What's New?


MicroscopeHigher Thought and Lower Motives Part 1





A Potential Theory of ‘Flying’

A Theory for Change

Emotional 'Truth' and ME

Idols and other Security Blankets

Idols and Perceiver Logic


Blaming the Wrong Source

Rejecting the Facts

Clutching a Hot Iron

Spreading the Suffering Around

Black is White

White is Black

The Rule of Unlaw

The Vicious Circle of Suffering

Amplified Suffering

Hypnotic Suffering


Colliding Idols

Avoiding Conflict through Common 'Beliefs'

The Inevitable Conflict of Differing Axioms

The Nature of Holiness

Revealed 'Truth'

Revealed 'Truth' and Individualism

Revealed 'truth' and the Adult World

Religious Conflict

A Shell Game

The Intolerance of Tolerance

National Tolerance

The Rise and Decline of a Civilization

Civilization and Revelation

In Conclusion





This book presents a new aspect to the theory of mental symmetry. Until now, we have focused upon observing and describing human behavior. Thus, our approach has been personal and passive. This book, in contrast, will be following a path that is social and active. Instead of analyzing individuals, we will be looking primarily at the group. And instead of just describing the events of the past, we will use history as a guide to show us how we can alter the future, and change the course of history.

Two factors make this change in focus possible. The first is the theory of mental symmetry itself. What began as a simple list of seven different personality styles grew into a model of human thought that could be summarized by a single diagram—the diagram of mental symmetry. Because one diagram could be used to describe the behavior of all seven cognitive styles, we had a unified understanding that was capable of explaining all human behavior. This universality made it possible to use the same theory to describe the behavior of both individuals and societies.

The transition from a list of personality traits to a general theory of human thought also made it possible to change our tense from passive to active. A mere description of people cannot provoke change, for it only describes what people are—it has no concept of what they could be. In contrast, a general theory of personality can guide personal development, for it stands apart from people and their behavior and can predict how they would behave if certain steps were taken.

So far we have looked at the internal and the personal, and have seen how the theory of mental symmetry provides a map for mental growth. Combined with this is the second factor of modern society. At the dawn of the third millenium, our world is at a crossroads—both individually and corporately. Individually speaking, Western thinking has become both post-Christian and post-modern. Most people who live in the West—the dominant civilization of today’s world—no longer subscribe to the religion which used to guide Western thought and behavior. Similarly, the technology that has transformed our physical world is no longer embraced with open arms. Thus, today’s individual is forced to look for a replacement for Christianity and must consider the implications of a world which goes ‘beyond’ technology.

Corporately speaking, we are also at a crossroads. For the first time in human history, no physical frontier remains to be conquered. The entire earth has been colonized and transformed by human activity. Where do we go now? As long as it costs thousands of dollars to send each kilogram out into space, we are stuck on planet earth. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we are running out of resources, choking on our pollution, and face the specter of global warming. Regardless of our view of nature and progress, our world is at a fork in the road, and the decisions that we make today will affect the fate of many succeeding generations.

Thus, it is imperative to introduce a new way of approaching humanity. We must find a worldview that can apply both the individual and to society, and which can enable us to grab hold of present confusion and uncertainty and actively use it as an opportunity for personal and societal growth. Otherwise, we will be condemned to a fate of being driven passively from pillar to post, trying to survive the blows that human and physical nature are beginning to rain upon us.

This book also represents a new step for me as a writer and researcher. Until now, I have played the part of the typical Perceiver person, being driven from intellectual pillar to post by the incessant theorizing of my Teacher brother. This is the type of interaction that normally occurs, because the Teacher person has conscious control over intellectual concentration and the Perceiver person does not. In addition, it was natural for him to set the direction of research, because he is fifteen years older, and was the first to stumble across the system of seven cognitive styles. However, after almost two decades of struggling to add Perceiver content to his Teacher theories, I have come to the conclusion that something else is possible. One does not have to respond to life. One can also take the initiative. For a Perceiver person, who has no conscious control over mental concentration, this is a radical step.

