer now that I am smoking. Notice how guilt takes the general statement of conscience and makes it specific. This is because conscience is stated as a Perceiver belief. Perceiver thought believes which experiences belong together. However, conscience remains an abstract Perceiver fact until Mercy identification has occurred. Guilt uses Mercy identification to attach a specific Mercy experience on to the general Perceiver fact of conscience. It is no longer “Someone who smokes will get cancer,” but “I am smoking, therefore I will get cancer.” [F]

Guilt is still not the same as punishment. Guilt produces only mental warnings and internal feelings; it is the prediction that I will have to identify with a bad experience. Punishment is having that bad experience come and visit me. Guilt is the internal voice telling me that I will get cancer. Punishment isgetting cancer. Guilt may be inaccurate. It can warn of awful consequences which never materialize. Like the little old lady said, “I have had innumerable traumas in my life, and most of them never happened.” She had powerful guilt, but little punishment. While guilt differs from punishment, feelings produced by conscience and guilt are reinforced by past punishment. Suppose that I receive retribution for some crime or that I mentally identity with the experience of someone else being punished for a crime. The experience of suffering consequences will now live within my internal Mercy world—it came in either through the act of identification or it forced its way in because of its extreme emotion. If Perceiver thought predicts that I will once again have to identify with this unpleasant experience, then conscience and guilt become much more effective.[G] On the other hand, if no experience of being punished lives within my internal Mercy world, then guilt will not have any bad memory with which to threaten Mercy strategy. This means that conscience will only operate effectively when it can connect with ‘hooks’ that already exist within the internal Mercy world.

Perceiver thought knows experience B always follows experience A.

· In this case, Perceiver mode knows that Eating causes Fatness.

Conscience is a conflict between Perceiver facts and Mercy feelings.

· Experience A (eating) feels moderately good, but Experience B (fatness) feels strongly bad.

· Without the Perceiver connection, the emotional label of A in the Mercy part is good: Let’s eat.

· With Perceiver knowing, the overall emotional label in the Mercy part is bad: I hate fat.

Guilt is conscience plus the addition of me.

· Experience A is part of me: I ate a box of chocolates!

· Perceiver thought knows experience A and B belong together: Eating causes Fatness.

· Experience B, which feels bad, is now part of me: I will be fat.

Punishment is the arrival of the consequence predicted by guilt.

· Oh no! I can’t fit into my clothes any more. See those rolls of fat.

Here is an example. In colonial America, ‘hell-fire and brimstone’ sermons were quite common. Church preachers found that warning people about hell was an effective way to win converts. I suggest that this was because pioneers carving an existence out of the wilderness identified constantly with experiences of personal tragedy: If someone’s axe slipped, then he might lose his leg; those who didn’t make it home in wintertime could freeze to death; wild animals roamed the forest and attacked the unwary. With all of these terrible memories residing within the Mercy internal world, it was easy to create a sense of religious conscience and guilt. One simply had to modify the statement, “Make the wrong physical decision and your body will suffer incurable trauma,” into the prediction, “Make the wrong spiritual decision and your soul will suffer incurable trauma.” This type of preaching is no longer effective, because today’s people feel no threat of punishment. Tell a person protected by our social safety nets that he may go to hell and he will laugh at you and tell you to go to hell.

Evidence from neurology backs up the assertion that conscience depends upon content within the internal world and that the effectiveness of conscience depends upon the presence of emotional memories within the Mercy internal world. “Some patients with orbitofrontal lesions show a tendency to eat excessively, driven to satiate an apparently insatiable hunger…The sexual drive also appears to be frequently disinhibited [given freedom] by prefrontal, especially orbital, lesions.[H] As a result the patient may exhibit overt eroticism and hypersexuality. This disinhibition of instinctual drives seems fostered by a concomitant loosening of conventional moral restraints. Frontal lobe patients may show by their behavior a blatant disregard for even the most elementary ethical principles.” 7 [I]

By the way, some of you may have noticed a jump in my logic. We started by discussing interaction between Perceiver belief and Mercy identification. We then jumped to talk about pleasant baits followed by nasty hooks. We know that Mercy identification involves strong emotions and that we are looking for Perceiver connections between experiences which are separated by time, but who said that the first experience had to be good and that the second one had to be bad?

Very good. I couldn’t have stated it better myself. I suggest that the critical feature is a difference in emotional label between the first and the second experience. If a good situation is followed by a bad result, then we have conscience. On the other hand, if the first experience is painful and the second one ispleasant, then I suggest that the result is—patience. Think about going to the dentist with a toothache. Getting a cavity filled is not pleasant. But, we know that this painful experience will eventually be followed by the relative bliss of teeth which no longer hurt. Therefore, we patiently endure the agony—all right, maybe the dentist has to freeze our mouth in order to help us to be patient.

Conscience Patience

Perceiver Perceiver

Fact Fact

Perceiver Thought

Mercy Thought

A B A B

a good a worse a bad a better
experience result experience result

I suggest that conscience and patience both involve exactly the same mental circuitry. Over the next few pages we will concentrate on conscience. Later on we will look at patience and show why it tends to be a neglected topic.

But why does there have to be a difference in emotion between the two experiences? Why can’t we have a good experience followed by another good one, or two bad experiences occurring in sequence? Because, it is thecontrast in emotion which creates the need for Perceiver belief, and we are looking at the interaction between the internal worlds of Mercy and Perceiver thought. Experiences with similar feelings naturally go together in the Mercy part. There is no need for Perceiver confidence. We see this emotional magnetism illustrated by the behavior of people. Have you ever noticed how individuals with bitterness and hurt seem to attract each other? The negative atmosphere makes them feel at home. Similarly, pleasant people also seem to congregate. They don’t have any time for those with complaints; they are too busy enjoying themselves.

The Uncertain Connection of Conscience

We have looked at the Mercy aspect of conscience. Now let us examine the Perceiver connection which is involved.[J] Remember that conscience involves a division of labor between Mercy and Perceiver thought: Mercy strategy stores the experiences, while Perceiver mode, as usual, deals with the connections. Until now I have talked about Perceiver belief as something which is ‘on’ or ‘off’; I either believe or I do not believe. However, I suggest that just as Perceiver facts in automatic strategy can acquire different labels of reasonableness, so Perceiver facts within the Perceiver internal world can also be believed with varying levels of confidence.[K]

It is the interaction between Mercy emotion and Perceiver confidence which makes conscience unpredictable. Earlier, I defined confidence as the level of emotion which a fact can handle without falling apart. Let me illustrate this definition now with a practical example. I remember one lab in Engineering school in which we took small rods of various metals and inserted them into testing machines which pulled these rods apart until they snapped. The goal was to see how much tensile stress the material could handle without failing. I suggest that confidence is like the strength of a material. It measures the level of emotional stress which a fact can endure without shattering. If a Perceiver belief has insufficient confidence to handle a specific level of emotion, then the link of conscience will fail—the mental connection between cause and effect will be broken. Of course, breaking a mental link between ‘smoking’ and ‘cancer’ does not mean that ‘smoking does not cause cancer.’ It only means that Perceiver strategy no longer believes that ‘smoking causes cancer.’

If Perceiver strategy is like an observer sitting in the Perceiver room looking through the window into the Mercy room for connections, then emotion could be compared to the brightness of each experience. If the emotional ‘light’ is too strong, then Perceiver thought becomes ‘blinded’ and can no longer discern connections. You can see now why Perceiver strategy is often tempted to ‘close the curtain’ on its window into Mercy strategy. The constant glare of emotion from next door creates confusion and makes it hard to think.

Conscience is a Perceiver fact which connects cause and effect.

· This fact ties together emotional Mercy experiences.

· Mercy feelings can disrupt Perceiver facts which form conscience.

I suggest that there are many ways in which Perceiver confidence can be overwhelmed by emotional pressure. Let us look at some of the more obvious ones. First, the ‘bait’ may be too desirable. As the saying goes, “Every person has his price.” Suppose conscience says, for example, that ‘stealing is wrong.’ This rule may survive a ten dollar bill on the ground, but what happens if I run across a roll of one hundred dollar bills sitting there just asking to be taken?

Second, the punishment may be too harsh. If Johnny gets a very severe beating for his misdemeanor, then this experience will be so painful that Perceiver strategy will be unable to establish a mental connection between ‘bait’ and ‘hook.’ Instead, the experience of punishment will remain blocked off in Mercy strategy, just like the core of a multiple personality. This also limits the effectiveness of public discipline. Punishing criminals can only act as a deterrent to crime if the punishment is not too severe. If the penalty is inappropriately harsh, the result will be fear and not conscience.

Third, the personal environment may change. Joe average citizen may believe very strongly in balanced budgets and government cutbacks, but when his own Mercy internal world has to identify with experiences of smallerpaychecks, higher taxes, and cuts in government services, then the emotional glare of these experiences may be too much for Perceiver belief to handle. Suddenly, social welfare becomes a bigger issue than fiscal responsibility. By the same token, a struggling socialist who becomes rich can easily discover capitalism.

In a related example, think of the religious leader who preaches the belief system that divorce is wrong and must be punished. What happens if his own daughter gets divorced and decides to marry again? Will his Perceiver belief survive intact, or will the Mercy emotion ofidentifying with divorce in the family overwhelm his Perceiver confidence? Remember Henry VIII of England. His Mercy emotions confronted the Perceiver standards of his society. The Protestant Reformation in England was triggered by precisely this struggle.

Fourth, the probability of punishment may be too low. The problem with the statement “Smoking causes cancer,” is that not everyone who smokes will die of cancer. Therefore, a person can always say, “But it will not happen to me.” Let us analyze the mental processing behind this statement. When a person smokes, he is identifying with a certain situation; he is pulling emotional experiences associated with smoking into his internal world of Mercy thought. If researchers come up with the fact that smokers are likely to get cancer, then this information will be remembered by automatic Perceiver strategy as a fact which is reasonable. We now have a collision between the Mercy internal world and Perceiver automatic thought. Obviously, emotion will win over reasonableness. It is only when the fact about smoking is pulled into the internal world of Perceiver strategy as a belief that it has any chance of affecting personal feelings about smoking. In other words, conscience will only survive if the smoker believes that he could develop cancer.

Finally, the time span between crime and punishment may be too great. In order for conscience to operate, Perceiver thought must notice a connection between cause and effect. One could say that the Perceiver observer looking through the window into Mercy memory has only a limited attention span. Two Mercy events may in fact be connected, but if enough unrelated experiences slip in between, Perceiver thought, which is so easily interrupted, will be distracted and never notice the connection. We can see this happening in the North American system of justice. The length of time needed to get a case to court is so long that justice often becomes a side issue. Instead, the process of appeal and counter-appeal turns into a game of its own, completely separate from the real world of crime and punishment.

Let me summarize. In order for conscience to be an effective deterrent, the punishment must produce sufficient Mercy pain. But, the Perceiver connection which creates conscience will only survive if the penalty is not too painful, the temptation not too pleasant, and the length of time between these two events not too great. This means that three principles should be followed whenever conscience is being programmed. First, the right amount of discipline should be used. Either too much or too little will produce undesirable results. Second, the right amount of time is required. On the one hand, if consequence follows action too closely, then there is no need for Perceiver belief—automatic Perceiver thought is sufficient. On the other hand, if these two are separated by too long an interval, then Perceiver thought also will not notice connections between cause and effect. Finally, as conscience is being formulated, the mind should be shielded initially from excessive emotional pressure. Otherwise, emerging Perceiver strategy will freeze, mesmerized by the glare of Mercy emotion—and stop noticing connections.

Assuming that We are Different

We have seen that an effective conscience requires a solid Perceiver connection; Perceiver thought must know that there is a link between cause and effect. It is not comfortable for us as humans, though, to live with conscience. We have therefore evolved various ways to eliminate it.[L] The most simple method—and a quite common one—is to deny, using strong emotion, that some principle is valid.

Perceiver belief is easily confused by feelings; a strongly emotional denial can therefore be quite effective. However, this only removes a single rule of conscience. It is like using a handgun to shoot at a target. Much more effective is to use Perceiver strategyitself to cripple Perceiver thought; this generates a mental ‘bomb’ which obliterates the target and everything around it.

I suggest that this ‘bomb’ works by attacking the implicit Perceiver assumption which lies behind conscience: Whenever I learn a lesson from another individual, I assume first and foremost that he and I are similar. For instance, suppose that someone falls off a cliff and hurts himself. In order to learn from his mistake, I must assume that there is a similarity between his physical body and mine, and that my body will respond to gravity and the rocks at the bottom in the same way that his does. Likewise, if some food substance causes cancer in rats, then this result only applies to humans if rat and human bodies react in similar ways.

Any noticing of similarity requires Perceiver belief, which can either be present or absent. Therefore, if Perceiver strategy can convince itself that there is no connection between me and another individual, then this instantly removes all connections of conscience between us. This denial is the ‘bomb’ which can be used to obliterate conscience in some area.[M]

Perceiver thinking can be used to sabotage conscience:

· Perceiver thought decides no connections exist between situations.

· This makes conscience impossible within this context.

For instance, during the time of American slavery, whites were able to live in luxury while treating blacks as subhuman. Women from the Southern States would literally gather for prayer meetings in the same room in which they beat their slaves. How could a person ask ‘God’ for mercy while at the same time giving no mercy to his fellow human? By denying that his fellow was human. Because of this declared mental gulf between black and white, no link of conscience could connect the two. The white master might feel guilt for his behavior toward other whites, but not over his treatment of blacks.[N]

Whenever we think that we are special, or divide ourselves into ‘us’ versus ‘them,’ or regard some group or individual as different, then we are denying the possibility of any Perceiver connection between us, and through this ‘bombing’ conscience. And, history shows us that when conscience is absent, then life is cheap—it is a further indication of the link between life and conscience.

Let me close this section with another politically incorrect example. The average citizen today makes a clear distinction between a live baby and fetal matter growing within the womb of a mother. One is regarded as human, whereas the other is labeled as subhuman. This mental distinction allows doctors and hospitals to go to great lengths to protect the health and integrity of babies, even as they destroy unwanted fetal tissue. As Henry Morgentaler, a leading Canadian abortion provider, is reported to have said, “If I felt that the unborn fetus was human, my conscience would really disturb me.”

Epistemology

Epistemology is the study of knowing. Religion and philosophy have both spent millennia grappling with the issue of knowing. But, we have just learned that it is Perceiver mode which is responsible for giving us a sense of knowing. Therefore, if we understand Perceiver thinking, we should be able to use this knowledge to gain an insight into epistemology.

Why do we have such problems with knowing? Why have thinkers studied this issue for so many years? I suggest that it is because Perceiver thought, the mental strategy responsible for knowing, is faced with a potential contradiction. On the one hand, it can only learn facts by observing Mercy experiences. On the other hand, the emotional ‘glare’ associated with Mercy experiences makes it difficult for Perceiver thought to know things about experiences. That is, Perceiver strategy must gain its knowledge from a source which, by its very nature, disrupts knowing.

The result is that Perceiver knowing comes in two basic forms. One type emerges when Perceiver thought is in charge of knowing. The other occurs when knowing is dictated by Mercy feelings. Let us look at these two alternatives, starting with the case in which Perceiver thought is able to operate independently.

Knowing through Confidence

We have learned that each Perceiver belief carries with it a certain level of confidence. This trust gives a Perceiver belief the ability to endure emotional pressure. How does Perceiver confidence grow? I suggest that confidence in a specific belief grows whenever that fact survives an emotional attack.

Gaining Perceiver confidence is like building muscles: Both require a program of exercise. If I start an exercise routine by immediately lifting heavy weights and running long distances, I will probably end up becoming a good friend of my local physiotherapist. Most of us know that we have to start at a level which we can handle and build up gradually over time. Some of us, like myself, learn the hard way. Through a combination of mental stress and abrupt increase in physical activity, I did manage to give myself several years of tendinitis and I did get acquainted with the local health clinic.

Because of this need for development, I suggest that Perceiver thought cannot gain instant confidence. We cannot expect a beliefimmediately to survive all emotional attack. As generations of wise men have told us, faith must be tested. Just as the weight lifter becomes stronger by pushing to the limit of his ability, so confidence in a belief grows as it is stressed to the edge of its endurance.[O]

Perceiver knowledge cannot be acquired instantly.

· Mental knowing can be torn apart by emotional pressure.

· Facts grow in confidence as they survive emotional threats.

If Perceiver facts need confidence in order to survive emotional pressure, then this means that knowledge is not learned, but rather acquired. I suggest that this distinction is becoming clear in today’s information-driven society. In terms of quantity of material, never has so much been available literally at our fingertips. We have ‘information superhighways’ and ‘world-wide-webs’ bursting at the seams with ‘megamasses’ and ‘gigagobs’ of data about everything.

However, we are discovering that the real problem is not information, but rather ‘infoglut.’ We have lots of facts, but do not know where they fit. We have heaps of data, but do not know how to apply them to our personal world of emotions and experiences. Why do we feel lost in a sea of information? I suggest the problem is that we have learned a lot of information, but we have not acquired it. We have filled our storage sheds of automatic Perceiver thought with myriads of facts, but we have not taken the time to examine these facts, find solid connections, pull them into our internal Perceiver worlds, and build a system of belief. The result is piles of facts, rusting out in fields of learning. No wonder we feel confused.

Sheltering Confidence

Unfortunately, our method of handling information prevents us from building anything solid within our internal Perceiver worlds. First, we tend to look at details and not at the big picture. The various media inundate us with facts. Schools load us with information. Researchers gather statistics and numbers. The result is a type of knowledge which resembles an encyclopedia, but without the benefit of even alphabetical order.[P]

Second, we try to stay objective by divorcing the world of Perceiver facts from the messy realm of emotional Mercy experiences: The reporter attempts to stand on the sidelines when presenting the news. The professor avoids subjective feelings. Legislatures pass conflict-of-interest laws which prevent government ministers from serving in areas of personal expertise. Even in daily conversation, we usually talk about the weather, sports, or the economy, and we avoid personal issues. Why? Because we have learned that Perceiver facts can be overturned by emotional pressure. Therefore, we respond by removing the pressure.

Facts can be protected by sheltering them from emotional pressure.

· This is called ‘staying objective.’

· Objectivity gives the illusion of instant knowledge.

However, if facts acquire Perceiver confidence by surviving emotional attack, then we are ‘protecting’ our Perceiver information from the very environment which it needs in order to gain stability. As a result, I suggest that we are gradually losing the ability to deal with information rationally. In essence, we are like the ninety pound weakling who copes with his frailty by avoiding heavy work. The more labor he shuns, the weaker he becomes. Eventually he turns into the couch potato barely able to press the remote control for his television set.

Saying it again, if we ignore questions of belief, I suggest that the inevitable result is lower levels of Perceiver confidence, because we are avoiding the very situations which test our confidence, and it is only by surviving episodes such as these that our level of confidence can grow. This strategy of suppressing feelings becomes a vicious circle, because the more emotional pressure we avoid, the more we must avoid. Meanwhile, the flood of information increases, and the need for solid Perceiver facts becomes ever greater.

For instance, I mentioned ‘conflict-of-interest legislation.’ This states, for example, that if a certain legislator is a potato farmer, then he is barred from becoming minister in charge of potatoes. The goal is to make sure that the minister remains rational when making laws about potatoes. However, I suggest that the interaction between Perceiver confidence and Mercy emotions produces exactly the opposite effect. First, Perceiver facts become separated from the Mercy experiences upon which they are based. If the minister of potatoes must be someone without recent personal experience of potato farms, then the laws which he passes will lack common sense—because he does not know that much about potatoes.

Second, Perceiver facts which the minister does happen to know about potatoes will be low in confidence, because they have not been subjected to emotional pressure. When all of the special interest groups representing various potato farming organizations begin to exert emotional pressure upon the poor minister of potato farms, any Perceiver system of belief which he has constructed will be unable to withstand this emotional barrage. The result is that laws about potato farms will be driven by subjective feelings of interest groups—exactly the opposite of what conflict-of-interest guidelines are supposed to achieve.

Third, building facts apart from feelings creates apathy. The minister of potatoes will not care about potatoes, because they have nothing to do with his personal feelings. If he has no experience with potatoes, and has never been a potato farmer, then obviously he will not be interested in potatoes. What would he find exciting? His primary occupation of politics. He will enjoy the politics behind potatoes. He will get a thrill out of playing one special interest group against another.

The result is a politician who floats spinelessly in a sea of popularity, drifting from one opinion poll to the next. Meanwhile, the poor potatoes find themselves in worse shape than they were before government intervened on their behalf. And who pays the bill for all of this? You and I.

On the other hand, suppose that politicians were chosen on the basis of personal success and invited to govern in these areas. Suppose that the privilege of forming laws was given to those whose beliefs had survived the fire of emotional testing. The result would be a government which governed effectively, because legislators would have acquired knowledge and not just learned it. They would have confidence in the facts and be able to handle the pressure exerted by special interest groups.[Q]

I suggest that our current focus on eliminating sexual harassment and exalting political correctness again illustrates an attempt to preserve facts by avoiding emotional pressure. Suppose that we respond to sexual innuendo or cultural harassment by forbidding every word or gesture which feels threatening or insulting. I suggest that this strategy is again self-defeating: Avoiding emotional situations leads to lowered Perceiver confidence. As our confidence drops, we are lessable to deal with harassing situations and we end up feeling more threatened. The cure becomes worse than the disease.[R] Ultimately, the point is reached at which it is impossible to do or say anything.

Notice how we have analyzed both of these issues in terms of solid Perceiver connections. ‘Conflict-of-interest’ legislation is ‘wrong’ because it is a contradiction: By avoiding personal emotions, our laws become slaves of personal emotions. Likewise, responding to sexual and cultural harassment with suppression leads to greater feelings of harassment and less freedom. Therefore, in the same way that stealing is ‘wrong,’ we conclude that this method of dealing with harassment is also ‘wrong.’

What is ‘right’ in these issues? A strategy which can be maintained over the long term, a Perceiver connection which does not lead to a contradiction. How does one learn to distinguish ‘right’ from ‘wrong’? By taking the time and effort to construct Perceiver systems of belief and then raising the associated levels of confidence by applying these beliefs successfully in emotional situations. As we said, knowledge must be acquired and not just learned.

Building Confidence

We shelter confidence by creating an external separation between Perceiver facts and Mercy feelings. We arrange a person’s environment in such a way that he never has to face both strong emotions and think logically at the same time. In other words, the Perceiver observer in him knows that it will only be asked to observe the Mercy room next door under conditions of ‘low light.’ If the emotional glare is too strong, then the Perceiver observer will be excused from thinking. The benefit to this approach is that the Perceiver observer does not have to spend any time opening and closing the ‘curtain’ between his room and the Mercy room. The downside is that Perceiver confidence gradually weakens.

We build confidence by following a different path. We shine enough Mercy light on the Perceiver observer to make it uncomfortable, but not enough to confuse it. We then ask Perceiver thought to function under these conditions. Operation under this emotional stress builds Perceiver confidence, which in turn allows the Perceiver observer to handle more Mercy light.

Building confidence, like sheltering it, creates a separation between Perceiver facts and Mercy feelings, but this time the division is internal.[S] As the Perceiver observer continues with its thinking under the discomfort of the Mercy spotlight, it gradually wakes up and realizes that it and the Mercy experiences which it is observing are not the same. This leads to a mental distinction between fact and feeling: Facts describe the Perceiver connections between experiences, whereas feelings are the Mercy labels attached to the experiences. In other words, Perceiver labels of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ become independent of Mercy labels of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’

This means that Perceiver confidence can only grow when ‘good’ experiences are ‘wrong’ or when ‘bad’ experiences’ are ‘right.’ [T] If ‘good’ is always ‘right’ and ‘bad’ always ‘wrong,’ then there is no need for the Perceiver observer to wake up. Instead, Mercy processing remains sufficient to define both Mercy feelings and Perceiver 'facts.' [U] Remember this point. It will become significant later on.

Conflict between Mercy and Perceiver labeling makes confidence grow.

· Initially, ‘good’ is labeled ‘right,’ and ‘bad’ is labeled ‘wrong.’

· As Perceiver confidence grows, facts separate from feelings.

I suggest that the growth of Perceiver confidence goes through three stages. First, there is an awakening. The Perceiver observer discovers some connection; it catches a glimpse of some fact. If Perceiver thought decides to hold on to its fact, this leads to the second stage of struggle. Here, the Perceiver observer attempts to cling to its discovery while at the same time the emotional glare of Mercy emotion tries to knock the fact from its grasp. I suggest that this struggle results from a conflict between Mercy feelings of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and Perceiver knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ On the one hand, Perceiver thought insists that ‘wrong’ must also be ‘bad’ and ‘right’ must also be ‘good.’ On the other hand, Mercy strategy is equally convinced that ‘bad’ is ‘wrong’ and ‘good’ is ‘right.’ It is when these twin assumptions crumble that the final stage of acceptance is reached. Perceiver strategy realizes suddenly that Mercy feelings of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ have no bearing upon its own labeling of ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Likewise, it dawns upon Mercy thought that its feelings of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are not overturned by Perceiver labels of ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’

The previous paragraph may seem somewhat repetitive and simple-minded, but I suggest that growing Perceiver confidence really is like that. The second stage of strugglein particular is very repetitive. The Perceiver observer finds itself rediscovering and regrasping the same fact over and over again. At times it seems as if no progress is being made. And, when Perceiver thought finally reaches the third stage of acceptance it is as if an internal light bulb goes on. The Perceiver observer bangs its head with its hand and says, “Now I see. It’s so obvious, so simple. How could I have been so stupid? Duuuuuh!”

Emotional 'Knowing'

Before we go on, this is your mental tour guide speaking. Please, ev eryone stop and take a quick stretch. I warned you earlier that we would get into some heavy emotional topics. As we walk through this next section, we may find some of the mud of subjective feelings clinging to our intellectual boots. Don’t be concerned. Just think of it as an opportunity to gain mental confidence. If we find ourselves bogging down, we only need to ‘clean off’ our shoes with some logical reflection and then we can continue our slogging. As long as the mud does not cake on too thickly, we should make it through. Everyone ready? Then, let us continue.

We have compared Perceiver thought to a person observing Mercy strategy through a window, looking for connections. We have learned that the Perceiver observer can only handle the glare of Mercy emotion if it has sufficient confidence. If the strength of Mercy feeling is too great for the level of Perceiver confidence, then Perceiver thought will be blinded by the emotional brightness streaming in from the Mercy room. When Perceiver strategy cannot see clearly, then belief begins to waver, confidence crumbles, and connections shake.

If the emotional glare increases further, then Perceiver thought will change from being blinded to being mesmerized. Rather than looking for connections which are solid, Perceiver strategy will assume that any Mercy experiences which are seen together, belong together. When the Perceiver observer reaches this glassy-eyed state, then each individual Mercy situation becomes interpreted as a universal Perceiver fact.[V]

Here is an example. Suppose that I see a terrible car accident and that in the middle of this wreck there is a red balloon. The emotional trauma associated with this disaster will probably be sufficient to ‘mesmerize’ Perceiver mode. Perceiver strategy will notice the experiences within Mercy thought, see a red balloon amidst the images of blood and carnage and 'believe' that these belong together. In other words, the link between red balloons and car accidents will be remembered as a 'fact' by Perceiver strategy.

Even though this connection occurred only once, the emotional glare of the event fools Perceiver mode into believing that car accidents and red balloons always belong together. Now, whenever Mercy strategy thinks of a red balloon, Perceiver thought will remind Mercy thought of the terrible accident, because Perceiver thought 'knows' that accidents and red balloons belong together.

Let me describe this in another way. Normally there is a division of labor between Perceiver and Mercy thought. Mercy strategy remembers individual experiences whereas Perceiver thought handles the connections between these experiences. When Perceiver strategy is mesmerized, then both the experiences and the relationships between these experiences are controlled by Mercy thought. In other words, ‘good’ becomes synonymous with ‘right,’ and ‘bad’ automatically becomes ‘wrong.’ The result is that the arrangement of a specific incident becomes stuffed into Perceiver memory as a general 'fact.' Therefore, instead of Perceiver strategy associating red balloons with parties and celebrations—the normal connection based upon what usually goes together, Perceiver strategy will link red balloons with horrific tragedies and dead people.

I suggest that what we have discovered here is an alternative way to program the Perceiver internal world. Until now, we have assumed that Perceiver strategy is always able to choose what it believes and what it does not believe. However, I suggest that just as the internal world of Mercy experiences can be overwhelmed by excessive emotion, so the internal world of Perceiver belief can also be mesmerized by too much feeling.

There are two ways of producing a Perceiver fact:

1. The Mercy emotions of an experience overwhelm Perceiver thought.

· The arrangement of that one situation becomes a universal 'fact.'

2. Perceiver mode sees similarities between many Mercy experiences.

· The common arrangement of several situations is stored as a fact.

In order to distinguish these two ways of programming Perceiver strategy with information, we will adopt the following convention within this book. Whenever we are referring to facts based upon Perceiver observation and repetition, then we will use words without single quotes: belief, fact, knowing, truth, and so on. On the other hand, when describing Perceiver belief which is based upon excessive emotion, then the words will be placed in single quotes: 'belief,' 'fact,' 'knowing,' 'truth,' and so on. Usually, I will also place the word emotional in front of the term in single quotes in order to emphasize the method by which Perceiver strategy acquired the information. Note that I will now be using two types of single quotes. Single lines will be used to describe emotional 'facts,' whereas raised commas will be used for illustrations, analogies or comparisons—for instance, talking about a Mercy ‘room.’

I should emphasize that we are talking here about belief and not about feelings. The person who has seen the car accident does not feel that red balloons and car wrecks are connected, he 'knows'that they are, just as he knows that two plus two equals four. I suggest that this is how 'blind faith' is created: Some experience or set of experiences has sufficient emotional strength to mesmerize Perceiver thought into 'believing'that certain connections are either 'true' or 'false.'

A person who 'believes' emotional 'facts' usually does not realize that his information is based upon an emotional foundation. This is because he truly does not feel that his 'beliefs' are correct; he literally 'knows'that they are true. He will often be offended by the suggestion that he is following blind 'faith' or insulted by the insinuation that Perceiver thought in him is mesmerized.[W]

If rational belief and blind 'faith' look so similar on the surface, how is it possible to tell them apart? Let me suggest some basic guidelines. First, the person who looks for Perceiver repetition will be able to tell you why he believes what he believes. Question his facts, and he will point to solid connections which support his assertions. In contrast, the individual with blind faith will usually respond to the question “Why?” with the answer “Because!”—exclamation mark included. He will insist that facts are learned instantly, and will reject the idea that belief is a process.

Second, the individual with rational beliefs will be able to discuss the issues rationally. Emotions, even strong feelings, may enter. However, when push comes to shove, cool heads will take precedence over hot feelings. On the other hand, a discussion of emotional 'facts' will eventually turn into an emotional shoving match with winners and losers. A point will always be reached at which communication breaks down and emotion takes over.

Finally, I suggest that emotional 'facts' are best recognized at other times and in other people. It is usually easy for me to detect areas in my neighbor in which Perceiver thought is mesmerized; it is much harder for me to see where my own 'beliefs' are determined by blind 'faith.' Similarly, it is much easier for me to see where I used to accept emotional 'facts'; it is much more difficult to see where I still place blind 'trust' in my 'beliefs.'

The reason for this is quite interesting. I have mentioned that Perceiver strategy is responsible for building the map of human thought—for telling me ‘where I am.’ Suppose that my Perceiver map is in error. The only way to discover this is to compare Perceiver thought with some other mental map. But, Perceiver strategy is the map; there is no other map. Therefore, errors cannot be detected. One could compare this situation to that of a warning light in a car. The brake light, for instance, will signal when there is a problem with the brakes. But, what will tell me that there is a problem with the brake light itself?

Knowing—A Summary and an Analogy

Let me summarize. We are looking at the interaction between the Mercy internal world and the Perceiver internal world—between identification and belief. Identification allows emotional experiences into the internal Mercy world, whereas belief pulls facts into the internal world of Perceiver thought.

We discovered that Perceiver belief can only maintain connections in the face of emotional pressure and personal identification if Perceiver facts have sufficient confidence. This confidence takes time to develop and can only be built up gradually through a process of emotional testing.

We then mentioned two possible shortcuts to knowing: The first method tries to avoid strong feelings by remaining objective. It preserves Perceiver facts by sheltering them within an environment free of emotional pressure. If facts do not face emotional stress, then there is no need to build the Perceiver confidence that is required to handle emotional pressure. The result is a shortcut to knowing, which works as long as feelings remain shallow. I suggest that this is the path that is generally followed in an ‘advanced’ society in which the comforts of civilization protect people from emotional trauma. As a result, we tend to associate objective thinking with modern society. However, we shall see later that these two are not always connected.

The second shortcut gains instant 'knowing' by embracing strong feelings. It avoids the conflict between Perceiver confidence and Mercy emotions by allowing feelings to mesmerize Perceiver thought. If Perceiver thinking does not have the freedom to form its own connections, then there will be no conflict between ‘feeling’ and 'knowing,' because to ‘feel’ will be to 'know.' I suggest that this shortcut to 'knowing' tends to be followed by a society with a strong culture. This leads to another common assumption: We generally think that only primitive societies follow emotional 'knowing.'

There are two shortcuts to Perceiver knowing:

1. ‘Objective’ thought protects facts by avoiding feelings.

· This leaves Perceiver knowledge weak and vulnerable.

2. ‘Subjective’ thought gains 'knowledge' by embracing emotions.

· This makes Perceiver thought the slave of Mercy feelings.

We can illustrate the difference between emotional 'facts' and logical facts with the help of an analogy. Raw Mercy experiences are like water. They flow here and there without stability. Perceiver connections are like the chemical bonds which turn liquid into solid. We often use this imagery, talking for instance about ‘liquid assets,’ ‘solidifying a relationship,’ or ‘going with the flow.’ Perceiver thought gives stability to the shifting world of Mercy experiences by separating the flowing liquid into solid objects. It does this by saying which experiences belong together (truth), and which ones do not belong together (error). Thus, it compartmentalizes the raw material of Mercy memories into solid mental ‘clumps.’

Perceiver confidence could be compared to melting temperature, with emotion being the source of the heat. Warm up a solid, and it turns eventually into a liquid. Similarly, apply enough emotional pressure to a Perceiver fact and the Perceiver connections ultimately become unstable, turning solid facts back into liquid experiences.

The growth of Perceiver confidence seems to change the inherent nature of mental ‘solids.’ As confidence develops, the Perceiver bonds between the individual Mercy experiences become stronger and are able to survive greater emotional heat without collapsing. In contrast, emotional 'facts' form when mental liquids are turned into solids by ‘freezing’ thought. When Perceiver strategy becomes mesmerized by emotion, it really is ‘frozen.’ It is paralyzed, unable to think or to move. The essential nature of liquid experience has not been changed. Rather, the mental temperature has been lowered, turning the ‘water’ into ‘ice.’

Finally, I suggest that working with logical facts which lack Perceiver confidence is like building a sand castle on the beach. The structure may appear solid, but if stress is applied, then it immediately begins to crumble. This is because there are no strong Perceiver connections between the various elements—no glue of belief to hold the bits together. In addition, the sea of raw Mercy experience is always nearby, ready to inundate any sand castle under the relentless waves of whipped-up emotion.

Culture

Culture, as we all know, is the bacteria which lives in yogurt. Yogurt is a type of fermented milk—milk being what we drink as children. Yogurt also comes from the Middle East, an area of the world known for its fanatical cultures and incessant wars. Therefore, we conclude that if we want to bring peace to the Middle East, we should all stop children from eating yogurt.

Make sense? I didn’t think so. However, the type of so-called thinking which I have just illustrated does pop up when working with emotional 'facts.' And culture, childhood and emotional 'facts' definitely are related.

In our discussion of Mercy strategy, we saw that Mercy thought in the young child is very vulnerable. Because the ‘mental house’ of the baby starts out with ‘rooms’ which are essentially empty, any emotional experience can make its way unimpeded into the inner sanctum of the Mercy internal world. Since our physical bodies add pain and pleasure to our encounters with experiences, the Mercy internal world of the child fills quickly with likes, dislikes, loves and hates.

When we examined Perceiver mode, which also begins life as an empty room with bare walls, we noticed that there was no similar mechanism for stuffing the Perceiver room of the child with information. Rather, the big question for Perceiver thought involved working out what label of confidence to attach to each fact, and deciding upon what should be believed.

I suggest that we have now discovered the method by which the internal world of Perceiver strategy is initially programmed in a child. In the same way that Mercy strategy begins by identifying with every emotional experience which comes along, so Perceiver thought starts out by being completely mesmerized by Mercy emotion. The result is that Perceiver strategy in the child becomes filled with emotional 'facts.' Because these 'facts' are accepted by the Perceiver internal world as 'beliefs,' they provide the initial set of Perceiver absolutes by which all other Perceiver information is evaluated.[X]

This process seems to be inevitable. In order to evaluate connections rationally, Perceiver strategy must be ‘alive.’ But, Perceiver thought can only become alive if information enters Perceiver thought, forms a network, and begins to operate. Until then, Perceiver strategy is simply an empty room with a wide open window into Mercy thought—and no ‘living’ Perceiver observer present to test potential connections.

Parents are usually the biggest source of emotional 'truth' for the child. Like it or not, they have the power of life and death over their offspring; unless they provide sufficient food, shelter and nurture, their children will die. Therefore, emotional memories associated with mother and father form the core of the child’s internal Mercy world. This emotional glare mesmerizes Perceiver thought in the child into 'believing' everything that mommy or daddy say or do as absolute 'truth.' I still remember the shock to my system when my Dad told me that he did not know everything. I thought fathers were omniscient. As for mother, the child is definitely convinced that she can solve any problem and satisfy every desire.

I suggest that this explains why children are so good at copying the actions and attitudes of adults. It is almost as if they are little mirrors which reflect the character of their parents. We can explain this response by looking at the interaction between Mercy and Perceiver thought: First, the child emotionally identifies with his parents. Therefore, the memories which fill his Mercy internal world are an accurate picture of the behavior of his parents and other emotional figures. Second, the child is mesmerized by his parents. Any specific situation which is seen by the internal Mercy world is interpreted by Perceiver strategy as a universal 'fact.' Perceiver thought in the child therefore observes how parents put experiences together and believes that this is how all people react at all times. Third, this combination of emotional experiences within the Mercy internal world, and Perceiver 'facts' within the Perceiver internal world becomes the ‘tour guide’ and ‘map’ that directs the behavior of the child. Therefore, if mother pushes her infant around in a baby carriage, then the child eventually wants to push around baby carriages, just like mother. If father rolls his eyes and says “I just can’t stand it...” when he feels disgusted, then his child does the same. Likewise, if father says that the moon is made out of green cheese, then the child believes this to be absolute 'truth,' because the child 'knows' that ‘Daddy knows everything.’

Perceiver strategy begins life mesmerized by Mercy feelings.