This transition from passive to active can be seen in the development of this book. After I had finished the rough draft, I experienced another major intellectual jolt, courtesy of my brother. He had posted our material on a website, and was offering $1000 to anyone who could find a fatal flaw in the theory. The major challenge came from a researcher in MBTI® who suggested that the Myers-Briggs theory of personality styles was more complete than the system of seven cognitive styles that we presented.

When it became clear that MBTI® was dealing with aspects of thought that were being overlooked by mental symmetry, I felt that it was my duty as a Perceiver person to work out the facts of the case and to incorporate MBTI® into the theory of mental symmetry. This mental swallowing act gave me an acute case of intellectual indigestion and added several years to the project of writing this book.

Amazingly, I, the book, and the theory of mental symmetry all survived. The end result was a theory that was far more powerful, a book that was much more impressive, and a Perceiver person who was determined to do anything to become master of his personal fate.

It is this internal fire that motivates me to make the strong statements that you will find in this book. In addition, the—now expanded—theory of mental symmetry makes it possible for me to make these statements, and the personal and social crises that we are facing make it imperative for me to write.

For this reason, I dedicate this book to Life—with a capital ‘L.’ I must find it, we must find it, and our world must find it. The alternatives are too terrible to consider. But, even more, I have glimpsed and tasted sufficiently of Life to know that its possibilities are even more awe-inspiring than the tragedies that await us if we miss this opportunity.

Therefore, I present this book, not as an accusation, but rather as an opportunity.


L’Chaim – To Life.

A Review of Personal Transformation

How does a person change? Not just peripherally, but fundamentally. In the previous volume, I examined this question in detail and came up with the process of personal transformation. When I finished that book, I assumed that people would beat a path to my door so that they could learn more about the secrets of personal growth. Instead, I found that the response was, shall we say, underwhelming. In fact, the silence was deafening.

Why? If I had come up with a cure for cancer, then everyone would be interested. And yet, no one wanted even to discuss the mental and spiritual ‘cancers’ that seem to pervade modern society.

As I struggled to comprehend this problem, I gradually worked out the material contained in this book. In particular, I realized that it is extremely difficult for an individual to pursue personal change when society as a whole is heading in the opposite direction. But why is society opposed to personal transformation, and how can this antagonism be changed. In fact, how does society change?

These are the questions that I will attempt to answer in this book. As with the previous volume, our main thrust will be personal change and transformation. But, this time we will examine the topic within the context of a larger picture. We will look at the interaction between the individual and the group. We will describe how the group thinks and acts. And, we will study history and see how the essential elements of Western Civilization emerged. Finally, we will uncover basic assumptions that drive behavior. Our goal is to construct a more solid foundation for both individuals and society.

We will start by reviewing the process of personal transformation. Obviously, a discussion about personal change must center around the issue of personal identity. In the previous book, we decided to call this me—written in bold type. Thus, whenever the word ‘me’ is written in bold, it means that we are using it as a technical term to refer to personal identity. In the last book, we also discovered that me is not a single entity. Two different forces are responsible for defining personal identity, and therefore there are two me’s. One we called the me of Mercy identification, or the emotional me. This medevelops as Mercy[A] strategy tries to concentrate upon emotional experiences within the internal world of Mercy thought. The other me is the me of the physical body, which is programmed as my body and my physical environment repeatedly present my mind with certain experiences. If we want a shorter label, we could call this the physical me.

Both of these me’s start out as a hodgepodge of barely connected, random Mercy experiences. At birth, a baby is little more than an animated food processor. As his body experiences pain and pleasure, his me of Mercy identification is filled with an initial set of emotional absolutes. Over the next few years, ‘it’ gradually becomes an individual with his own set of likes and dislikes. Similarly, the process of physical growth gradually batters the me of the physical body into shape, as repeated encounters with the external world teach him his physical limitations. A child is stuck within a mortal body and has to interact with the world on its terms if he wants to survive. The result is common sense. By the time a growing individual reaches his teenage years, the me of his physical body is usually held together fairly well by the glue of Perceiver and, as we shall see later, Server confidence. Thank goodness that a body can heal, because otherwise it would be marked with the relics of childish cuts, scrapes, and bruises—the price of common sense. In addition, adults in their infinite wisdom usually see to it that school and other influences knock some additional sense into his head. This describes the path that most of us have followed.