· Children view parents and culture as the ultimate source of 'truth.'

· This provides the initial set of absolutes for Perceiver thought.

I suggest that this combination of childish Mercy identification and innocent Perceiver 'belief' produces what we call culture.[Y] Within each society, Perceiver mode in every child sees the words and actions of parents and others in authority and 'believes' that the connections which exist within this society are 'true.' As these children grow up, they find themselves agreeing about how experiences should be arranged; this common set of emotional 'facts' forms the on-going basis of culture, from one generation to the next. When people from one culture encounter those from another culture, their initial assumption is that our way of doing things is 'right' and that their way of putting experiences together is 'wrong.'

If this analysis is accurate, then there are some major implications. First, we conclude that learning to think involves mental reprogramming, and not just mental programming. This is because the Perceiver room of the adult is already filled with emotional 'facts.' Therefore, if we want to gain control of Perceiver thought, then we are going to have to sift through the mental baggage of our childhood.

Second, rational thinking must find a way to build the confidence which is needed to handle emotional pressure. This is because Perceiver strategy is already subject to feelings which are strong enough to mesmerize it. If we attempt to be rational without tackling our childish 'beliefs,' we merely build sandcastles on the edge of a sea of childish emotion. Whenever these feelings whip up the surface of the water, then waves of doubt come crashing down upon the fragile structures of emerging thought, and submerge them again.

Third, if Perceiver strategy is already filled with the emotional 'facts' of culture, then active Perceiver thought will have to question the 'absolutes' of culture. The first major job of Perceiver strategy will always be to clean up the Perceiver room from the mess of childhood. Of course, it is possible to shove culture to one side, clean out a corner of the Perceiver room and begin to think rationally in this area. That is what many of us do. However, if we want to become truly rational, then we face a massive task of ‘spring cleaning’—we must sort through all of the debris of our past, preserve the valuable and toss out the garbage. In terms of our seashore analogy, Perceiver confidence must reclaim the sea of our childhood and turn it into dry land.

Finally, we conclude that no one is born rational. Depressing, isn’t it? Rather, we are all raised in a state of semi-hypnosis, with Perceiver strategy mesmerized by the emotional status of our elders. Therefore, before we can even begin to reprogram Perceiver thought, we have to help the Perceiver ‘observer’ snap out of its trance and think for itself. Learning to think was a major step for me as a Perceiver person. It took some time for me to realize in particular that I could use Perceiver logic to examine cultural assumptions.

It is interesting to note that these four conclusions directly contradict the implicit assumptions of modern Western educational theory. First, it thinks that learning begins with a clean slate—a tabula rasa. Second, it assumes that teaching facts to children will make them educated. Third, it treats culture with great respect and never dares to question its 'absolutes.' Fourth, it asserts that every individual is inherently rational. Does this approach work? We discover the answer whenever we examine the products of our schools.

Another Look at Conscience

We started our discussion by looking at conscience. We then discovered that there are two ways to program Perceiver strategy with information. I suggest that these two types of Perceiver facts lead to two different forms of conscience. Let us examine first the kind of conscience which results from a mental foundation of emotional 'facts.' We will refer to this as approval 'conscience.'

A Digression—Disobedience and Rebellion

Remember that conscience results from an interaction between the internal worlds of Mercy and Perceiver strategy. Perceiver thought provides the connection: It believes that some pleasant Mercy experience is always followed by a terrible Mercy result. Mercy strategy operates the contraption: When Mercy thought considers identifying with the pleasant initial experience, then Perceiver strategy warns Mercy thought that the nasty Mercy result will probably follow. If Mercy thought moves on to other topics, then the mental pain of the second experience passes as well—we have remained at the stage of conscience. However, if Mercy thought insists upon identifying with the first experience, then Perceiver belief is equally certain that Mercy strategy must now identify with the second experience as well—we have now moved beyond conscience to guilt.

Let us look again at mother’s warning that “Stealing a cookie will lead to a spanking.” Why does the child believe his mother’s words? Because, if his emotional respect for mother is sufficient, then Perceiver thought will be mesmerized into 'believing' that ‘stealing a cookie’ and ‘getting a spanking’ belong together. This connection will be drawn into the Perceiver internal world as a 'belief.'

So far, so good. If Johnny takes the cookie and receives a spanking, then he will know that he has deserved his punishment and he can move on to other things and other cookie tables. However, suppose that mother punishes Johnny by telling him that he is a horrible, disobedient boy who never listens. As usual, since mother has spoken, Perceiver thought in the child will 'know' that these 'facts' are correct; Johnny will 'believe' that me and ‘horrible disobedient boy who never listens’ belong together.

Johnny is now faced with guilt. Mercy strategy has identified with the experience of ‘eating a cookie,’ and Perceiver thought is certain that Mercy strategy must now also identify with the experience of being ‘horrible and disobedient.’ The question is, how can this guilt be resolved? What punishment or spanking can remove this condition of being ‘horrible and disobedient’? Suppose that Johnny tries to reject his Perceiver 'belief' that me and ‘horrible and disobedient’ belong together. The only way he can do this is to ‘stand up’ in the Perceiver room, turn to face the emotional glare of his mother’s image in the Mercy room, and declare that her words are ‘false.’ But how can he manage that? If he successfully attacks the memories of mother which live within his internal Mercy world, then he is also destroying the emotional foundation for Mercy strategy, for his internal Mercy world is built around the emotional absolute of his parents.

Maybe Johnny could survive mentally if he managed somehow to oppose his mother, but what if Johnny’s 250 pound, 6 foot 4 inch father, who can do everything better than Johnny, turns to him and tells him in a commanding voice: “You are a stupid, rotten jerk who can’t do anything.” As far as Johnny’s Mercy internal world is concerned, his father is god. Standing up to this authority figure would be like trying to rebel from the core of his Mercy internal world; the result would be mental fragmentation, a fate worse than almost any pain. If Johnny’s belief in the ‘godness’ of his father ever did begin to waver, then his dad would only need to take him behind the woodshed and apply physical pain to re-mesmerize Perceiver strategy in his son into 'believing' that father really was god.

Let us summarize. If Johnny’s father says that “Johnny is a rotten, stupid jerk,” then Johnny is faced with one of two choices. First, he can accept the words of his father and live with inescapable guilt. He will always 'know' that he is ‘rotten, stupid, and a jerk.’ Second, he can reject the words of his father and live with fragmentation. The emotional core of his Mercy internal world—all of the emotional images associated with father, will be suppressed. They will then survive under the surface as an evil Mercy multiple, ready to torment. The emotional experiences associated with father will still be there, but they will live behind a false wall erected within the Mercy room.[Z]

People with status are the ultimate source of emotional 'truth.'

· Rejecting this 'truth' involves rebelling from the source of 'truth.'

· Rebelling from an authority causes me to question all his 'facts.'

The only way that Johnny can successfully reject the Perceiver 'truth' of his father without becoming fragmented within his Mercy internal world is by submitting to another absolute master. Remember that emotional absolutes within the internal Mercy world can always be overturned by new experiences with stronger emotions. By allowing Perceiver thought to become mesmerized by another authority figure, Johnny can escape the mental torment inflicted by his father.[AA]

One option is for Johnny to hang out with his peers. Here he rebels from his father by submitting to his fellows. Therefore, by dressing, acting, thinking, and complaining just like everyone around him, he can allow the emotional stress of peer pressure to become his new absolute master. He submits to this tyranny because the god of peer pressure will hopefully be one which does not condemn him as being ‘rotten and stupid’ but rather commend him for being ‘cool and in.’ Why do teenagers try so desperately to be ‘cool’? I suggest that it is an attempt to get away from the ‘heat’ of emotional involvement—to become their own persons by shutting the curtain upon the glare of emotion emanating from their Mercy rooms.

Another option is for Johnny to join the army. Here he rebels from his father by submitting to the iron hand of the drill sergeant. Need I say more?

So what is the solution for Johnny? First, we need to see what can be done. Suppose that we try to prevent parents from acting like gods to their children. I suggest that this is not a valid option. The mind of the child seems to program in such a way that Mercy strategy integrates emotionally around memories of mother and father, and Perceiver thought 'believes' the facts of parents as gospel 'truth.' It appears inevitable that parents not only have the power of physical life and death over their children, but also the power ofmental life and death.

If parents are stuck with being gods to their little ones, then is it not possible for them to become benevolent deities who always accept and never condemn their progeny? Theoretically, this might work, but in reality, the world is cruel and children are dumb. When the child tries to pull a pot of boiling water off the stove onto his face, or runs out onto the freeway to play, what is the truly benevolent response? Does the parent coo soft phrases of positive self-esteem while his child receives third degree burns over half of his body, or cluck in a vaguely disapproving manner as his little one ricochets off the hood of a passing car? Surely one of the jobs of a benevolent deity is protecting children from harm, and teaching them how to survive in a world of real consequences.

I suggest that the answer to our dilemma lies in the two attributes which we have discovered must be part of conscience if it is to produce life. First, any statement of 'belief' taught by a parent must include a sense of time: “Take a cookie and you receive a spanking” is one example. The spanking occurs at a specific time, and then it is over. On the other hand, “You are a rotten, stupid jerk” has nothing to do with time. It is a blanket, spatial fact, which never changes. Like the black person under apartheid, Johnny is consigned to a lifetime of inferiority.

Second, 'beliefs' propagated by parents to children should be general. “Stealing will be punished” is a much more effective rule than “Take a cookie and you will get a spanking.” This is because 'beliefs' which are general can be transferred to the world at large. The child is then able to grow up without a need to abandon the narrow-minded principles of his parents or to rebel from their misguided restrictions.[BB]

Approval Conscience and Condemnation

We just made a detour into the specific situation of parents making negative statements about their children. We did it after defining approval 'conscience' as that which results from a foundation of emotional 'facts.' You may wonder why I chose to focus upon such a narrow incident. I suggest that approval conscience, by its very nature, leads inevitably to this type of situation. In other words, it is almost universal for children to feel rejected by their parents and to respond with rebellion. Let me explain why.

First, emotional 'facts' are like mental snapshots. Perceiver thought sees a specific Mercy incident and 'believes' that it is 'true' in all places and at all times. Therefore, if mother tells Johnny that he has done something wrong, Johnny will interpret this to mean that he is ‘bad,’ that he has always been ‘bad,’ and that he will always remain ‘bad.’ Why? Because that one Mercy incident defines Perceiver 'truth' for all time; that is how emotional 'truth' operates. Johnny’s parents may include a sense of time in what they say, but what Johnny hears will lack an awareness of time.

Second, emotional 'facts' are determined by emotional experiences. Johnny’s parents may say nice things to Johnny and do everything in their power to bolster his self-esteem, but they cannot erase the fact that his mind is underdeveloped and that he lives within a small, weak, and clumsy body. Because he is a child, he lacks experience, knowledge, understanding, strength, and skills. Therefore, he will continue to encounter emotional experiences which remind him that he is inferior to adults. These incidents will mesmerize his Perceiver observer into 'knowing' that he is ‘bad’—no matter what his parents say.

Third, Johnny will find it very difficult, mentally, to go beyond the specific incident to the general principle. This is because his Perceiver 'facts' are determined by specific Mercy incidents. His parents may want to teach him general principles, but his mind will only notice the specific situations. They may tell him, “Stealing is bad,” but what he will remember is, “I shouldn’t take cookies from the kitchen table.”

It is natural for a child to feel rejected by his parents.

· He continually fails because his body is weak and his mind fragile.

· Emotional 'truth' tells him that his failure and guilt are inescapable.

It is also natural for a child to rebel from his parents.

· Emotional 'truth' removes guilt by attacking the source of 'truth.'

Does this mean that parenting is hopeless? If parents only talk to their children, and use only words to influence their offsprings’ behavior, then I suggest that childrearing will be very difficult. This is because words are insignificant compared to the barrage of non-verbal experiences which the child faces—and around which his mind is firmly integrated. How can parents overcome this obstacle? By speaking in the child’s language of experiences and feelings.

Let us look first at the process of teaching children about time. Mentally speaking, a child has no concept of time. Tell him that he will be visiting his grandparents in two days, and he will not comprehend. He will either start packing his bags right away and head for the door, or he will be convinced that the trip may never arrive. This is because his mental clock has two settings: now and never.

The mind of a child may not be able to grasp time, but his body can. It goes through cycles of waking and sleeping, hunger and eating, pain and healing. Therefore, a parent can teach his child that conscience involves time by applying consequences to his physical body. In other words, mother should tell Johnny, “If you take a cookie, then you will get a spanking.” If the parent gives only a verbal reprimand for bad behavior, then the child will naturally think that the punishment is for always—because his immature mind is incapable of grasping the concept of time. But, if the parent gives the child physical discipline, then the child will learn that punishment involves time, because his body will only hurt for a little while, and then it will stop hurting. Similarly, if the parent wants to teach his child that the crime has now been forgiven, then the spanking should be followed by physical comfort such as hugging. In other words, there will be a physical punishment and then a physical reconciliation.

How hard should the spanking be? Strong enough for the child to remember it. But, never so severe that it leaves mental or physical scars. The child should feel pain, but his body should not be injured. Then, the painful memory should be buried by the love of reconciliation and the friendship of family. Remember, the goal is to use the physical body to teach the idea of time. Therefore, the punishment should occupy a certain segment of time and then it should be completely finished. Obviously, and emphasizing this point again, giving the child ‘a spanking that he will never forget’ would not help the child to learn about the relationship between time and conscience.

As before, our conclusion contradicts the views of established educational theory. In some countries, spanking is illegal, and parents can be prosecuted in court for paddling their children. However, it is interesting to note that most of today’s youth have major problems with low self-esteem, and feel rejected by their parents. Teenage rebellion has become the norm. Today’s children also have no sense of time. Everything is supposed to happen instantly, and hyperactivity is an accepted disability. Could the lack of intelligent discipline be part of a cause-and-effect link between these two conditions?[CC]

Let us look now at the concept of generality. How can this be taught to a child? As before, I suggest that words, by themselves, will have little impact. It is useless for a parent to reason with his child. This is because the childish mind is incapable of comparing situations and then drawing out general principles. Instead, childish thinking is determined by individual Mercy experiences. They define his 'truth.' If, for instance, Johnny is fighting with his sister, it does not make sense for his parents to attempt to discuss friendship with him. Johnny’s current understanding of friendship is being defined by the emotional Mercy experience of pulling his sister’s hair. Unless that specific incident is addressed, Johnny’s mindset will not change.

The childish mind may not be able to understand generality, but I suggest that the childish body is capable of building this concept. When I use my physical body to cooperate with the actions of another person, I am doing something which is bigger than me, something which is more general than the specific experiences of my physical body. It is this combination of individuality and cooperation which is the essence of generality.[DD]

The mind of the child is incapable of understanding time or generality.

· Intelligent discipline can teach his body about time.

· Family and friends can teach his body about generality.

In practical terms, a child will learn the idea of generality if he has to cooperate physically with others who are visibly different from him. Why visibly different? Because the goal is to use the child’s body to teach generality to the child’s mind. Therefore, the body must speak to the mind in terms which the mind can understand. Because childish thinking is defined by Mercy events, mental programming must center around Mercy experiences—which are primarily visual.

What I am referring to is multiculturalism. A child may have playmates with different skin colors, or friends who have physical disabilities. The family may have neighbors who come from different cultures, or the family may travel to other countries. Or, in the most obvious form, a child may live with people of different ages. Situations such as these are excellent opportunities for teaching generality to a child.[EE]

Notice that I am not referring to minority rights. With minority rights, each visible distinction defines its own 'truth' and its own understanding; each skin color, disease, or ‘lifestyle’ tries to impose its own views upon society in general. An emphasis upon rights reinforces the natural thinking of the child, by teaching him, incorrectly, that general understanding can be rooted in specific Mercy experiences. Multiculturalism, in contrast, combines individuality with cooperation. Visible differences are accepted, but they do not define understanding. Rather, understanding transcends individuality.

For instance, the country of Canada has a French minority and an aboriginal population. Both of these groups have a unique culture. If Canada wanted to pursue multiculturalism, then it would respect these minorities while at the same time applying the same set of rules to all groups of people. This combination, I suggest, would teach generality. On the other hand, if Canada accepted Quebec as a ‘distinct society,’ in line with its desire, and then awarded ‘nation status’ to the aboriginals, as they also want, then it would follow the path of minority rights in which individual experiences define understanding. This approach, I suggest, would not teach generality.

Common Sense

Parents and other authority figures appear to be responsible for determining the Perceiver 'absolutes' of their children. The emotional significance of these persons inevitably and invariably mesmerizes the Perceiver rooms of their offspring into 'believing' their words and actions as absolute 'truth.' [FF]

At the same time that emotional pressure is programming Perceiver strategy in the child with the 'facts' of culture, another influence is at work encouraging Perceiver strategy to ‘wake up’ and to snap out of its mental trance. We will refer to this mental influence as common sense.

Common sense tells us that certain Mercy experiences always occur together. For example, look at a tree. Close your eyes and the tree vanishes. Open your eyes and the very same tree appears, as if by magic—if you did not ruin the trick by moving your head while your eyes were closed. But everyone knowsthat closing your eyes does not make the world disappear. Exactly. Notice the key phrase: “Everyone knows.” In other words, our internal Perceiver worlds have great confidence in the belief that objects don’t disappear spontaneously but rather stay in one place unless they are moved. When our shoes cannot be found, we do not lose confidence in the belief of the continuity of objects. Rather, we assume that these articles of footware were moved and we yell down the stairs, “All right, who stole my shoes.” This is common sense. Connections which occur within the external world naturally teach principles of common sense to automatic Perceiver strategy. These principles are repeated with such persistence that our internal Perceiver worlds have no choice but to believe these facts and pull them into the internal world of Perceiver thought.

Perceiver thought in a child develops simultaneously along two lines.

1) Parents and culture provide the first set of Perceiver absolutes.

· Emotional pressure mesmerizes the child’s Perceiver observer.

2) The natural world and physical body develop common sense.

· Repetition wakes the Perceiver observer and builds confidence.

Perceiver principles of common sense may be obvious, but add sufficient emotional pressure and Perceiver strategy can end up losing confidence in even the most basic of beliefs. For instance, how many of us have checked and rechecked to make sure that the stove is off or that the door is locked? Don’t we know that objects cannot move by themselves? Is this not common sense? Yes. But, try adding some Mercy identification such as the fear of experiencing possible disaster, the image of feeling the heat of a house fire radiating through the bedroom door, or the personal nightmare of being tied up and shot by burglars. Under this emotional stress, stove dials gain the ability to turn spontaneously from ‘off’ to ‘on,’ and locked doors acquire the skill of opening by themselves. We may chuckle at the idea of trees vanishing when we close our eyes, but we do not laugh at double-checking locked doors and stove dials.[GG]

We have seen how beliefs of common sense are subject to the standard Mercy-Perceiver dialogue between emotion and confidence. I suggest that these beliefs also must be learned, just like any other facts. That is why a baby finds the game of ‘peek-a-boo’ exciting. He has not yet learned to believe fully in the continuity of objects. When he closes his eyes and no longer sees an object, he does not have total confidence that it is still there. Seeing Misty the cat disappear around the corner may not bring emotional stress or trouble Perceiver belief in object stability, but when Daddy moves out of sight, the emotion associated with him creates the vague dread that he might be gone forever, never to return again. Seeing Daddy reappear is definitely a relief. And, as we will see later, humor is related to the release of emotional stress. Therefore, the child finds it funny to play ‘peek-a-boo.’