The next stage is mental transformation. So far, the me of the physical body has done most of the work. Now its job is to ‘hold the fort’ while the me of Mercy identification uses Perceiver logic to rebuild itself upon a more solid foundation. Why is this calledtransformation? Because it rebuildsthe existing me of Mercy identification upon a more stable foundation.

Childhood development involved an external transition from infant to adult. In contrast, the next step requires an internal leap across the threshold of uncertainty—hence the term mental transformation. In some way, Perceiver thought must gain sufficient confidence to replace emotional 'facts' of childhood with the rational knowing of the adult.[B] Just as the previous step saw our interaction with the world of external experiences change from the passive response of the infant to the active exploring of the teenager, so this next step alters our interaction with the world of internal experiences from a passive acceptance of 'truth' to an active exploration of Mercy memories and the connections between them.

A Potential Theory of ‘Flying’

When we took our first look at the process of mental transformation, I suggested that an emotional force was required to get me off the ground, teach me to ‘fly,’ and propel me across the chasm of mental confusion separating emotional 'facts' of childhood from logical facts of adulthood. Teacher thought, we discovered, was exactly the type of mental strategy that could give me this ability to ‘fly.’[C]

This ‘flying’ does not happen automatically. If we want Teacher emotions to give lift to me, then we must use Teacher thought to construct a general theory that affects me. In the first volume, we did the feasibility study; we calculated that mental ‘wings’ were possible. Now we need to get onto the factory floor and build a set of ‘wings.’ Otherwise, all of our talk about ‘flying’ will be just that—talk.

First, let us see if we can figure out what type of general Teacher theory would be needed for me to ‘fly.’ Notice that we really require a theory for starting the process of personal transformation—for beginning the flight that will change me. Later on, other Teacher understanding will propel us along the journey and bring us back to land. What we need now, though, is the best possible theory for commencing the trip—for getting me moving. Where can we find such a theory? I suggest that we can gain some clues by examining the physical growth of a child.

The process of maturing physically, I suggest, has three major components: motivationdriving force, and structure. The motivation comes from Mercy feelings. The child does not want to be treated like a baby; in contrast, he wants to experience life as an adult. In other words, he sees the old me of acting like a baby as ‘Mercy bad,’ and the new me of growing up physically as ‘Mercy good.’ The driving force for this desire, I suggest, comes from the physical body. A child is not just a passive computing machine. Rather, his body is a living, operating entity that has the amazing ability to transform thought into action—to impose sequences upon the external world. Moving on to the third component, I suggest that the bones and the muscles of the body provide the structure for physical life. If our bodies were limp blobs like jellyfish, then we would only be able to float through the sea of experiences. However, our bodies do have stability of shape and strength. We can move through the world, and move bits of the world from here to there. As we use our physical energy to explore and to manipulate the external world, we gradually acquire common sense. When we go out and do something, then we know what we can and cannot accomplish, and what does and does not work.[D]

What about the child who spends most of his time absorbing experiences from television or reacting to the challenges of a video game? His mind will tend to get stuck at the ‘jellyfish’ stage,  because his body is not learning how to interact with the external world. Therefore, whatever the me of his physical body does learn will not be based in common sense.

I suggest that mental transformation must also have a motivation, a driving force, and a structure. As before, I suggest that the motivation comes from Mercy feelings. If the me of Mercy identification is to make a transition from emotional 'facts' to facts based in Perceiver confidence, then Mercy strategy must feel that a me rooted in 'facts' is bad, and that a me based in logical truth is good. Unless this Mercy motivation is present, the me of Mercy identification will want to stay in its cradle and will never feel a desire to enter the adult world. And, I suggest that Mercy feelings are essential, because Mercy strategy cannot see the rest of the mind. Since me resides within the internal Mercy world, the only way that we are going to convince Mercy thought to change its approach to me is to state our case in Mercy terms of experiences and feelings.

Personal growth has three components:

·    The motivation comes from Mercy feelings; I want to change.

·    The driving force is provided by Teacher emotions; I am able to change.

·    The structure comes from Perceiver and Server content; I can handle change.

Second, I suggest that the drive for changing the me of Mercy identification comes from Teacher thought and Teacher emotions. Externally, we have physical bodies full of energy, which can propel us from here to there. Internally, we saw in the previous book that a general Teacher theory has the ability to take the me of Mercy identification and to move it from here to there: It can ‘lift’ me by providing an emotional attraction that is different from Mercy emotion, it can ‘detach’ me from the ‘ground’ by creating a new emotional focus around which the mind can integrate, and it can ‘propel’ me by attaching my mind to a mental strategy that is related to time and sequence.

Finally, we have the question of structure. It is easy to see what holds our external bodies together. Any person with a broken bone knows that without solid support, the body collapses. When muscles give out, then no matter how hard we try, we simply do not go anywhere. Similarly, as far as our internal world is concerned, I suggest that it is Perceiver and Server strategies that keep us in one piece: Perceiver facts hold us together, and Server skills move us from here to there. The previous volume described the relationship between Perceiver knowledge and Mercy experiences. This book will show how Perceiver facts affect Teacher theories, and will introduce the role of Server confidence. Until we cover this subject in more detail, just think of Perceiver facts and Server skills as the ‘bones’ and ‘muscles’ respectively of the internal ‘person.’[E]

By the way, notice that we are really talking about life. In the first book, I suggested that mental life emerges when Teacher, Mercy, Perceiver and Server elements are combined. Here, we see again that growth—an expression of life—requires Mercy motivation and Teacher driving force, along with Perceiver and Server structure.

A Theory for Change

Now that we know the sort of Teacher theory that is needed to start me on the road to personal transformation, let us add some details. First, we know that this theory must describe the me of Mercy identification, because it is precisely this me which needs to cross the gap of mental uncertainty. Second, it must contain a Mercy motivation for moving the me of Mercy identification from a foundation in emotional 'truth' to a structure of logical facts. In other words, Mercy thought must feel that it is bad to remain within the ‘cradle’ of childish 'truth' and that it is good to build upon the stability of Perceiver confidence. Third, this Teacher theory should be as general as possible in order to produce the maximum amount of Teacher emotion—the greatest possible Teacher ‘lift.’ Finally, it should tie together all of the individual pieces of me into one general package. After all, we do not want bits of our internal identity falling off when me begins to ascend into the mental clouds of uncertainty. If losing an ‘arm’ is the price of learning to ‘fly,’ then I would rather stay on the ground, thank you very much.

Putting these four requirements together, we propose the following general Teacher theory: Building me upon a foundation of emotional 'facts' leads always to personal pain and sufferingFirst, this is a theory about the me of Mercy identification. Second, it provides a sufficient Mercy motivation for crawling out of the ‘cradle.’ Third, it is the type of sweeping statement which Teacher strategy loves to make. Fourth, it refers to all of the childish me—because it includes any aspect of me which is held together by emotional 'truth.' Therefore, it satisfies the requirements and is a valid candidate for transforming me.[F]

Building me upon a foundation of emotional 'facts' leads always to personal pain and suffering.