Being a baby is hard work. The growing child pays a huge price in agony and frustration in order to gain the Perceiver confidence that is needed to live within a world of solid objects. But, because as children our identity was not yet fully developed, we generally forget about the emotional trauma that we endured learning common sense. The end result is that we as adults take our common sense for granted, and assume that it will always be there. But, we did not always have common sense. Our minds had to acquire it—at great cost.

Imagine, for a moment, a world where common sense did not rule. In this world, you would drive along a road and the car coming the other way might leave its lane and head straight for you. Or, maybe instead of confronting you it might turn into a fire-breathing dragon. As for the road, it could decide today to be a flowing river, or perhaps a pile of orange pansies. Even the sky might transmogrify suddenly into a beautiful shade of green, with rising pink speckles. Possibly your body would mutate and grow an extra hand or head. And, just maybe, the section of road—if it still is a road—in front of your car—if it still is a car—would vanish into some empty void of nothingness.

But, common sense tells us that nothing like that could ever happen. Exactly, common sense tells us, and that common sense was acquired as children, through years of learning. As adults, we can, with sufficient effort, unlearn the common sense that we obtained as children and begin to question even basic principles such as the continuity of objects.

For instance, the English philosophers Berkeley and Hume had real problems believing in physical objects. They wrote deep tomes discussing whether trees and chairs really were there when people were not looking, or whether the tree that you saw after you opened your eyes was the same tree as the one which was there before you shut them.

I am sure that this endless discussion tired them immensely and that they often popped down to the local pub in order to relax over a pint—confident that both the beer and its container of glass would still be there to welcome them when they arrived, even though no one had kept an eye on them to stop them from disappearing.[HH]

In other words, these philosophers could play around with the concept of object impermanence because they still lived within a world of solid objects. But, for us, this issue is no longer a mental game. Through special effects of television, movies and computer games, we can literally create worlds where common sense does not rule, where cars do ‘morph’ into dragons, people do mutate, and where holes do appear in the space-time continuum.

But everyone knows that this is a pretense—that is common sense. Exactly. As long as we live in a world which is predominantly solid, and our forays into escapist realms of nonsense are limited, then the knowing which we learned as children will survive. But, our entertainment continually expands and improves. Escapism becomes more vivid, nonsense more blatant, alterations more fundamental, emotional intensity deeper, and personal involvement more complete. Eventually, the mental chaos will erode the foundations of our common sense. Except, this time, even the pubs will not feel solid. Instead, there will be a gnawing fear that maybe, just maybe, reality isn’t so real. Then we will realize that common sense has a price, and that we have squandered our mental inheritance.

Natural Conscience

We have seen how Perceiver strategy in the child naturally places trust in 'beliefs' which come from adults with emotional status. This mental foundation of emotional 'truth' is the basis for culture and leads to approval 'conscience.' [II] At the same time, Perceiver strategy in the child is also learning common sense. Events and situations which reoccur in the external world teach automatic Perceiver thought about reasonableness, which in turn encourages internal Perceiver thought to believe in connections which are repeated. I suggest that common sense also leads to a form of conscience, which we will callnatural conscience, because it is rooted in the natural laws which appear to govern the universe.

Natural conscience, like any form of conscience, contains the three basic elements of a pleasant Mercy ‘bait,’ an undesirable Mercy ‘hook’ and a solid Perceiver connection binding these two Mercy elements together.

Suppose, for instance, that I decide to jump off a cliff. As I have already suggested, the initial Mercy pleasure of “I’m flying, I’m flying,” will lead inexorably to a Mercy conclusion along the lines of “Call an ambulance, I think I broke my leg.”

If gravity operated only on people, then it would be difficult for this sequence of events to program conscience. Fortunately, gravity has a way of punishing all objects thrown off of cliffs with equal severity. Push a stone over the edge and it will bounce on the rocks below. Drop a watermelon overboard—a good substitute for the human skull, and it too will smash to bits when it hits, splattering the ground with red juice—a reasonable facsimile of human blood.

It is this repetition which makes it possible to learn from natural law. After seeing the 87th object drop from the cliff, Perceiver strategy will eventually decide to believe that there is a solid connection between the Mercy experience of ‘jumping off the cliff’ and the Mercy conclusion of ‘going splat on the rocks below.’

Before we go on with our analysis of natural conscience, notice that we are touching on another method[JJ] by which labels of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ aresuggested to Perceiver mode: Every connection which the mind encounters is remembered as a possible fact by automatic Perceiver thought. Links which are repeated become more reasonable. A fact which automatic Perceiver strategy finds reasonable will be suggested as a belief to the internal world of Perceiver thought.

We ask again: Why can’t Perceiver strategy build its initial set of absolutes upon Perceiver reasonableness? Because reasonableness takes too long to develop. It requires repetition, and that, by definition, takes time. This is why Perceiver strategy is mesmerized initially by Mercy feelings into 'believing' its first set of absolutes. Can Perceiver reasonableness help, at some point, in the formation of Perceiver absolutes? Yes, in two ways. First, Perceiver absolutes will be determined by reasonableness if emotions are low and connections are repeated enough times. This is the source of common sense. Second, I suggest that Perceiver reasonableness can be used to help build a second set of Perceiver absolutes. In other words, while reasonableness is too slow to assist with mental programming, it can help with mental reprogramming. Later on, we will examine the details of this process.

Let us return to our analysis of natural conscience. Suppose that my Mercy thought toys with the idea of identifying with the experience of ‘jumping off the cliff’: I imagine myself walking to the edge of the precipice, flexing my legs, swinging my arms and then springing off into the wild blue yonder, just like a bird soaring in the breeze. Perceiver strategy will see this image from its viewpoint in the room next door and insist with great confidence that the initial vision belongs together with other images of shattered objects lying broken on the distant ground below. This is how natural conscience operates. Think of it as a warning system that tries to stop me from doing things that are stupid.

While it is repetition which helps Perceiver strategy to gain confidence in the Perceiver connection of natural conscience, I suggest that it is similarity which gives power to the Mercy ‘hook.’ Remember that conscience can only operate effectively when it warns Mercy strategy of some impending result which already exists as a memory within the internal Mercy world.

There are two types of conscience:

1) Approval 'conscience.' Bad effects come from disapproval of people:

· Emotional 'truth' provides the link between cause and effect.

· Break the law and the police put you in prison.

2) Natural conscience. Bad results come from nature:

· Perceiver confidence builds the link between cause and effect.

· Drive off the road and the tree puts you in the hospital.

If I could learn only from personal failure, then natural conscience would be fairly impotent. I would have to experience personally the Mercy pain of going ‘splat’ at the bottom of the cliff before an emotional ‘hook’ would exist within my Mercy internal world that would make me heed the warnings of natural conscience. Thankfully, the same Perceiver confidence which allows me to believe in the connection between cause and effect also allows to me learn from similar situations.[KK]

For example, suppose again that I throw a watermelon off of the cliff. Obviously, it will disintegrate at the bottom of the cliff and spill its juicy pulp upon the rocks. Perceiver thought will look at the watermelon and notice similarities between it and my head: they are both about the same size and shape; they are both hard on the outside but soft and juicy on the inside; they are both easy to break open but much more difficult to put back together. If Mercy strategy has ever identified with some painful experience of being broken physically and bleeding, then Perceiver thought will connect this bad memory with the Mercy image of seeing the watermelon plummet to its doom below. The demise of the melon will make Mercy strategy shudder in horror as Perceiver strategy sees the similarity between its fate and my possible future. Therefore, I can learn from the mistakes of others.

How to Benefit from Conscience

But, isn’t it common knowledge that people never learn from the mistakes of others? Unfortunately, this is usually the case. Let us examine why this is so, and see if we can find a possible solution.

The first difficulty is that it takes mental effort to draw lessons from the problems of others. It is much easier for me to wipe my brow in relief, thank my lucky stars that it wasn’t me, and move on.

Why? Because Perceiver thought has to search for similarities between my situation and that of another. Repetition looks at the entire incident and sees whether this fact has occurred before. Similarity goes a step further—it breaks a fact down into its component parts and then sees if these variousfragments are being repeated. It is hard work for Perceiver strategy to do this dividing and comparing.[LL]

Looking for Perceiver similarities between me and others may take real thought, but I suggest that in the long run it saves effort, because others can act as my ‘guinea pigs.’ I can observe the types of mental cancers which develop in my neighbors, for instance, as they are driven by the frantic pace of their rat-race. Just think how much one could learn, for instance, by logically analyzing the stupidities discussed on television talk shows: “And here we have Exhibit A. He jumped off a mental ‘cliff’ and landed on the rocks below. He will share with us his mental pain and reveal to us his inner scars.”

One might think that some of this difficult thinking could be avoided by following approval conscience. After all, emotional 'knowing' is instant—some expert tells me which rule to follow and I immediately 'know' that it is the 'truth.' However, I suggest that following approval conscience actually makes itharder for me to learn from the mistakes of others. First, the Perceiver mode is incompatible. Approval conscience is rooted in emotional 'facts,' it requires a Perceiver observer which is asleep. Similarities, on the other hand, are noted best by a Perceiver observer which is awake and searching in an alert manner for connections between Mercy experiences. Second, the Perceiver information is also incompatible. Approval conscience is programmed by defining experiences—these are single events which barge into the internal Mercy world. Similarity, in contrast, is a search for connections between events. The person under approval conscience, however, is so busy looking at individual situations that he seldom raises his head to examine the big picture.

Similarity is only examined, therefore, by natural conscience. Unfortunately, it takes time to develop common sense. Perceiver knowing is not gained instantly, but must be built up over time as facts survive emotional pressure. For example, most teenagers know that having sex can lead to babies, but it is amazing how often this elementary Perceiver belief is trodden underfoot in the heat of romance. Suddenly, Perceiver strategy is blinded by the emotional sizzle of hormones, mesmerized by the ecstasy of the moment—fully convinced of the emotional 'fact' that this Perceiver connection could not possibly apply to me or to ‘us.’

Is the teenager totally to blame? No. Instead, I suggest that much of the fault lies with two potential weaknesses of natural conscience. First there is the question of an adequate ‘hook.’ Many teens in our coddled Western society have never identified with serious consequences. Therefore, the Perceiver connection of conscience has no Mercy ‘hook’ with which to operate. Second, even when the ‘hook’ is present, the Perceiver connection between cause and effect, as it relates to babies, is statistical. The connection between ‘jumping off the cliff’ and ‘going splat’ is fairly reliable, but sex, in contrast, doesnot always lead to pregnancy, just as smoking does not always cause cancer.

Let us look further at the Mercy ‘hook’ in teen sex. Remember that a Mercy situation is always seen in the light of the element with the strongest emotion. Suppose, for instance, that ‘getting pregnant’ does not lead to any major negative emotional consequence, or that the girl lives in a culture in which teenage mothers are accepted as part of society and in which male ‘conquests’ are seen as an approved sign of masculinity. Possibly there is an abortion clinic nearby. Maybe motherhood leads to significance or easy free money from the government. The end result is that the couple will view a possible baby simply as part of the price for a romance. Sex will be the major element in the situation, whereas thoughts about a baby will be secondary. Warnings by parents and other adults against teenage pregnancy will not be taken seriously, because the ‘hook’ within the Mercy internal world of the teenager has no emotional ‘teeth.’

On the other hand, suppose that ‘getting pregnant’ carries with it a major social stigma, that abortion clinics do not exist, that becoming a mother forces a girl to drop out of school and to get a menial job with low wages, that having a baby leads automatically to the restriction of marriage, and that no government handouts exist for single mothers. Elements such as these will raise the emotional significance of the Mercy consequence; they will increase the ‘splat’ at the bottom of the cliff. In this case, thinking about the baby may take top priority and move images about sex to the mental back burner. Sex would then be seen as an incidental benefit enroute to the major hurdle of caring for a baby.[MM] Not only does behavior change, but attitude as well.

This means that we have solved our problem, right? To support conscience, we step in and adjust the consequences: If the punishment is insufficient, then we alter societal opinions to make it more severe. If the connection is statistical, then we add effects which are certain and unavoidable. Unfortunately, I suggest that this approach also is flawed, because it tries to adjust natural conscience by adding elements of approval conscience: Society gives approval or assigns stigma, government meddles with its ‘helpful’ hand. As we will see later, natural conscience and approval conscience do not combine very well. Mixing them is like blending oil and water—the resulting mixture breaks down easily into its original components.

Therefore, I suggest that if we want to adjust natural conscience successfully, then we must discover natural consequences: Perhaps a medical doctor encounters some dreadful new strain of venereal disease, or some enterprising hairdresser from California realizes that teenage sex cures acne. Conservatives may cringe and liberals leap for joy, but that is all secondary, related to the world of approval and approval conscience. What really matters is that we must use only the natural ingredients of natural law to fiddle with naturalconscience.

Not only does our attempt to increase the consequences mix natural conscience and approval conscience, but the connection between cause and effect is still ultimately based in probability. For teenage sex, the free availability of birth control and condoms only makes this statistical aspect more evident. How is Perceiver strategy supposed to believe in a connection which only occurs, say, one out of twenty times? The fact is that, with the right precautions, the girl probably will not get pregnant and the couple probably will not get a disease.

Suppose that we use emotional pressure or scare tactics in order to try to convince teenagers into believing that there is a solid connection between sex and pregnancy or between sex and disease. This is like the terrorist killing people in order to bring ‘life’ to his country. On the one hand, the goal is to have Perceiver strategy believe in natural law—we wish to snap Perceiver thought in the teenager out of the hypnosis of teenage peer pressure and the deathly sleep of childish infatuation. On the other hand, the method uses emotional pressure to mesmerize Perceiver thought into 'believing' our particular 'truth'; the message is conveyed by adults, moreover, who expect a response of passive childish trust from their teenage listeners. The effort may be valiant and the motive sincere, but it is very difficult to paint a wall white if all one uses is black paint—the more one brushes, the darker it gets.

Therefore, if we want to find a proper foundation for natural conscience, I suggest that we need to discover some source of natural law in which connections between cause and effect are solid and are not based in statistics. That way, common sense can prevail.

Have you ever tried to run away from your mind? Rather hard, isn’t it? Wherever you go, your mind, its contents, and its feelings always seem to follow one step behind. No matter what you do, say or even think, you inevitably suffer some sort of mental consequence. Maybe the answer lies here. If principles of mental cause and effect could be discovered, then we could build natural conscience upon a solid foundation: “Do this and you will experience this mental result. Think that and you will encounter that mental consequence.” Of course, we could never figure out how the human mind works.

Or could we?

Knowing versus `Knowing'

I have suggested that approval 'conscience' and natural conscience do not easily coexist. Actually, I suggest that any mental structure which is held together with emotional 'truth' will always be at odds with other mental networks which are connected by rational truth.

The reason for this is fairly simple: It is not possible for Perceiver thought to be both mesmerized and wide awake at the same time. In order to 'believe' an emotional 'fact,' Perceiver thought must be mesmerized into accepting the arrangement of a specific Mercy situation as absolute 'truth.' In contrast, believing rational truth requires Perceiver thought that is sufficiently wide awake to notice which connections are repeated over time or space.

A 'fact' which comes from Mercy emotion will only be 'known' to be true when the emotion associated with that 'fact' is significantly greater than the surrounding level of Perceiver confidence. If Mercy feeling drops, or Perceiver confidence rises, then this 'fact' will start to be doubted—the Perceiver observer will begin to awaken from its mental hypnotic trance. For instance, suppose that a teacher tells a child that all elephants have red toenails. The child who really respects his teacher will 'know' that this 'fact' is 'true.' But if the Mercy emotion associated with the teacher drops, or if the child learns more about elephants, then he will begin to doubt the 'fact' from his teacher.

On the other hand, a fact which comes from Perceiver logic can only survive as long as the level of Perceiver confidence is higher than the strength of Mercy emotion. If the intensity of Mercy feeling reaches the level of Perceiver confidence, then the Perceiver fact will begin to be doubted—the Perceiver observer will be blinded by the brilliance of feeling and become confused. Remember our example of “Do not steal.” Increase the amount of money involved and there usually comes a point at which Perceiver belief begins to waver.

The Threshold of Uncertainty

Notice that neither way of knowing will work when Mercy emotion is only a little stronger than Perceiver confidence: Mercy feeling is not large enough for emotional 'knowing' to operate, and Perceiver confidence is not strong enough for Perceiver logic to work. This is the situation in which the Perceiver observer is half awake. It is not sufficiently hypnotized to swallow 'facts' without thinking, and it is not sufficiently awake to think clearly. I will refer to this intermediate state as the threshold of uncertainty.

I should emphasize that it is the relationship between Mercy feelings and Perceiver knowing which causes mental uncertainty and not the absolute level of either Mercy emotion or Perceiver confidence. Everyone can potentially have feelings of doubt. The only difference is that a person with a strongersense of Perceiver knowing can handle more emotional pressure before entering the threshold of uncertainty. Similarly, if Perceiver thought is highly mesmerized, then it takes that much more Perceiver logic to threaten emotional 'knowing.' Because it is a relative standard, it must be drawn relative to either Perceiver or Mercy thought. In the diagram below, it is shown as a line above and below the current level of Perceiver knowing. If the strength of Mercy feelings approaches this level of knowing, then there will be mental uncertainty.

It is this intermediate stage of uncertainty which prevents Perceiver facts and Mercy based 'facts' from coexisting peacefully. Suppose that Perceiver logic wants to gain confidence in certain information. This means that the Perceiver observer must wake up and think clearly. But, as the level of Perceiver confidence rises, any related Perceiver 'facts' which are based in Mercy emotion will fall into doubt, attacking the stability of Perceiver networks based in these 'facts.' In other words, as the Perceiver observer learns to think in one area, it will begin to awaken from its trance in other areas. We see this ripple effect illustrated for instance in the rise of modern science. As rationalism grew, the development of Perceiver logic caused people to doubt traditional 'beliefs' and to question the 'truths' of culture.

If Perceiver strategy feels uncertain about Perceiver 'facts' which are rooted in Mercy emotion, the instinctive response is to support those 'facts' by increasing the feeling associated with them. But this rise in Mercy emotion will threaten any associated facts which are based in Perceiver confidence, because mesmerizing Perceiver thought in one area will make it ‘sleepy’ and less able to think clearly in related situations.[NN] This type of behavior is often exhibited, for instance, by religions. When 'faith' in religious 'truth' begins to waver, people use the emotions of religious fervor to restore their sense of Perceiver 'knowing.' And, countries such as Iran show that religious fundamentalism reduces the level of rational thinking.

Notice that the threshold of uncertainty can be viewed in two ways. First, a change may occur in Mercy feelings. This is illustrated by the diagram on the previous page. In this case, a rise in Mercy feelings will support emotional 'knowing' and threaten logical knowing. I suggest that this is the mental mechanism behind a phobia. Some emotional event occurs which makes logical thinking impossible. Likewise, a fall in Mercy feelings will assist rational knowing and frustrate emotional 'knowing.' I suggest that this is the main reason for modern Western skepticism. As feelings have been removed from our society, we have naturally emphasized reason and doubted traditional 'beliefs.' This crisis of 'faith' was not triggered by the appearance of any specific Perceiver facts. Instead, it was caused by an overalldrop in emotional fervor.

Second, it is possible for knowing to be affected by a change in Perceiver thinking. This is shown by the diagram below. Suppose that a person builds Perceiver confidence by doing mental ‘weightlifting’—he holds on to Perceiver logic despite his Mercy feelings. The emotions of the situation may remained unchanged, but the increase in Perceiver confidence will allow him to approach more topics rationally and give him a greater ability to question the assumptions of traditional 'knowledge.' This is what happens when a person grows in mental maturity.