Our instinctive reaction may be to respond to this kind of statement with Mercy feelings of indignation: “What do you mean… How dare you…” and so on. However, let us see if we can flip mental channels and approach this judgmental pronouncement from the viewpoint of Teacher thought. Logically speaking, I suggest that no other Teacher theory will suffice. Our goal is to transform the me of Mercy identification. This me will only be willing to go through a complete overhaul if it can be emotionally convinced that its present location is bad, horrible, awful, painful, and gross, along with at least seventeen other disgusting adjectives. And, it will only gain the emotional ‘lift’ needed to make the shift if this blame is stated as a general theory in which Teacher thought can find delight. Teacher generality requires that every emotional 'fact' leads always to personal pain and suffering—without exception. Remember, Teacher thought hates exceptions, and if me wants to change, it needs emotional help from Teacher strategy.

Now that we have convinced ourselves that we have no other choice, let us go back and reread the general statement: “Building me upon a foundation of emotional 'facts' leads always to personal pain and suffering.” Hmmm. That really is a sweeping statement. Maybe sometimes, but always? And why ‘pain and suffering’? Isn’t that a little strong? ‘Low self-esteem’ or ‘dysfunctional’ might be more politically correct. And why does it have to be ‘personal’? Why can’t we just talk about pain and suffering in general terms? If these kinds of questions trouble us, then I suggest that we reread the previous paragraphs and convince ourselves that this truly is the only possible candidate for a general theory. It is either this or nothing.

I should emphasize, in passing, that these are precisely the sorts of emotional responses that a person encounters when he decides to pursue personal transformation. Innumerable emotional excuses come to mind; all kinds of compensation mechanisms are triggered. The me of Mercy identification always attempts to blame, deny, escape, or compensate its way out of personal change. However, if our statement is valid, then eventually the emotional me will decide that the pain of remaining in the ‘cradle’ is worse than the agony of crawling out. Then, finally, the process of personal transformation can begin.

Now that we have proposed a possible set of Teacher ‘wings,’ let us see if they can survive exposure to the probing of Perceiver logic. After all, if we are going to build the adult me upon Perceiver facts, confidence, and common sense, then we must use rational thinking to test our general Teacher theory. So, here goes. But first—a little warning. Remember that rational thought requires Perceiver confidence, and that means looking at facts in the middle of uncomfortable situations.

This is your tour guide speaking. We are about to slosh through some major mud. Be prepared, this goo goes on for many pages. Anyone who prefers the ‘cradle’ of emotional childhood should leave the group at this time. Wave to us as we head into the swamplands. We will see you later—maybe.

Emotional 'Truth' and ME

In order to make this next section as clear as possible, I will proceed one statement at a time. Here is the first premise: Building me around emotional 'facts' leads to idolatryWhat is an ‘idol’? It is some experience, person, or object in the external world that has emotional status and which is protected from change. If me is rooted upon a foundation of emotional 'facts,' then I suggest that people will have to protect their 'truth' by freezing the aspects of their external environment which are responsible for defining this 'truth,' and this will automatically turn them into idol worshippers.

The necessity for idols comes from the way in which emotional 'facts' are learned. Let us review: Some Mercy situation comes along loaded with feelings. These emotions overwhelm the Perceiver observer. Mesmerized, Perceiver thought is fooled into 'believing' that the collection of Mercy experiences which occur together at one particular time will always happen as a group. The result, as we know by now, is an emotional 'fact.' This leads to the mental contradiction of a universal specific, because universal Perceiver 'belief' is being defined by a specific Mercy situation. How can the mind maintain this paradox? First, by freezing the specific situation and forcing it to act like ‘eternal truth.’ Second, by continually pumping up the emotional significance of that experience in order to keep Perceiver thought mesmerized. These frozen, exalted Mercy experiences, I suggest, are idols.

An idol is a specific item that pretends to be universal.

In terms of an analogy, we could liken the flow of Mercy experiences to a river containing growing plants, drifting debris and swimming fish. A sufficiently strong emotion that comes along will ‘freeze’ the area of water that is being observed by Perceiver thought and turn it into a block of ice within associative memory. Whatever happens to be located within this chunk of water at the moment that it is frozen will remain connected together as a 'fact' within Perceiver strategy. So, if a trout is swimming upstream, a pebble is tumbling downstream, and a piece of candy wrapper is drifting in the water, then Perceiver thought will 'know' that trout, pebbles and candy wrappers always belong together. This will be accepted as a 'belief' by the Perceiver internal world. Whenever Perceiver strategy looks at this block of mental ‘ice,’ it will see a trout, a pebble, and a candy wrapper, all coexisting peacefully together. This 'belief' will also warp the Perceiver ‘mirror reflection’ that is seen by Mercy thought—whenever Mercy processing thinks of one of these elements, it will be reminded of the others.

Now, suppose that Perceiver strategy continues to observe the water and sees more fish and additional stones, but no candy wrappers. Eventually, Perceiver thought will gain confidence that fish and stones belong together, but not ‘fish and plastic’ or ‘stones and plastic.’ However, the problem is that this new belief is rooted in common sense and not in emotional experiences. If the logical fact about fish and stones can be kept separate from the emotional 'fact' about trout, pebbles, and candy wrappers, then there will be no internal conflict. This mental separation places a ‘freezer’ within the room of Perceiver thought. Emotional 'facts' are kept cool by putting them within cold storage, whereas logical facts are kept outside of the freezer, so that the Perceiver observer can stay warm while examining them.

However, what happens if another trout, pebble and candy wrapper happen to come along? Suddenly the Perceiver observer will find itself torn in two directions. On the one hand, its warm, logical side tells it that fish and candy wrappers do not usually belong together, while on the other hand, its cold ‘frozen’ side assures it that this specific combination is a universal 'truth' which applies everywhere.[G] We now have a collision between ‘head’ and ‘heart.’ Will Perceiver thought be permitted to use the ‘warmth’ of logic to melt the mental ‘block of ice’ and sort the various bits of frozen material into their proper categories, or will the icy hands of hypnotism reach out and freeze the Perceiver observer on the spot, leaving the frozen ‘connection’ between trout, pebbles and candy wrappers intact?

I suggest that the answer depends upon the state of me. If it is built upon a foundation of logical Perceiver connections, then the ‘hands’ that reach out will be warm and they will melt the ice. In contrast, if me is still held together by the emotional 'facts' of childhood, then the mental ‘grip’ will be cold and chilling. Why? Because if me is connected with logical facts, then self-image resides within the warm part of the Perceiver room.[H] Obviously, any encounter with me will keep the Perceiver observer warm. But, if me is held together with emotional 'truth,' then self-image will sit at the bottom of the freezer and the frigid touch of me will mesmerize Perceiver strategy. If self-image is ‘frozen’ in this way, then Perceiver strategy can only ‘stay warm’ by avoiding me. In everyday language, we call this ‘remaining objective.’ The bottom line for the objective thinker is to protect me from falling apart. Everything else is secondary, including rational thought.[I]

Why this long-winded melodramatic monologue? Because, I suggest that it describes the mental mechanism behind idolatry. And, I also suggest that our modern world is full of ‘icy hands’ reaching out of freezers of frozen identity that clutch on to any warm Perceiver thought which comes too close and attempt to chill it to the bones. Let me give you some examples, starting with the relatively innocuous and moving on to the politically incorrect.

Suppose, for instance, that I work in a factory making slide rules and that some inventor develops an electronic calculator. What will happen to my job? Or, suppose that I have been a commercial fisherman for all of my adult life, and I discover one season that there are no more fish to catch. How will I react? If my identity is centered around the experiences of my job, then me will feel threatened when these specific Mercy experiences are changed. My natural response will be to express myself emotionally in an attempt to overrule the new set of Perceiver facts. I may protest, go on strike, form a committee, lobby the government, storm some official building, or dump smelly fish on the doorstep of my local government office. Why? Because my job has become my idol—it defines my 'truth.' I cannot conceive of life without the Mercy experiences associated with my work.