Text Box: Knowing 'Knowing' THRESHOLD OF UNCERTAINTY P M P M P M

In Picture 1, confidence is big enough for Perceiver knowing to work.

In Picture 2, confidence is weak enough for Mercy 'knowing' to operate.

In Picture 3, Perceiver thought will be uncertain about the fact.

Similarly, a fall in the overall level of Perceiver confidence will cause the mind to lose its ability to think rationally and will give emotional experiences the power of defining 'truth.' I suggest that this is the mental mechanism responsible for panic attacks. Both phobias and panic attacks create similar feelings of uncertainty and emotional inundation. However, unlike a phobia, a panic attack is not caused by any specific Mercy incident. Instead, it occurs randomly, striking out of the blue. This is because it was a drop in the overall level of Perceiver confidence which caused the mind to slip into the threshold of uncertainty. The Mercy experiences did not change, but Perceiver thought lost the ability to deal with them.[OO]

We looked earlier at the relationship between common sense and mental escapism. I suggest that if today’s entertainment continues its present course, then panic attacks will become increasingly common in western society. Each time we are emotionally shocked by a movie or computer fantasy, we destroy another fragment of the Perceiver confidence upon which our common sense is based. Eventually, our overall level of Perceiver confidence will be insufficient to handle the emotional pressures of daily life. Common sense itself will then fall into the threshold of uncertainty, and we will lose the ability to function as normal humans.

This point will mark the end of societal freedom. Like the typical panic attack victim, we will huddle in our private dens, hoping against hope that we can prevent the devastating random attacks of mental confusion. To compensate for our mental insecurity we will demand an external world which is fixed. Any alteration of the status quo will be mercilessly squelched. Already we see the beginnings of this societal nausea.

We grow up with Perceiver mode programmed by opposing methods.

· On one side, parents and culture mesmerize Perceiver thought.

· On the other side, common sense wakes up the Perceiver observer.

These two methods of 'knowing' cannot coexist peacefully.

Returning to our discussion, each person, I suggest, naturally grows up with his Perceiver room in a state of mental conflict, reminiscent of life in the trenches during the First World War. This is because Perceiver strategy in the child is being programmed simultaneously by two contradictory modes of learning. On the one side are the emotional 'absolutes' of culture learned from parents and other adults. Here Perceiver strategy sleeps mesmerized. On the other side are the facts of common sense. In this region, Perceiver thought is wide awake. In between these two entrenched armies lies the no-man’s land of the threshold of uncertainty—a lifeless, lunar landscape of mental confusion. Periodically, the stalemate is challenged by the crash of mental salvos as one side or the other initiates an offensive across the lines in a desperate attempt at a breakthrough.

European history during the 18th and 19th century illustrates the struggle between these two types of knowing. The 18th century is called the Classical period. This time of history emphasized Perceiver confidence. Mozart wrote his elegant music, palaces had geometrical gardens, architecture copied the simplicity of the Greek temples, and Deists believed in God as the ultimate Watchmaker in the sky. In all areas, people tried to build a world of logic and order. The result of this growth in Perceiver confidence was the emotional backlash of the 19th century Romantic era. During this period, people searched for emotional experiences which would help them to retain their 'knowledge' of all the Mercy based 'facts' which the Perceiver logic of the previous classical age had called into question. This was the time of Beethoven and his thundering symphonies, palaces with their mysterious grottoes, and the revival of Pietism, with its emphasis on an emotional, personal relationship with God.[PP]

The Difficulty of Growing Up

Now that we know about the threshold of uncertainty, let us take another look at the dilemma of the teenager. In a sense one could describe the teenage years as the ‘First World War’ of the mind. On the one hand, the teenager is still imprisoned by his childhood, because his Mercy strategy is integrated solidly around emotional experiences associated with parents. Almost anything that they do will trigger some emotional memory within his Mercy internal world, and cause the undesired feelings of childhood to well up. He will probably fight these emotions by ‘trying to act cool’ or by attempting to prevent his parents from generating experiences which trigger these memories: “You make me feel really dumb when you act that way, Mom,” or “Grow up, Dad.”

Parents often respond to these comments by feeling old or past their prime. However, I suggest that the real problem is not with them. Once the teenager turns into a grown adult, he usually discovers that his mother wasn’t that dumb and his father wasn’t so childish. Rather, the teenager is trying to suppress his own dumb feelings and his own childish thoughts and his parents are simply catching the flak.[QQ]

On the other side of the trenches is growing mental independence. Perceiver thought in the teenager is finally waking up from the slumber of childhood and beginning to question the 'facts' of elders and look for logical explanations. Perceiver principles are no longer 'believed' simply because they are stated by adults. Rather, the teenager wants to know why; he wants to find a solid foundation for his beliefs.

This development of rational thought will inevitably be accompanied by a questioning of authority: If Perceiver strategy in the teenager is to wake up and to start searching for connections, it must break out of the hypnotic trance imposed upon it by those who are in charge. In the same way that the wiring of the mind seems to be responsible for making parents the ‘gods’ of their little children, so the same wiring of the mind seems to predetermine that children turning into teenagers will demand independence from the authority of their parents.

Fathers and mothers often react to this teenage ‘rebellion’ by demanding continued blind 'faith' and obedience from their offspring. In this case, I suggest that the problem does lie with the parents. If Perceiver strategy in the father is mesmerized by the emotional 'facts' emanating from the status associated with his wallet, his possessions, his boss, or other pillars of society, then these 'facts' may become uncertain when confronted with the questioning rebellion of his teenager. In the same way that the teenager may try to use external control to prevent his parents from bringing undesired Mercy feelings to mind, so the parent may attempt to use external control to stop his teenager from plaguing him with unwanted doubts.

In between these two conflicting sides of emotional 'truth' and adult logic lies the threshold of mental uncertainty, in which the teenager does not know what to believe and the parent is at his wit’s end. In the average house, these mental trenches are lit up regularly by flashes of verbal guns firing blindly across a generation gap in the gloom and semi-darkness of relational confusion.

This interpersonalconflict, I suggest, is the external manifestation of a war going on within the mind of the teenager, which his mental wiring predestines him to fight. While he cannot avoid this struggle, I suggest that it is possible for him to find a path which minimizes the pain of growing up.

There are two basic ways to overcome an opponent. First, I can try to destroy him. Eventually, he will be so weak that he cannot resist me. This is the method of war—I pummel the enemy into surrender. Second, I can focus on building up myself. In time, I will be so strong that I can ignore him. This is the path of economics. I defeat my opponent by out-producing and out-trading him. I suggest that teenage crisis can also be resolved in one of these two ways.

The Rebellious Teenager

Let us start with the option of attacking the enemy. Remember that the ‘enemy’ of the teenager is his childhood memories. He wants to grow up and be an adult. However, the emotional 'facts' from his childhood get in the way of his attempts to act and think like a grown-up.

First, I suggest that the teenager who suppresses his childhood will try to act ‘cool.’ Obviously, if childhood 'beliefs' are rooted in emotional experiences, then suppressing them means stepping away from strong feelings. In other words, the Perceiver observer responds to the glare of childish Mercy emotions by pulling the curtain over its window to the Mercy room. Therefore, the rebellious teenager will pride himself upon his lack of emotion. He will flaunt his ability to act and to think without feelings.

Second, he will rebel against his parents. This is because they are inextricably linked to the memories of his childhood. Mercy images of mother and father form the emotional core around which his childish mind is organized. Therefore, if the teenager wants to suppress these memories, then he must rebel from his parents, for they remind him of childhood and its feelings.

Third he will blame his parents. He will hold them responsible for his childish ways, and claim that they acted like ‘gods’ who controlled him. Did they act like ‘gods’? Yes, it was inevitable. This is because, as a child, the teenager lacked the mental content to withstand the influence of his parents. Will the teenager realize that the deficiency lay within his own mind? No, because he is focusing upon destroying the enemy. Therefore, he will blame his parents for their ‘excessive influence’ over him.

This combination of emotional detachment, rebellion and blame will create feelings of guilt within the mind of the teenager. All of the external conflict is really a smokescreen for the internal battle raging within the mind of the teenager: He is trying to grow up by distancing himself from internal feelings; he is rebelling against the mental image of his parents; and, he is blaming this set of emotional memories for controlling him. But, memories which form into networks become ‘alive’ and continue to operate, even when suppressed.

Therefore, by rebelling from authority, the teenager turns his childhood memories of parents into an autonomous mental network which is under the control of any authority figure whom he encounters.[RR] This system of thought will always oppose him, and he will continue to lack the power to resist it. This mental network will convince the teenager that he is being condemned and oppressed by ‘the establishment.’ Therefore, he will feel unresolvable guilt. Who created this mental network of condemnation? The teenager. Will he see the deficiency of his method? No, because he is still trying to destroy the enemy. As a general principle, when today’s gods are mentally suppressed, then they turn into tomorrow’s devils; their emotional strength survives intact and the mental network associated with them goes underground, as an undesired multiple. The result is a vicious circle in which rebellion breeds rebellion.

Fourth, the rebellious teenager will try to escape from this mental condemnation by belittling his parents. Remember that his primary goal is to free himself from the emotional glare of childhood—he wants to escape from the source of his emotional 'facts,' so that he can think for himself. He tried suppressing these memories, but they only returned with greater force. Therefore, he will now tackle the problem head on, and attempt to eliminate the emotional glare of his childhood. Seeing his parents as the source of childish memories, the rebellious teenager will do anything in his power to lower the emotional status associated with his parents. Whenever he finds inconsistencies, character flaws, childishness, insincerity, or other shortcomings in his parents, he will identify with these experiences, pull them into his internal world of Mercy thought and attach them to his network of parental memories. In this way, he will try to convince Mercy strategy that his parents are idiots who are not worthy of respect.

This will lead to the fifth stage of confusion. Suppose that the rebellious teenager manages to reduce the strength of feelings associated with his parents. He may have won the battle, but I suggest that he has lost the war. By destroying the emotional significance of his parents, he succeeds in throwing hisentire mind into the threshold of uncertainty. Remember that emotional 'beliefs' can only survive as long as the source of those 'beliefs' has sufficient emotional status. Therefore, as the teenager reduces the emotional status of his parents, every emotional 'fact' associated with his parents will become uncertain,simultaneously. The teenager will find that he no longer has a basis for evaluating truth, for all of the childish 'beliefs' upon which he might base Perceiver analysis have fallen into question. In other words, the teenager may have been rebelling from his childhood memories, but they still formed the basis for his thinking. They gave him purpose by giving him something from which he could rebel. Now he has cut this foundation out from under himself.

Finally, the confused rebellious teenager will respond to his mental chaos by searching for a new source of emotional 'truth.' He used to focus on achieving mental freedom; now his goal will be to regain mental stability. Obviously, he cannot go back to his parents. He no longer respects them, therefore they can no longer act as emotional sources of 'truth.' What he will discover is that his emotional trauma is shared by other teenagers—they understand him, they feel with him. The result will be the formation of a teenage counter-culture, in which groups or gangs of teenagers get together to derive emotional comfort from sharing the mental confusion of successful rebellion: “What are you doing?” “I dunno, I thought we might go to the mall and hang out.” By being confused together, these teenagers can use approval conscience to support their behavior and give it an aura of legitimacy. They will cling to each other, for they lack the mental stability to do anything individually. At the same time they will blame ‘the oppressive establishment’ for their troubles.

The Growing Teenager

Hmmm. Maybe there is a better way. Suppose that the teenager focuses upon the positive goal of developing adult thinking instead of pursuing the negative aim of suppressing his childish past. This means that instead of the Perceiver observer pulling the curtain over Mercy feelings, Perceiver thought learns rather to think amidst the glare. Let us examine the implications of following this path.

First, I suggest that the positive teenager is able to enjoy himself. He is not suppressing his childhood memories, therefore he does not have to avoid mental contact with strong emotions. Instead of trying to remain ‘cool,’ he can have fun, laugh, giggle, act silly, and even hug his parents.

Second, I suggest that he can accept his parents and other authority figures as real people. As the Perceiver observer awakes from its childish slumber, it is increasingly able to separate facts from feelings. In particular, this allows the teenager to make a distinction between Perceiver truth, and the Mercy people who were the source of this truth. Therefore, he will see that his parents are neither ‘gods’—the fount of all 'truth,' nor ‘devils’—the source of all 'error.' Instead, he can accept that authority figures are people with their own experiences and their own feelings. He can admit this without feeling mentally threatened.

Third, he is able to learn from others. This is because interaction with his parents has taught him how to do this. Initially, he was overwhelmed emotionally by the status of his parents. But he responded to this mesmerism by accepting the associated Mercy emotions, gaining confidence in the Perceiver facts, and separating the facts from the feelings. These same steps allow him now to go to other experts and to learn things from them. Not only will he have the tools for learning from authority, he will also have the desire:His struggles taught him that he needed to grow up, and showed him that an immature mind has limited content and stability.

I suggest that these three factors will give the growing teenager a positive self-image. Rather than suffering from guilt, he will feel good about himself and his surroundings. Like the rebel, the growing teenager also gains mental independence. But he achieves this freedom through the positive path of adult thinking, and not by suppressing childish responses. Like the rebellious teenager, his childish memories will also continue to operate autonomously as a ‘living’ mental network, but the feelings that they produce will be good ones. This results from the way that he has treated his childhood memories. He respected and accepted the feelings, learned from the 'facts,' and focused upon the positive. As a result, he will view his childhood, not as an enemy, but rather as a friend. This attitude will affect his worldview. In particular, he will see ‘the establishment’ as something friendly and helpful.

Fourth, the growing independence of the teenager will cause him, in a natural way, to question the 'facts' of his childhood. Like the rebellious teenager, he also will end up belittling his youth. But, the mental mechanism which prompts this change in attitude will be different. Rather than attacking childish feelings in order to reduce them below the level of his Perceiver confidence, he flexes the ‘muscles’ of Perceiver confidence in order to raise it above the level of Mercy emotion. Instead of saying “You are wrong” to his parents, the growing teenager says, “I know what is right, I can do it by myself.”

Fifth, this growing Perceiver confidence will bring the mind of the teenager into the threshold of uncertainty. But, unlike the rebel, the growing teenager will not be trapped in confusion. This is because the extent of his mental uncertainty will always remain limited. On the one hand, global confusion will be avoided. This is because continuing respect for parents preserves the emotional foundation upon which childish 'beliefs' are based. On the other hand, any confusion which is produced will have limited time and extent: Learning Perceiver facts will cause him to doubt childish 'facts,' but only in the specific area of learning; placing confidence in these new Perceiver facts will bring this aspect of thought through the threshold of confusion and back into mental stability. In this way, he can whittle away at childish delusions one at a time.

Two ways of rebelling from authority:

1. Attack the emotional status of the source of knowledge.

· This creates confusion as 'facts' linked to authorities are doubted.

· Stability can only be regained by submitting to another authority.

2. Use Perceiver logic to evaluate words and deeds of authority figures.

· Confusion is removed by gaining Perceiver confidence in facts.

· Continuing respect for authorities limits the extent of uncertainty.

Finally, the growing teenager will be able eventually to form his own identity, free of the constraints of childish culture. The previous stage gradually changed the nature of his thinking. Slowly, blind 'faith' was replaced by rational facts; step by step, childish assumptions were transformed into adult thinking. Finally, the sum of common sense reaches critical mass, and the teenager is able to make a shift from childhood to adulthood.

Analyzing the behavior of parents can itself help the teenager to program natural conscience. Remember that natural conscience develops as Perceiver thought finds repeated connections between cause and effect. The teen has lived with his parents for years—long enough to experience similar situations time and again, and to see the long-term consequences of parental choices. If parents are now experiencing lasting good consequences, then the teenager can learn which Perceiver rules are worth following. On the other hand, if parents are suffering painful results, then Perceiver strategy in the teenager can discover which experiences do not belong together—this also is a valuable lesson.

How to Avoid Teenage Rebellion

In an earlier section, we looked at parenting suggestions for teaching the child. I suggest that it is also possible to work out general principles which can be applied to the teenager, to encourage him either to follow the path of rebellion or the path of positive growth. Childish training has to speak the language of the physical body, because the mind of the child is too immature to handle intellectual content. In contrast, I suggest that it is both possible and necessary for parents to discuss rules and regulations with older children. Their minds are sufficiently developed to handle the content and the interaction is mentally stimulating. However, I suggest that the way in which parents approach rules is significant and that their attitude will help to determine the manner in which their children rebel as teenagers.[SS] We will make two suggestions and then show how these help a child to develop Perceiver thinking which includes both generality and time.

First, there is the issue of consistency. Perceiver thought looks for connections which are repeated. Therefore, if the Perceiver observer in the child is to ‘wake up,’ connections must exist which are consistent. When parents use rules to guide their children, then Perceiver thought in their offspring can look at the emotional memories associated with parents and discover Perceiver facts. On the other hand, if children are free to do as they please, or if parental rules are haphazard and inconsistent, then Perceiver thought in the child more easily remains hypnotized, for no facts exist in the family which can bring it outof hypnosis.

Paradoxically, this suggests that a child who is not given rules by his parents will be forced to grow up by rebelling from his parents. This is because he lacks the Perceiver tools which are required to digest his childhood memories. If he wishes to grow up, he will have no choice but to follow the Mercymethod of focusing upon the emotional origin of his childhood 'truth'—his parents—and then rejecting this source. We see this in today’s youth. The more liberty they are given, the more they respond by rebelling from this freedom. Why do they rebel? Because external freedom denies them mental freedom. Every child, because of his mental wiring, begins life in emotional bondage. Perceiver thought gives him the ability to escape this captivity. And, Perceiver thinking requires consistent rules. This does not mean that any rules will do. Rather, if parental discipline is to help Perceiver thought in the child to develop, then this control must be consistent with Perceiver thinking.

Second, there is the question of status. I suggest that parents should not claim to be the ultimate source of their rules. Suppose that parents give commands to their children such as: “Do what I say. Obey your father. I am the head of this house. You are making your mother feel bad.” This attitude reinforces the child’s assumption that all 'truth' is based in important people and teaches him that rebelling from 'truth' means rejecting the person who is the source of that 'truth.' Guess what these children will do as teenagers? Rebel.

How to encourage Perceiver thought to develop in a teenager:

· Downplay the emotional status of parents and other experts.

· Encourage Perceiver strategy to develop with consistent rules.

· Provide safe opportunities for learning common sense.

· Stand aside and let the child learn to think for himself.

On the other hand, suppose that parents base their judgments in some system of absolutes. This deflects the attention of Perceiver thought in their children away from a focus upon Mercy people and emotional status and causes it to search for Perceiver principles. But what if absolutes do not exist? It does not matter. The point is that a child who is not taught about Perceiver absolutes will be forced to rebel as a teenager, whereas teaching about absolutes makes it possible for him to follow an easier path.

Notice the relationship between these two points. Right rules help Perceiver thought to develop, and resolving the status of parents gets Mercy feelings out of the way. Following these two principles primes the pump for Perceiver thought. It can then learn that 'truth' does not come ultimately from people, but that it is related to repetition and stability.

With this, the child needs a chance to practice Perceiver thinking and to gain common sense. I suggest that this is provided by a backyard.[TT] In other words, the child should be encouraged to observe his world, explore his environment, experiment with his surroundings, and observe results. Perhaps he can learn from the mistakes of others. It is this combination of parental absolutes and critical thinking which will give him the mental tools for growing up.

But why this indirect route? Why can’t parents simply tell their children how to think? Because that is a contradiction in terms. Remember that the goal is to wake up the Perceiver observer in the child and to teach it how to think. If parents intrude with their emotional status, then they will overwhelm Perceiver thought in the child and send the Perceiver observer back to sleep, precisely the opposite of what they are trying to achieve. Therefore, they must give their children the right mental tools, provide an environment for learning, and then step out of the way.

Following this path, I suggest, will teach children also about generality. First, by downplaying personal status, parents show that Perceiver facts are not based in Mercy specifics. Second, by being consistent, and by teaching about absolutes, they introduce their children to the idea of general principles. And by encouraging active exploration, with an awareness of consequences, parents help a child to discover Perceiver rules which are general.

That brings us to the next point. How can parents teach their children to combine Perceiver thinking with a sense of time? I suggest that the concept of time, like generality, cannot be taught directly to a child. While parental discipline can make it possible for a child to learn about the relationship between rules and time, it is common sense, learned through repetition, that teaches the actual lessons.[UU]

A rule of conscience which involves time cannot, by definition, operate immediately. Instead, the action is performed first, and the consequence comes later. I suggest that this delayed reaction—the vital component in teaching about time—can be taught through the use of boundaries. A boundary is a wall set at a distance. It is a line which must not be passed.[VV]

I suggest that the same backyard which allows a child to discover general principles of common sense can also help him to learn about time and sequence. If the backyard is surrounded by a fence which must not be crossed, then it will take time for the child to cross the boundary.[WW] He will never find himself immediately in forbidden territory. Instead, he must always go through the permissible to reach the prohibited.

As usual, we find ourselves promoting a concept which has currently fallen out of favor. However, look at the alternatives. One is the taboo. This boxes a person in completely and does not permit any freedom of movement. For instance, political correctness makes it a taboo to raise any subject which is deemed to be offensive—including the current topic of boundaries. Similarly, conservatism makes it a taboo to analyze any experience which is deemed to be immoral. In both cases, there is no ‘backyard.’ Is a conscience that is based in taboos compatible with life? I suggest not.

The other option is total permissiveness. Tear down the walls and let people go anywhere and do anything. But what happens when there are no moral walls, and when people are allowed total freedom? We find that all freedom is lost. Citizens cower behind physical walls, hoping that their burglar alarms, double-bolt locks, and barred windows will keep out the savages. This also is only an approximation of life.[XX]

Does this mean that the child should be given some freedom in all aspects of life? No. Only in areas where there are limited painful results which are not instant. For example, a child cannot be allowed to run partially on the freeway, or touch part of a hot stove.[YY] This is because in those areas there are painful consequences which are both instant and permanent—there is no ‘backyard.’ However, I suggest that if a ‘backyard’ can be constructed, within boundaries, then it should be.

Boundaries teach about time by developing conscience—the child who goes beyond the permissible enters into the forbidden. I suggest that it is also possible to teach the same lessons through patience. Here the child reaches the desirable by going through the uncomfortable. This also takes time.[ZZ]Therefore, the child should be encouraged to create, to build, to practice, to perform, and to study. If he completes a task, then he should be rewarded. Ideally, this reward will come from finishing the job itself—this will encourage the child to become self-motivated, and not driven by the approval of others.

This approach also runs counter to current thinking. On the one hand we have the approach of the welfare state, which feels that it is wrong to make people uncomfortable: “How dare you place restrictions on your children or give them conditional acceptance! Children must always be cherished with open arms.” This sounds loving, but how can a child learn about time if all of his needs and desires are provided for instantly? How can he acquire the mental tools which he needs to live in an adult world?

On the other hand, some parents treat their children as little servants who are meant to be ordered around: “Mow the lawn. Vacuum the rugs. Clean your room. Do your chores.” If a child is constantly told what to do, then his Perceiver observer will never have a chance to wake up. He will then be forced to rebel as a teenager.[AAA]

So what is the proper approach? I suggest that it contains four essential elements: First, the child is given sufficient freedom to become emotionally independent from his parents. Second, there are enough Perceiver rules, containing both punishment and reward, to prime Perceiver thinking in the youngster. Third, the child has some sort of backyard in which to play, where he can learn general principles of common sense, free from the meddling interference of his parents. Fourth, the child is undergirded by a Mercy foundation of loving acceptance.

This last point is essential. The growing child may be learning to think like an adult, but he still has the mind of a child, which is built around Mercy thought and feelings. Therefore, he must feel loved by his parents—or else his mind will fall apart. And, this love must be expressed in Mercy language which the child can understand. Talking about love is not enough. Only personal, caring interaction between adult and child can suffice.

Should this unconditional acceptance extend to all areas and continue forever? I suggest not. The goal is to help the child to develop Perceiver confidence, and this cannot grow in an atmosphere of total and unchanging Mercy acceptance. If ‘good’ is always ‘right,’ and ‘bad’ always ‘wrong,’ then Perceiver confidence is never needed. There is a place for conscience, patience, punishment and reward. Likewise, a time eventually comes when the maturing individual is ready to emerge from the cocoon of unconditional acceptance. However, for the child—and for this book—that step is in the future. We will be discussing it soon enough. Until then, the child needs to know that he will always be loved and accepted, no matter what.

Society and the Mental Contradiction

We have examined the mechanisms by which Perceiver strategy in the growing child divides into the two opposing camps of emotional 'facts' of culture versus logical facts of common sense, and how this mental contradiction breaks out into open conflict during the teenage years as the child tries to grow up and to become an adult.

Society itself is just a collection of ex-teenagers, many of whom are still trying to rebel from their childhood memories. In the same way that rebellious teens band together in order to use approval conscience to comfort themselves, so the ex-teenagers of the world at large use the approval of society to help them cope with any remaining traces of the teenage mental conflict between logical truth and blind 'faith.'

Ideally, this internal conflict between facts and 'facts' would be completely resolved during the teenage years and a person would be able to enter adult life with Perceiver thought fully integrated, undivided by any no-man’s land of mental uncertainty. However, I suggest that there are several factors which conspire to extend this mental contradiction into a lifelong cold war between truth and 'faith.' Let us examine these points in more detail.

Suppose that a person tries to resolve the conflict within his internal Perceiver world by giving in to emotional 'truth' and therefore choosing to base all of his 'facts' upon a foundation of emotional status. In other words, he decides to put Perceiver strategy permanently to sleep, as a kind of frozen statue staring mesmerized at the brightness of Mercy thought.

If the Perceiver observer is always passive, this means that 'truth' will be 'believed' only if it comes from accepted experts or if it is burned in by the extreme emotion of agony or ecstasy. Culture will become deified and the parental gods of childhood, or their substitutes, will remain the accepted gods of adulthood.

When we refer to people who follow only emotional 'truth,' we probably think about jungle dwellers living in a primitive, isolated village at the edge of the stone age. There is some truth to this image. Tribal elders are obeyed and even worshipped. Most village behavior is guided by tribal custom, and culture can remain unchanged for countless generations. Traumatic experiences from nature are a major source of Perceiver 'truth' and fear of jungle powers, spirits, and sacred sites determines many Perceiver 'beliefs.'

However, modern man does not have a monopoly on common sense and lately we have been learning that in many ways the so-called primitive tribesmen are not actually that primitive after all. Tribal elders often have a wealth of common sense in areas such as herbal medicine and jungle survival.

I suggest that it is pain and pleasure from the physical body which restricts Mercy emotion in the tribal individual from completely mesmerizing Perceiver thought. These feelings generate common sense, for instance, in areas such as medicine and survival. The primitive tribal member’s social behavior may be guided completely by culture, tradition, authority, and fear, but the village in which he lives is also located very close to the natural world. And, physical encounters with nature and natural law help Perceiver strategy to learn principles of common sense.

Paradoxically, it is so-called modern man who is capable of becoming the complete savage devoid of any common sense. This is because the artificial world of civilization separates man from nature. The pioneer on the frontier had to plow, plant seed, weed crops, harvest grain, grind flour and bake bread in order to get food. In contrast, we need only drive down to the local supermarket and pick up a loaf of bread from the shelf. If the pioneer wanted a home, he had to cut down trees, saw the logs into timber, build a structure from the lumber and probably even make most of the furniture that went into the house. When we need a dwelling, we simply call up the local real estate agent, look around a little, and then move in. Similarly, if the frontier dweller wanted entertainment, he had to form an operetta company and put on his own production of Gilbert and Sullivan. We reach for the remote control and turn on the tube. In area after area, modern man lives without ever encountering natural law or needing common sense.

The result is that for the first time in history, it is possible to put Perceiver thought completely to sleep with the reasonable assurance that nothing will wake it up from its dreamy slumber of hypnosis. Anything we want can be had by asking the right person. There is no need for common sense.

As long as we all retain a veneer of common sense, then everything appears normal. However, suppose that the trappings of modern civilization are combined with the icons of traditional culture. Generally speaking, this step does not add the common sense of the past to the rational thinking of the present. Instead, the hypnotism of traditionalism completes the mesmerism of consumerism. The Perceiver observer thus becomes doubly asleep, almost impossible to wake.

For instance, what happens when the modern North American ‘Native Indian’ tries to rediscover his culture? His ancestors had common sense; they required it in order to survive in nature. He has no need for any of this, especially if he can live on government handouts. Moreover, the technology which he enjoys is the product of Western scientific thought—a way of thinking which is not part of his history. Therefore, when he goes back to what he thinks is his ancestral culture, chances are that he will choose the worst of the white man’s world, and combine it with the worst of his own—he adds the childishness of native magic to the idiocy of the Western consumer society.

Add the intensity of religious feelings and the power of modern weapons to this mixture and the outcome can only be described as explosive. For example, suppose that a religious expert tells a modern 'believer' that he will be translated instantly to paradise if he blasts himself and others to smithereens as a suicide bomber.[BBB] How is the ‘traditional,’ ‘civilized’ youth supposed to reject this hypnotic suggestion? He has no common sense upon which to fall back—to break him out of his mental trance. Rather, his experiences indicate that all mental, physical, and spiritual desires are supplied by people and institutions with emotional status, be they preachers, rock stars, movie actors, chain stores, temples, teachers, doctors, or fast food outlets.

We have looked at resolving the conflict between facts and 'facts' by filling the internal Perceiver world entirely with emotional 'facts.' Let us look now at the other alternative of following Perceiver logic all the way. In this case we will wake the Perceiver observer up completely and never allow him to doze off or go to sleep. This is not a simple process; it involves bringing Perceiver thought to life gradually in one area after another. And, waking up the Perceiver observer is only half the battle.

Often it is not immediately obvious which experiences really do belong together. Life contains many intermediate results which appear to be final but which are in fact only temporary. For example, suppose that I eat a whole box of chocolates. First comes the pleasure of cocoa butter rolling across my tongue. This obviously is the initial Mercy experience—the ‘bait.’ But what is the final result? Is it the heavy feeling in the stomach that comes from eating too much chocolate? Or is it the acne which breaks out on my face? Or the roll of fat which develops around my waistline? Needless to say, the final result is generally the last to emerge, and this connection obviously will not be discovered unless one allows sufficient time for temporary results to fade away and the permanent state to emerge.[CCC]

The ‘cold war’ of Perceiver thought:

· Our physical bodies stop us from totally obeying emotional 'truth.'

· Feelings of guilt and failure limit our use of common sense.

Once a long-term Perceiver connection has been discovered, the battle is still not over. Now the challenge is for Perceiver strategy to gain sufficient confidence to hold on to this connection in the midst of the glare of the Mercy ‘bait.’ For instance, as far as chocolates are concerned, one of the most lasting Perceiver connections is probably the relationship between chocolate and fat. Heavy feelings in stomachs pass, acne clears up, but fat stays around—and I do mean around.

Suppose that Perceiver thought manages to believe in the connection between ‘chocolate’ and ‘fat’ at all times except when I am holding a morsel of melting love in my trembling hands. Conscience will have no effect on either behavior or weight gain because, at the precise time when it is needed, it is inactive. At the very instant that Perceiver strategy should be asserting belief, at that split second it is mesmerized by the emotion of the moment.

Unfortunately, the problem is worse than that. The level of Perceiver confidence may be insufficient to change behavior, but it is strong enough to induce feelings of guilt. Once the episode of sensory gratification has passed, then the level of feeling lowers to the point at which Perceiver strategy can begin again to operate. The emotional glare of the moment has faded, the Perceiver observer snaps out of its trance, discovers that Mercy strategy has identified with the forbidden fruit and then begins to insist with great certainty that Mercy thought will also identify with the conclusion of fat.

Therefore, I suggest that a partially functioning conscience is actually worse than no conscience at all. Without an operating conscience, one can at least enjoy the chocolate until the fat appears, but when conscience works part of the time, then the mental misery starts almost immediately, long before any physical discomfort arrives on the scene. Unfortunately, Perceiver confidence can only be gained gradually, which means that conscience is capable of making me miserable for a long time before it succeeds in changing my behavior.

This leads us to the following paradox. Some time ago, I suggested that mental ‘life’ was constructed out of the building blocks of conscience. Now I am suggesting that when conscience appears, it usually starts by making me feel miserable. Does this mean that I must go through mental misery in order to find ‘life’? Yup! What type of answer did you expect anyway? All I am saying is that the structure of our mind forces us to finish our vegetables before eating dessert. Ah, you thought that this book would show you a shortcut to mental maturity. I suggest that there are no shortcuts—only detours.

What is Me?

We saw that the external world usually stops Mercy emotion from completely overwhelming Perceiver thought and common sense. This is because the mind is encased in a physical body which uses the carrot and stick of pleasure and pain to encourage us to develop some common sense. In contrast, when Perceiver confidence is being used, then it is the internal world which generally prevents Perceiver logic from being followed completely. The operation of incomplete conscience and the consequent feelings of guilt tend to discourage even the strongest individual from following common sense to its logical conclusion. The reason is that guilt disturbs my internal sense of identity—it attacks me.

What is me? Let us see if we can provide an answer to this question. So what if generations of philosophers have banged their heads senseless trying to determine the answer.[DDD] Maybe our model of the mind will give us the key to unlock the door even to the riddle of self-identity.

However, before we start, there is one more option which we need to examine. We have assumed that teenage conflict between blind 'faith' and common sense needs to be resolved. Why not leave things the way they are? Why not just divide all of life into two different spheres, one ruled by Perceiver logic and common sense and the other under the domain of emotional 'facts' and blind 'faith'? If we could all agree where the lines are, then we might be able to help each other ignore the fact that Perceiver thought in all of us is split in two by the mental trenches of the threshold of uncertainty.

I suggest that this is the response taken by today’s society. In almost every arena of life, mental activity is cut into two mutually incompatible spheres by a line which separates the subjective region of emotional 'facts' and personal feelings from the objective side of common sense. Here are some examples of splits between 'facts' and facts: religious and secular, home and work, private life and public life, personal and professional, art and business, culture and economy, beauty and utility, social sciences and natural sciences, love and self-interest, duty and selfishness, nationalism and economics, socialism and capitalism. All of these pairs of terms describe some arena of society in which two opposing forces are fighting each other for control of some area of mental ‘land.’ One side is emotional and determines 'facts' by strong feelings, the other leans upon common sense and places rational, cold logic in charge.

Three solutions to the split between logical facts and emotional 'truth.'

1. Follow Mercy emotion: Make gods out of your ancestors. Follow an absolute dictator.

2. Use Perceiver logic: Learn to think for yourself. Search for principles of cause and effect.

3. Do nothing. Accept the internal contradiction as a part of culture.

· This is the method practiced by Western society.

Oh no. Here we were about to start on the imposing subject of self-identity and I opened yet another can of worms which is just as big if not even bigger. Fear not. As your tour guide, I told you that the path would contain interesting sites. Now don’t complain when we do find something that is worth checking out. Remember when we encountered the seemingly insignificant topic of time-based objects? Hidden within that innocuous connection was the whole concept of conscience. I suggest that we have stumbled across another treasure trove. Except, this is a double mother lode, containing two fundamental issues: personal identity, and the modern split between various forms of objective and subjective. I suggest that these two topics are extensively related, and that an adequate understanding of these issues will give us the mental tools which we need to handle many of today’s crucial problems.

Objective versus Subjective

Let us start our analysis by examining some of the implications of a societal split between objective and subjective. After this, we will look at the two forms of conscience which result from this split. Finally, we will see that our discussion of conscience is actually the connecting passageway which leads to the issue of objective and subjective identity.

It is natural for a society to create a permanent split between emotional 'truth' and logical truth. Thanks to environment, parenting and schooling, youngsters can acquire a substantial amount of common sense without ever having to apply any self-initiated effort. Likewise, children naturally develop respect for the 'beliefs,' customs, institutions and role models of their society. But, because this mental development is motivated by others, individuals generally stop learning once the pressure is removed. Whenever society allows them to ‘graduate,’ they rest on their laurels, accept the existing mental splits, and begin ‘living.’

Let us look more closely at what is often so easily accepted. A permanent schism between objective and subjective, spreading through all of society, is like the wall of a freezer separating the frozen interior of 'truth' from the warm exterior of common sense. As long as this insulated barrier remains intact, the Perceiver observer will be awake on one side, and ‘frozen’ on the other. If every member of society possesses the same mental ‘deep freeze,’ then there will be a minimum of mental confusion, because each individual will know exactly what type of Perceiver thought applies where.[EEE]

This unity of thought creates a high level of personal comfort. It happens because a division between objective and subjective destroys Perceiver ability to sense similarity, and in this way it ‘bombs’ unwanted conscience or guilt. How? We know that no Perceiver information can cross the threshold of uncertainty intact: A fact simply cannot coexist with a 'fact'—the one eats up the other. If there is a wall which Perceiver information cannot pass, then conscience also cannot cross the barrier, for conscience is a Perceiver connection between cause and effect. Contradiction is thus not sensed; conviction is therefore not triggered. The human mind can in fact tolerate extensive inconsistency—between objective and subjective thought—without any feeling of guilt.

This dividing wall between objective and subjective allows ‘modern’ man, for instance, to handle oxymorons such as smart bombs, street-fighting video games, television sitcoms, and rock music concerts—without guilt. In each case, there is a stark contrast between the destructive childishness of the subjective component and the advanced state of the objective medium. Think for example of the complexity of today’s personal computer. Now compare that with the primitiveness of hand-to-hand fighting. Most video arcade games combine the two. And no one feels guilty.[FFF]

I mentioned earlier that mental ‘life’ comes from an internal structure which includes Perceiver, Server, Teacher and Mercy participation. Two of these mental strategies—Perceiver and Server—work with structure and confidence, while the other two—Teacher and Mercy—operate with feeling and substance. Without structure, life blows up; without feeling, it dries up.

A split between objective structure and subjective feeling, however, separates structure from feeling. The objective preserves structure by suppressing feeling, whereas the subjective protects feeling by mesmerizing structure. And, all of it is locked firmly in place by a strong collective, societal desire to avoid guilt.

This means, among other things, that mental life, to maintain itself, must violate and in fact destroy the division between objective and subjective. Society in turn, to avoid guilt, must not only uphold but also remain unconscious of the schism.

How do we handle these contradictory requirements? Through the use of technology. The same implement can be analyzed objectively by one individual and enjoyed subjectively by another—one man’s tool is another man’s toy. This creates an external link between objective and subjective thought. The factory builds an object with external structure, and the consumer uses this object as a framework for subjective feelings. The internal division between objective and subjective remains intact.

For example, science is rooted solidly in objective thought. However, scientific principles lead to new technologies, which allow us to build gadgets such as stereos, televisions, and computers. These pocket wonders, which began life in the realm of the objective, are used now to entertain us within the arena of the subjective. The average teenager, for instance, does not view a computer as a tool of research. Instead, for him, it is a toy for playing games.

The same process can operate in reverse. Human thinking, for example, has always been considered as part of the realm of the subjective. However, with the advent of brain imaging technology, our very thoughts have become the topic of objective research.

The history of western civilization shows that this mixture is rather explosive. On the one hand, we want mental life. Therefore, we continually develop new technologies which allow us to bridge the gap between subjective and objective. On the other hand, we want to avoid triggering feelings of personal inadequacy. Therefore, we reinforce the mental divisions between subjective and objective, and suppress those who either question or discuss the faultlines which pervade our existence.

Approval and Natural Conscience

Continuing now with our quest for life, we have seen that emotional 'facts' and logical facts are mutually incompatible. Building up the one will automatically tear down the other. This is because the Perceiver observer cannot be both asleep and awake at the same time.[GGG] We have also found out that these two types of facts lead to two different forms of conscience: Emotional 'facts' create approval 'conscience,' while logical facts build natural conscience. If there is an irreconcilable conflict between 'facts' and facts, then one would expect a similar incompatibility between approval 'conscience' and natural conscience. I suggest that this is precisely what does occur.

The main difference between natural conscience and approval 'conscience' is that the former is based in the ‘hardware’ of the natural world while the latter comes from the ‘software’ of people.[HHH] This has several consequences. First, the rules of natural conscience do not change, because they are rooted in hardware. The law of gravity, for example, does not vary from day to day. It keeps on operating single-mindedly everywhere and ‘everywhen’ I go. In contrast, the opinions of people can and do change—they come from the software of situations and feelings. Humans learn, forget, make mistakes, get bored, or find something else that is more exciting. They may give me approval today, but who knows what they will do tomorrow.

I suggest that this dichotomy is augmented internally. With emotional 'facts,' it is the one most emotional Mercy experience which determines 'belief.' Change that one situation and 'belief' alters as well. This principle is exploited, for example, by the advertising that presents itself on our television screen and by the junk mail which lands every day on our doorstep. Everywhere, advertisements bombard our senses with new eye-catching emotional gimmicks which try to make them the source of our 'facts' and our 'beliefs.'

On the other hand, logical facts, by their very nature, are stable and unchanging. Perceiver strategy looks for connections which do not vary—solid anchors which can help Perceiver thought to ride out the emotional waves of everyday experience without being shaken. Obviously, any system of thought which has this type of mental foundation will tend to be stable.

Second, not only do peoples’ opinions change, but people themselves are finite creatures with limited knowledge and awareness.[III] In order for other individuals to pass judgment on my behavior, they must know what I am doing and thinking. If they are not aware, then they cannot judge. Therefore, approval conscience can only affect public behavior. It can have no influence over thoughts and private actions. This means that under approval conscience, a person will not feel guilty. Rather, he will be afraid of being caught. A mental Perceiver connection which disappears when people are absent is not very solid, and neither is approval conscience.

Natural conscience, in contrast, has a dogged persistence. Like a shadow, it never leaves. Jumping off a cliff, for instance, makes my body go splat regardless of whether others are watching or not. Even if I know that no one else will ever find out, nature knows, and nature punishes.[JJJ]

These two factors are responsible for keeping approval conscience and emotional 'truth' together, and for combining common sense and natural conscience with Perceiver confidence. On the one hand, because people have limited knowledge and awareness, approval conscience can never provide the repetition and stability which is needed for Perceiver confidence to develop. Instead, approval always remains dependent upon the specific Mercy experience of a person being either present or absent. On the other hand, the predictability of natural law builds Perceiver confidence and the inevitability of natural cause and effect discourages people from using approval to meddle with the laws of nature.

Before we go on, I should clarify a potential confusion. Conscience is a mental construct, in which Perceiver knowledge integrates emotional Mercy memories. Approval and natural feedback, in contrast, are both external results. Approval or disapproval is a reaction which I receive from another externalperson; natural feedback is a result which occurs externally, in the physical world. Approval conscience is the mental system which results from the external reactions of people. Because approval is dispensed by beings who are weak, limited, and uncertain, approval conscience itself tends to be weak, limited, and uncertain. If approval conscience wants to overcome these limitations, then it has to define a new type of human who is not weak, not limited, and not uncertain. Who or what is this? We will answer that question later on. Right now, I want us to remember two points: First, conscience is internal whereas approval is external. Second, people are limited, therefore approval conscience is also limited.

Natural feedback comes, like personal approval, from the environment. But, unlike personal approval, natural feedback operates consistently. Therefore, this external foundation can be used to build a more stable form of internal conscience. This does not mean that natural conscience is always stable. If the mind crumbles, then it also will become uncertain. But, the external foundation upon which it was originally constructed is inherently more solid than the external foundation holding up approval conscience. Even if the mind crumbles, the outside world around it remains a stable source around which thinking can be rebuilt.

It is possible to build a hybrid conscience which mixes approval with natural law. As an example, let us look at the rule “If you take a cookie, then you will get a spanking.” The ‘bait’ of ‘eating the cookie’ has to do with natural law. My mind and body are wired up in such a way that baked dough in my mouth produces pleasant sensations. The spanking, in contrast, comes from people; it is a practical form of disapproval.[KKK] If mother does not know about my crime, then I will not be punished. Even if mother does find out, she may change her mind and decide not to punish me.

I suggest that mixing natural feedback with approval generates a conscience which fades in and out. For instance, the taste of the cookie is based in natural feedback; this sensation is always present. Therefore, the ‘bait’ will be stable. But, the punishment comes from mother, who may or may not be present. Therefore, the mental ‘hook’ will be unreliable. As a result, the emotion associated with eating a cookie will vary all the way from good to bad, depending upon mother’s location and knowledge. Again we have the problem of a statistical connection between offense and punishment.

Natural conscience and Approval conscience are incompatible.

1. Natural conscience is rooted in ‘hardware.’

· It operates at all times and cannot be altered.

2. Approval conscience is the result of ‘software.’

· Others must know to disapprove, and opinions can be altered.

Conscience which mixes natural result and approval will be unstable.

· Desire will depend upon the presence or absence of people.

· There will always be temptation.

Most traditional rules of conscience counterbalance a ‘bait’ rooted in natural pleasure with a ‘hook’ based in disapproval.[LLL] I suggest that this is why people generally consider conscience to be ‘the little voice that stops me from having fun.’ The ‘fun’ comes from natural pleasure, whereas the ‘little voice’ reminds me that someone might dispense disapproval. With this type of arrangement, I suggest that temptation will always be present.

What is temptation? Let me suggest a simple definition: Temptation is the mental feeling that results from combining a ‘bait’ which is always present with a ‘hook’ that is sometimes present. This makes it possible to enjoy the ‘bait’ without getting caught by the ‘hook.’ With this combination, the mind will not try to avoid the ‘bait.’ Instead, it will attempt to take the ‘bait’ while avoiding the ‘hook.’ In other words, thinking will center on ways of having fun without getting caught. Instead of avoiding the cookie, I will ponder how I can take the cookie and avoid mother.

What produces an uncertain ‘hook’? Let me review. First, the bad consequence upon which the mental ‘hook’ of conscience is based may be statistical. Second, mental knowing can be inadequate; the consequence itself may be definite enough, but my knowledge of it is not. Third, the consequence may be a form of disapproval from people, who, by nature, have limited knowledge and awareness. I suggest that any of these three situations will create a form of conscience which is plagued with feelings of temptation.

Let us see now if it is possible to alter hybrid conscience. Examine the rule: “Take a cookie and you will get fat.” In this case both cause and effect come from the natural world—both involve facts and not 'facts.' Eating too much will make me fat regardless of whether my indulging is seen by others or not. I suggest that this combination can move beyond temptation, because the consequence is always and irrevocably present. With sufficient Perceiver confidence I can pass the chocolate store without pangs of agony.

However, suppose that we modify this rule further: “Take a cookie and you will get fat and others will think that you are ugly.” We are now back to a mixture of natural and approval 'conscience.' [MMM] Even though ‘getting fat’ is the result of natural law, the bad Mercy emotion comes not from the obesity itself, but from the disapproval of people. This type of rule will not stop me from eating. Rather, it will encourage me to hide my fat by wearing loose clothing, to avoid disapproval by choosing the company of other fat people, or to echo disapproval back to those who make disparaging comments about my weight.

I suggest that it is possible to combine approval 'conscience' and natural conscience under one circumstance. The problem with approval 'conscience' is the changing opinions and the limited awareness of people. Suppose that approval or disapproval came from a person who did not change and who saw everything, including my thoughts. If this type of person existed, then approval 'conscience' and natural conscience would be compatible.

While the content of approval and natural conscience would now be compatible, we still would have the underlying contradiction between emotional 'facts' and logical facts. However, at least the focus of the battle would change. This paragraph may seem somewhat theoretical at the moment, but keep it in mind. We will study it in depth in the next volume.

The Rule of Law

We have looked at ways in which parents can stimulate the development of Perceiver processing in the young child. We also presented some parenting tips for developing this kind of thought in the maturing teen. I suggest that it is also possible to set up an environment which encourages adults to use Perceiver thought.

But why do we have to use an indirect approach? Why not just teach Perceiver thinking? Because, as I mentioned before, that is a contradiction in terms. Direct pressure overwhelms the Perceiver observer and creates emotional 'truth,' precisely what we are attempting to avoid. Therefore, we can only plant the seed, water the soil, and hope that Perceiver confidence and thinking will somehow grow.

So how do we create an environment which encourages Perceiver thought? In essence, we set up roadblocks which frustrate the use of emotional 'truth,' and which uphold the application of Perceiver confidence. Remember, though, that we are dealing now with a society of adults—they are capable of using Perceiver logic. Children started out with emotional 'logic'—there was no choice. Therefore, they needed special situations which allowed them to operate under emotional 'truth,' and which helped them to develop adult thinking so that they could enter adult society. Grown-ups, in contrast, are capable of both learning and practicing Perceiver thinking in the real world.

Note that this puts a different slant on the label of ‘child’ and ‘adult.’ In today’s society, a child is accepted as an adult when he reaches a certain biological age, regardless of his mental maturity. I suggest that a child becomes an adult, rather, when he has gained the mental ability to act and think like one. When all people in a society are maturing at similar rates, then it is possible to pretend that biological age is related to mental maturity. But, if one is to compare so-called adult society in dissimilar places such as Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and North America, then I suggest that one must take into account the fact that age and adulthood are not necessarily related.

As before, I would like to make two major suggestions, one related to the fact that conscience involves time, and the other linked to its relationship with generality. We will start by looking at time, and then this discussion will lead naturally to generality.

I suggest that the connection between rules and time can be taught to adults through opportunity. An opportunity is a result which can be achieved by performing some action—over time. It is not an instant payback. Rather, it is a matter of sowing and reaping. The United States, for instance, has often been called ‘The Land of Opportunity.’ The ‘American Dream’ itself is based in opportunity: Work hard and you will be successful. On the whole, there is some validity to this ‘American Dream.’ At time of writing, the United States is the world’s richest nation and its only superpower. Yet, when we look at American society, we find that this paradise is often blighted with crime and poverty. Why? I suggest that it is because the American system does not distinguish between various types of opportunity.

Suppose, for instance, that I come across a beautiful leather jacket. Here is an opportunity: I can steal the jacket and make it mine. But, let us analyze the type of mental circuit which is driving this behavior. It starts with a Mercy experience, involving me and the lovely leather jacket in close proximity. This situation is associated with a strong emotion—I want that jacket. If Perceiver confidence is weak, then the feelings of the event will mesmerize Perceiver thought into 'knowing' that me and the jacket belong together. This emotional 'truth' will override any other Perceiver facts about connections between people and objects. In other words, I will see it, 'know' that it is mine, and take it without feeling any pangs of guilt, even though it does not belong to me. On the other hand, if my Perceiver observer is awake, then it will look for a permanent connection between object and person. I will see the jacket and think, “Oh, someone left their jacket here. Let me see if I can return it to its owner.”

If our goal is to encourage Perceiver confidence and to discourage emotional 'truth,' then we will try to uphold ownership and prevent theft. Adults will band together, accept the principle of ownership, agree to respect the private property of others, and punish those who take objects which do not belong to them. This is the foundation for government law.

Suppose that someone does steal the jacket. How should society respond? It should help the offender to learn Perceiver confidence.[NNN] Is this lesson taught by putting a person behind bars? No. Locking up the criminal teaches him that bad Mercy experiences should be blocked off, because society regards himas a ‘bad experience’ and it has quarantined him. This is how Mercy thought responds to pain when it is totally free of Perceiver rules; it is the path of ‘multiple personalities.’ Is it necessary to lock up some criminals? Yes, this is society’s safety valve for extreme crime, just as multiple personalities are a mental safety valve used by children who are subject to extreme abuse. But it should not be the normal response, just as people with multiple personalities should not be regarded as typical humans. Instead, the goal should be to teach the criminal how to pursue opportunities which are based in Perceiver logic.

That brings us to our second type of opportunity. This is the concept of creating wealth for myself—in place of appropriating that of others. When we examined principles of childhood training, we saw that parents could only provide the environment for Perceiver thought. This milieu created a mental vacuum which drew into itself the contents of common sense. Where was this common sense learned? In the real world. Similarly, I suggest that government—the ‘parents’ of adults who live under it—cannot teach common sense. Instead, it can only create a climate within which opportunity and common sense may grow.

How to teach time-oriented Perceiver thinking to a group of adults:

· Permit opportunities that require Perceiver confidence.

· Squelch opportunities that do not need Perceiver confidence.

· Step out of the way and allow society to guide itself.

This is what the average businessman will tell you. What he wants is a stable regime that protects private property without stepping in and taking his wealth away, and that gives him the freedom to pursue opportunity without removing this permission later on. The government creates the climate. Hecreates the wealth.

If this system is to work, then I suggest that there are a few other types of opportunity which need to be eliminated. One is the opportunity of government to take wealth from the individual. When a person or company is making money, the temptation (remember that word?) is for government to step in and to demand an extra share of the riches. Those who try to pursue opportunities in third world countries will tell you that this type of political opportunism does not encourage the creation of wealth. I suggest that the underlying problem again is emotional 'truth.' The emotion of seeing wealth overwhelms Perceiver thought in the government official and causes him to 'know' that he and some of that wealth belong together. This produces an economy based in bribery and corruption. It may be as blatant as ‘officials’ manning roadblocks and demanding money from passing cars, or it may come in the more subtle form of encouraging some business venture and then changing the regulations afterwards.

But, how did we get into a discussion on economics? Ah, that is the mystery of capitalism: “Give people the freedom to pursue opportunity and they will create the most marvelous economy that you have ever imagined.” Why? The average free-enterpriser does not know. He simply repeats the mantra, “Freedom creates work.” [OOO] In essence, if a political vacuum is created which is consistent with Perceiver confidence, then this vacuum will be filled by the common sense of a modern economy. Is a modern economy based upon Perceiver confidence? Very much so. People interact on the basis of contracts—stable Perceiver rules which guide their behavior, regardless of individual experiences. They trade by using money, a factual way of comparing the value of one object with that of another. And, businessmen always talk about confidence in the economy, especially when they confront emotional storms of economic uncertainty. How and why does business work? We will study this question later when we examine Contributor thought. For now, notice that whenever a vacuum exists which is consistent with rational thinking, it is filled by something which follows common sense and which functions fairly well.[PPP]

Unfortunately, none of this amazing stuff will work unless two more opportunities are stifled. The first is the opportunity of physical force. Suppose that I am a one hundred kilogram ‘gorilla’ and I happen to see a fifty kilogram weakling wearing a brand new pair of runners—in my shoe size. Here is an opportunity. I can force him to give me the runners. Or, suppose that I am a fifty kilogram weakling with a gun who happens to see a one hundred kilogram gorilla with a nice pair of runners—also in my shoe size. Now the runt has the force: “Bang, bang, you’re dead. Thanks for the runners.”

Why do teenagers kill each other over a pair of shoes? Because, modern man with his civilization is capable of becoming a total savage, with a mind completely governed by emotional 'truth,' where ‘might makes right.’ Notice the logic. With emotional 'truth,' the biggest emotional experience defines the 'facts.' Therefore, if I am a bully with big muscles or powerful weapons, then my importance defines Perceiver 'truth.' When you and I happen to meet, then my emotional status will convince my Mercy thought that all experiences center around me, and my Perceiver observer will be mesmerized by this emotion into 'believing' that you, me, and your possessions all belong together—under me. Within my mind, you cease to exist as a separate entity, and because I have the physical force, I can beat you up, or put a bullet through your head. Will I feel guilty? No, because I define 'truth.'

So, how should society respond to savages such as these? Should we ‘lock them up and throw away the key’? No. I suggest that this reaction reinforces their existing primitive mindset. Why can they murder without giving it a second thought? Because Perceiver mode, the observer which produces the ‘second thought,’ is completely mesmerized by the emotions of the moment. Therefore, if society lets them ‘rot behind bars,’ then it is confirming to these criminals that bad experiences can be blocked off permanently without a second thought.

If incarceration is not the answer, then what about re-education? If we train them, then they should see the error of their ways and reform, right? Wrong. You see, they really are savages, and words mean nothing to them. Instead, the only language which they understand is brute force. If we want to communicate with them, we must speak in terms of force.

Ah, what we need then is boot camp. Treat them like the marines: “Yes, sir! No, sir! I will polish my boots and do four hundred more pushups, Sir!” While this approach may have some benefits, I suggest that it also suffers from a fatal flaw, because it is based in the concept that ‘might makes right.’ The fundamental problem is that the Perceiver observer in the criminal is totally mesmerized. That is why he has no conscience. Boot camp replaces one hypnotic master with another, but leaves Perceiver thought hypnotized.

I suggest that the solution involves the natural world and common sense. Send the criminals to a wilderness camp where they have to face natural foes. Or, put them on a sailing ship where they must learn to battle wind and wave. Give them a positive goal—something they can build, or some place that they can reach.[QQQ] Give them a ‘backyard’ where the true enemy is their lack of Perceiver knowledge and confidence, and not the presence of some Mercy person. That will teach common sense and natural opportunity. These types of rehabilitation programs do exist and the evidence suggests that they are successful.[RRR]

Let us look now at the second ‘opportunity’ which society needs to stifle if common sense is to emerge. I have suggested that government can encourage adult thinking by thwarting opportunities which are not based in Perceiver logic. This ability to thwart opportunities canitself become an opportunity. The most blatant example is the lawsuit. If you want to get ahead, sue your opponent—it is the new ‘American Way.’ Drag him into court and convince the judge to block what he is doing. Better yet, have the court take money from others—the more the better—and give it to you. What an opportunity. As for those who prefer more subtle methods, there is always government aid.[SSS]

I suggest that any dependence upon the courts or upon government assistance promotes childish thought. This is because government laws are made and enforced by people. When I pursue opportunity through the courts or through government programs, my goal is to influence the opinions of significant people. In other words, I am attempting to determine 'truth' by manipulating emotional experiences. Common sense and natural opportunity become side issues, peripheral to persuading the authorities to see things my way. Why? Because 'facts' and facts cannot coexist. If emotional 'truth' is lifted up, then logical facts are automatically suppressed. The result is a government which carries out exactly the opposite function to that which was originally intended. Government was supposed to thwart those who followed emotional 'truth.' Now it is infected with the disease that it was designed to cure.

I suggest, in fact, that government intervention frustrates natural opportunity in four main ways. First, it warps the playing field. This is because there are now two regions of overlapping opportunity—which are mutually incompatible. One is based in natural law and common sense; the other is rooted in the pursuit and manipulation of official decision and legislation. The first uses Perceiver confidence, the second exploits emotional 'truth.' As we know, these two types of knowing fight each other within the mind. When they collide, Perceiver thought is thrown into the threshold of confusion. Imagine trying to follow opportunity when you don’t know which facts apply to your particular situation.

Second, government meddling adds red tape. Suppose that a person wants to follow Perceiver logic. It is not enough for him to learn common sense. In addition, he must memorize hundreds of arcane laws, and run through scores of byzantine regulations. All of these additional steps have nothing to do with the opportunity itself. But, if they are not followed to the letter, then government will step in and thwart the opportunity.

Third, justice is denied to those who need it. Suppose that someone’s personal safety or private property is violated. If he goes to court, he finds himself immersed in an alternate reality where emotional 'truth' is pre-eminent. And, because 'truth' and truth cannot coexist, Perceiver facts and confidence will be shoved aside.

Finally, justice is delayed. This is because court cases are prolonged, and therefore they clog up the system. Why? Because a law system which pursues emotional 'truth' is a contradiction in terms. Law, by definition, is a Perceiver belief which applies to many individual Mercy experiences. Emotional 'truth,' in contrast, roots itself in single experiences and isolated cases. Therefore, the more that courts and politicians accept emotional 'truth,' the more they have to decide exactly which so-called universal law applies to each individual case—Perceiver truth is adjusted in the light of emotional 'truth.' Thus, before a case can even be tried, officials will determine what evidence is permissible, which rules are pertinent, who sits on the jury, and so on and so forth. Similarly, before a politician makes a decision, he will consult with all of his special interest groups.

Before we go on, I suggest that we have just discovered the method by which a society teaches its citizens that Perceiver rules are connected with generality—it uses justice. When a person comes before a court or some other government agency, he loses his individuality. Instead, he is reduced to another example of ‘Regulation 37.4, Subsection D.’ That is what makes justice work: The same rules apply to everyone. It does not matter who you are; you will be treated in the same way. This teaches the individual that it is possible to discover Perceiver rules which are general, and which do not depend upon specific Mercy experiences. At least, that is what happens when government is just. But, if the system becomes corrupt, then this lesson of generality is lost. Rather, people learn that it is the specific Mercy person and his emotional status which is all-important.[TTT]

How can a corrupt justice system or bureaucracy be reformed? Should the legal loopholes be plugged with more laws? I suggest not. This simply adds more emotional 'truth' and gives further ammunition to lawyers and bureaucrats. It falls into the error of thinking that opportunity lies with government and its regulations.

Instead, I suggest that the vacuum should be filled with common sense and logical thinking. What vacuum? The one that is left when everyone focuses upon emotional 'truth.' The true opportunity, the true generality, lies with natural law and Perceiver confidence, and when most people are concentrating on manipulating man-made systems, then the field is left wide open for rational thought. There is no competition.

I discovered this principle during my research. I often felt that I was working within an intellectual vacuum. Why? Because most others were concerned with people and their opinions, whereas I was a stubborn Perceiver engineer trying to use Perceiver thinking to work out the facts. The downside was that I did not have much status—it was appropriated by others who were trying to be important. The upside was that I generally found myself working in virgin territory, and I stumbled upon one discovery after another.

I suggest that justice in government is restored in the same way. In essence, you ignore the system and you pursue common sense.[UUU] You forget about emotional status and you proclaim the facts. At some point, common sense will triumph over emotional 'truth.' Why? That is the magical thing about justice. Eventually it prevails, if given a chance. But why? This is one of the major questions which we will address later in this book. What fills the vacuum? I suggest that it is common sense based upon mental principles of cause and effect.

Do you see why I spent years of my life putting thoughts down on paper? I want to reform government and re-establish justice. I attempted to use Perceiver logic within the system and was suppressed. I offered to teach Perceiver thinking to the average person and was ignored. I tried to pursue Perceiver strategy as a lifestyle and was stifled. In each case, the enemy was some form of emotional 'truth.' As a result, no path was left open to me except that of revolution. Not a revolution of weapons. That method cannot succeed because it uses force to impose 'truth' upon its opponents. Rather, I seek a revolution of thinking—a paradigm shift. As the saying goes, the pen is mightier than the sword.

Note that we have gone beyond capitalism and economics. Capitalism tells me how to amass external goods. True justice shows me how to acquire internal riches. History suggests that inner wealth will always spill over to create external luxury. Similarly, when internal possessions are lost, then it is only a matter of time before external riches disappear as well.

What is the ultimate internal possession? I suggest that it is my identity; it is me. Here, I suggest, is the ultimate opportunity—a chance to go beyond amassing wealth to becoming wealth. Let us look now at the process of creating a valuable identity.

[A] By including time, I do not mean scheduling events according to the clock. Rather, I am referring to the concept of sequence—one event following another.

[B] Strangely enough, those who believe in a Personal God usually do not apply this logic to Him. Imagine being the Supreme Being and knowing exactly what will happen at every point in history. I would think that God would have to inject some free will into the world simply in order to preserve His own sanity.

[C] These are the four strategies which reside in the cortex of the human brain. The other three modes of thought are subcortical—they build upon these four strategies. They form the mental pump which drives ‘life.’

[D] Why then am I the tour guide? Because, as a Perceiver person I have worked out the map of mental programming, and as a person, I have applied these principles to me—which lives within Mercy thought. Therefore, I am conscious within the Perceiver ‘map’ and I can see the Mercy ‘locations’ through my ‘window’ into the Mercy ‘room.’ A Perceiver person, in general, makes a good tour guide.

[E] Notice how, again, the first part of the answer involves a discovery of the right question.

[F] Mercy thought deals with specifics. Later on we will see that Teacher strategy works with generalities. I suggest this distinction is significant.

[G] We are looking here at the Mercy side of conscience. We will see in a moment that public punishment does not always succeed in building up conscience. This is because the extreme emotion of the event may undermine the Perceiver knowledge which connects cause with effect.

[H] This quote from neurology illustrates the normal view of conscience. It assumes that our drives come from physical feelings of pleasure and that the internal voice of conscience inhibits us from fulfilling these desires.

[I] This book discusses the effect which conscience has upon Mercy feelings and identity. In the next volume we will see how Teacher thought adds potency to conscience. Therefore, it makes sense that neurology relates an active conscience to both left and right orbitofrontal cortices.

[J] The same type of Perceiver connection is present also in patience.

[K] A fact initially enters the internal Perceiver world when I believe that it is definitely true and reliable. However, once in, it stays in, and is modified by other facts. After a while, I may no longer fully believe it.

[L] If life is built from bricks of conscience, then denial of conscience is a choosing of death. However, this is a Perceiver principle, and it can be overwhelmed by the glare of the moment.

[M] Notice that this strategy contains an inherent contradiction. Perceiver thought accepts the belief that no Perceiver beliefs are possible. Therefore, this would be classified as an example of Perceiver schizophrenia.

[N] I know that the term ‘white’ and ‘black’ has become politically incorrect. However, in this case, the term is accurate because skin color determined everything.

[O] The illustration which I just gave compared Perceiver confidence to muscle strength. Actually, it is Server confidence that is really the analog to physical strength, since both grow through repeated action. The physical analog to Perceiver confidence is bone strength, since bones and Perceiver confidence both provide solid connections which hold elements together. It is interesting that bones also become stronger under repeated exercise. Bone stress triggers local piezoelectric voltages which encourage bone growth.

[P] We will see later that keeping knowledge fragmented is one way to avoid Teacher thought and emotions.

[Q] Do conflict-of-interest guidelines address a legitimate need? Yes. It is hard to think rationally when personal feelings are involved. But, separating facts from feelings does not solve the problem.

[R] I am not saying that harassment is good. Rather, I am suggesting that a focus upon suppressing the public expression of harassment will result in people feeling more harassed and more persecuted. The atmosphere which is created will feel more oppressive than the original situation.

[S] I suggest that the same contrast can be seen in communism and capitalism. Communism plans the economy centrally and externally, as we do morally with harassment laws and conflict-of-interest legislation. Capitalism, in contrast, like confidence, trusts that the corporate will become ordered as each individual, internally, makes the right decisions.

[T] Yes, I’ve written it correctly. It is precisely this abrasive atmosphere which is necessary.

[U] My use of straight quotes is quite deliberate, as you will soon see.

[V] I choose the word ‘mesmerized’ deliberately, because I suggest that hypnosis is an extreme example of this same mental mechanism. The hypnotic subject fixates upon the person of the hypnotist, and 'believes' everything coming from the hypnotist as absolute 'truth.'

[W] This is especially true of the composite styles (Exhorter, Contributor and Facilitator). They find it very difficult to analyze the foundations for their beliefs.

[X] Perceiver belief can also develop as a result of Perceiver reasonableness. We will look at this option when examining ‘common sense.’ However, I suggest that common sense takes time to develop, whereas emotional 'truth' is by definition acquired instantly. Therefore, emotional 'facts' always provide theinitial set of Perceiver absolutes.

[Y] The word ‘culture’ has many different nuances. Here I am referring to culture as an accepted way of acting and reacting, as in American culture, Russian culture, middle class culture, small town culture, upper crust culture, Western culture, primitive culture, Mennonite culture or Jewish culture.

[Z] The Exhorter, Contributor, and Facilitator persons often achieve independence from parents through this route of rebellion. It works, but makes them somewhat schizophrenic, and motivated therefore by the suppressed condemnation of parents and culture.

[AA] We will see later that there is another way of growing up which involves the building of Perceiver confidence and not rebellion from authority.

[BB] We are looking here at the content of the parents’ rules. Perceiver strategy in the child must still escape the infant state of being mesmerized. That problem will be examined later on.

[CC] Some studies suggest that children who are spanked tend to be more aggressive and anti-social. This outcome makes sense if parents use corporal punishment as a way of controlling their children. However, if spanking is combined with the other factors described in this chapter, then I suggest that the results will be beneficial. Our research suggests that anti-spanking reports are generally written by Facilitator persons who are repelled by the ‘impoliteness’ of parents using ‘physical force’ to impose their personal views upon ‘defenseless children.’ These writers often call for spanking to be outlawed. In other words, they want government to intrude into the family lives of its citizens and use physical force to impose the personal views of the researchers on the rest of the population. How impolite!

[DD] What we are describing is Teacher thought, which we will discuss later on. Teacher thinking builds general understanding by looking for order within complexity.

[EE] My brother is perhaps the first person ever to have raised a set of children who knew fully, from infancy, about cognitive styles. Every playmate, each adult encountered by the family was usually identified easily and immediately—it was an obvious and visible external difference. This knowledge of personality became a natural tool for teaching generality.

[FF] Just a reminder. Notice how we put the words in vertical single quotes whenever we refer to information which enters the Perceiver internal world via the emotional route.

[GG] This fear can grow into an obsession and become a medical condition.

[HH] When we look at Facilitator persons, we will see that they have problems with knowing and can find it difficult to integrate their system of belief into everyday life. Their desire to know can lead them into a study of philosophy in which they often get lost in an esoteric world of words and ideas. My research suggests that almost all philosophers have the cognitive style of Facilitator.

[II] If you feel that we have not yet fully defined approval 'conscience,' then you are right. It will come.

[JJ] The first method which we discussed was mesmerism by strong emotion.

[KK] The Contributor person often learns from conscience only when he experiences personal failure. This is because, as we will see later, he usually focuses upon individual facts and ignores the relationship between these facts. Therefore, he notices repetition but not similarity.

[LL] One might think that looking at details would cause a person to get lost in triviality. However, it is only as I analyze details that it becomes possible for me to discover underlying connections and general patterns. Of course, some people never make it past the stage of specialization. But, I still suggest that it is a necessary, intermediate step.

[MM] Remember that I am using teenage pregnancy to illustrate how the presence or absence of various elements changes the mental focus of a situation. In a topic as emotional as this, it is easy to focus upon specific words or situations. My experience is that if we focus upon the issues themselves, then we get nowhere. However, if we look at the mental processing behind the issues, then we can eventually come up with some solid answers. As I have just stated, Mercy situations are seen in the light of the element with the strongest emotion.

[NN] There is one exception to the rule that Perceiver facts and 'facts' cannot coexist. The Perceiver person is conscious in Perceiver strategy and can use conscious thought to mix and match these two otherwise incompatible ways of thinking. This is because his Perceiver room actually contains two observers: One is the built-in observer which comes with the room, which may either be awake or asleep. The other is the observer of conscious thought which can mentally ‘jump’ from one network of information to another. Other cognitive styles can do similar things in the rooms in which they are conscious.

[OO] Perceiver facts and Mercy experiences create the mental structure which is responsible for phobias and panic attacks. However, I suggest that it is Exhorter and Contributor thought which produce the actual behavior, and that the drugs which are taken affect the operation of these composite modes.

[PP] Is this struggle inevitable? I suggest not. It is possible for head and heart to cooperate—if one is willing to pay the price.

[QQ] We will see later that people who follow emotional 'facts' naturally try to control their thoughts by restricting their external world, just as the teenager is doing here.

[RR] Why? Because emotional 'facts' are instantly reprogrammed whenever a new emotional expert comes along.

[SS] Everyone has a free will, therefore there are no guarantees. However, I suggest that it is possible to improve the odds of success in parenting. I might add: One major factor which we are not analyzing here is cognitive style. A parent may find himself competing with a child with the same style, or perhaps suppressing traits in this child which point out his own personality ‘warts.’ Or, when parent and child have opposite styles (Teacher and Mercy, Perceiver and Server), there can be mutual misunderstanding.

[TT] We will expand this concept in a few paragraphs.

[UU] With a very young child, time is taught through moderate doses of pain followed by love. As soon as possible, and where feasible, the parent transfers this responsibility to the environment. Nature, and natural law, now do the spanking. The parent becomes the interpreter, pointing out cause and effect.

[VV] We will see in a later book that a boundary is a Perceiver rule which permits Exhorter excitement. It does not squelch activity, but rather channels it.

[WW] This boundary, set by parents and consistent with the child’s development, determines the experiences with which he may experiment in order to learn common sense.

[XX] Since connections cannot be maintained, we conclude that these choices are ‘wrong.’ From a parenting viewpoint, society is being ‘spanked’ by consequences from natural law.

[YY] In other words, one does not give the child ‘a spanking he will never forget.’

[ZZ] Remember that conscience and patience use the same mental processing.

[AAA] In other words, deferral of parenting and loving discipline prepares us, and our children, for brutal beatings from the implacable, impersonal hand of Nature and natural law.

[BBB] If blowing yourself and those around you to pieces in defense of the 'faith' leads instantly to heavenly paradise, then one would think that religious leaders who teach these principles would be the first to practice them. Certainly they would also want to participate in the promised blessings.

[CCC] One can learn a lot, in this regard, from parents who are unworthy of respect. Obviously, long-term results in some way were bad, or they would in contrast be worthy of honor. What happened? Asking, and then answering this question not only diminishes the emotional glare of parental memories, thus lifting hypnosis, but it also teaches Perceiver strategy how to think.

[DDD] I suggest that the philosophers failed because their assumptions led to faulty questions. But doesn’t philosophy begin by questioning all assumptions? It tries, but I suggest that there is one major assumption which never is questioned. We have discovered that over 90% of historical philosophers appear to have the cognitive style of Facilitator. In other words, philosophy assumes that Facilitator thought can, by itself, come up with a universal theory. But it appears that this is a logical impossibility. In essence the reason is as follows: You cannot explore a ‘land’ by using a mental ‘car’ which is only capable of traveling between existing locations.

[EEE] This consensus appears to be present in western society. For instance, the secular world knows and recognizes its essential nature as non-religious; western religions, in contrast, know that their mission centers around ‘spiritual salvation.’ Both elements, therefore, accept the primary distinction between religious and secular—their faith is identical in this aspect of ‘subjective versus objective.’ A similar unity of thought seems to exist elsewhere.

[FFF] Eventually, feelings of guilt do get through, and I suggest that this is one major cause of the low self-esteem which so many of us feel today.

[GGG] Here is a piece of neurological trivia. Did you know that dolphins can sleep with only half of their brains at a time? While one side is asleep, the other half is still awake.

[HHH] I told you, earlier, that we would expand our definition of approval conscience. Here it is.

[III] Here I am linking emotional 'facts' with approval 'conscience.' This is not totally accurate. Strong emotional experiences can come from nature as well as from people. The combination of emotional 'facts' and natural feedback creates superstition. However, I suggest that superstition is mentally unstable. Eventually it will resolve itself either into natural conscience as links between cause and effect are determined more accurately or else into spiritism as natural events are clothed with the personality of imaginary ‘persons.’ The superstitious individual will often end up feeling that ‘someone’ is out to get him. He will think that this imaginary ‘person’ also has limited awareness and possesses opinions which can be altered.

[JJJ] Or in parenting language, it ‘spanks.’

[KKK] Yes, the spanking also involves physical pain and pleasure, just as eating the cookie does. However, the taste of the cookie does not depend upon the opinions of other people, whereas the intensity of the spanking is very definitely dependent upon the opinion of my mother. As long as my taste buds are reasonably healthy, the connection between ‘cookies’ and ‘tasting good’ is always present. On the other hand, the link between ‘mother’ and ‘spanking’ may be less certain.

[LLL] Remember that the ‘hook’ is not the same as the punishment. Rather, the ‘hook’ is the mental image of impending punishment. Similarly, the ‘bait’ is a mental picture given substance by external reality.

[MMM] You can tell that we are back to approval because opinions on obesity vary between time and place. In some societies, being ‘pleasantly plump’ is regarded with favor.

[NNN] I suggest that restitution can play a major role in lesser crimes. If a person must repair the damage that he has done, or pay for the goods which he has stolen, then he learns that every opportunity carries with it an associated cost.

[OOO] Notice how technology is being used to build an external bridge between subjective and objective. Modern transportation, communication and production provide the externalinfrastructure which makes capitalism possible. This external network acquires ‘life’ as people get subjectively involved. Meanwhile, mental connections between subjective and objective remain unanalyzed, reduced to the level of platitudes and mantras.

[PPP] I am not suggesting that capitalism is the complete answer. This is because it deals only with physical wealth. However, within its realm of expertise, it has performed better than any of the alternatives.

[QQQ] Robert Hughes, in his book The Fatal Shore, analyzes the British prison colony of Australia, and calls it “the most successful form of penal rehabilitation that had ever been tried in English, American, or European history.” Convicts could not only work their way back to freedom, but with a ‘ticket of leave’ could become butchers, farmers and mechanics (Globe and Mail, August 11, 1997).

[RRR] What happens if there are too many criminals? Then, law-abiding citizens must themselves emigrate to another society, for their own personal safety. There, they can build a positive alternative to the brutality which emerges when lawless men congregate. But what if a country turns evil and attacks its neighbors? Then a war of self-defense may become necessary. War is terrible, but at least it tests skills and knowledge, and the rebuilding which occurs when it is over will teach common sense. One thinks, for example, of the postwar economic recovery of Germany and Japan. But what if an evil country takes over? The fall of communism suggests that even this is not the end, and that rebuilding is still possible.

[SSS] If government runs a program which is based in natural law, then it can do a fairly good job. This is because there is enough natural feedback to limit government interference. One thinks of telephone networks, space agencies, power grids, and military procurement. However, even here the tendency is for political manipulation to overturn rational thought.

[TTT] We will see later that it is also possible for government to learn the lesson of generality too well.

[UUU] Ideally, the system should thwart those who pursue emotional 'truth,' and give freedom to Perceiver guided opportunity. If this is not what happens, then one reforms the system by acting as if it is so. This does not mean abolishing government. As long as people follow emotional 'truth,' government is necessary.