Here is an example with a little more emotional zing, especially in Canada. Suppose that some company wants to build a road or a golf course on land which an Indian tribe regards as sacred. How will this Indian band respond? Do tribal members defy laws, put up blockades, and get out guns in order to use emotional pressure to protect their emotional 'facts' from the incursion of rational thought? If the mind of the native Indian is emotionally integrated around an external piece of land, then access to this property will disturb the 'facts' that define me and the Indian band will react by trying to protect its idols.

Or, for an illustration with even more emotional sting, suppose that some religious group 'believes' in the words of a Holy Book and attaches strong emotional significance to this 'revelation.' What happens if rational thinking is used to analyze the words and the concepts of this book? How will the 'believers' react? Will they also try to avoid logical truth by using strong emotions? Will they brand the thinking person a ‘heretic’ and declare that he must be killed? Again, I suggest that an emotional response is a sure sign of idolatry. Of course, the religion may preachagainstidolatry. But, preaching involves Teacher words, whereas this idolatry is driven by Mercy feelings.[J] There may be no relationship between the two.

It is also possible to find examples that are less threatening but still highly charged in their own way. Suppose that I watch football with my buddies every Monday night. What is my reaction if I am asked to forgo this weekly ritual? Perhaps I have a certain way of squeezing the toothpaste tube, or arranging the things on my desk. How do I respond when others suggest that these habits need to change? Maybe I have gone to the same church or temple for half of my life and have always sung the same songs from the same book. What if the liturgy is changed? I may say that I ‘worship God,’ but who or what is my real object of worship?

Obviously we are walking through an emotional minefield here, and I am sure that you can come up with many more examples. Why do I bring up such explosive illustrations? Because it is exactly these kinds of situations which are being thrust upon us at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Idolatry has become a matter of life and death. Either the idols kill us or else we kill them. Coexistence is no longer possible.

How can I tell if a certain object or experience is my idol? Simple. I try to change it or remove it. If my mind reacts emotionally and I feel that I cannot live without a specific object or experience, then I suggest that I have uncovered an idol: The emotions associated with that experience have mesmerized my Perceiver observer into 'believing' a certain 'fact' and that 'fact' is holding me together. On the other hand, if me does not fall apart, then this specific object is not an idol.

How to detect an idol in two easy steps:

1) Attempt to change or remove the specific object, person or experience.

2) If Mercy strategy screams, then I have uncovered an idol.

Does this mean that we should retreat into the wilderness and live like hermits, denying any connection with ‘evil’ matter? Of course not. I suggest that it is the mental split between objective and subjective within today’s society that makes us assume that we have to suppress Mercy feelings in order togain Perceiver knowledge. The goal is not to kill Mercy thought, but rather to reprogram Perceiver thinking in order to renew Mercy identity. The end result of this process is not denial, but rather enjoyment, in which Perceiver facts and Mercy feelings work together in harmony.

I suggest that the best way to deal with idols is to replace Mercy objects, people or experiences with alternatives that are similar. This adds a ‘carrot’ to the ‘stick.’ The ‘stick’ stills remains: Mercy thought must let go of the specific Mercy item. But, there is also a ‘carrot’: Perceiver strategy shows Mercy mode that a replacement exists which is similar to the original. This principle applies to all aspects of personal growth. The child who begins school is separated from his parents, but he discovers the companionship of friends. The job seeker leaves his old place of work and, hopefully, finds another occupation. Similarly, personal transformation abandons the old me in order to live within the new me.

Idols and other Security Blankets

So why do we get so emotional when our idols are threatened? Why do we need all of these ‘idols’ anyway? Why can’t we deal with these issues like grown-up adults? I suggest that these questions reflect a collision between the objective side of one person and the subjective part of another. In other words, the individual with these questions is relating the issue to the me of the physical body—the objective mindset, whereas the person with the emotional response is connecting the issue with the me of Mercy identification—the subjective core.

The objective viewpoint looks dispassionately at the facts and wonders how any one could be so stupid as to reject a simple piece of information. As far as this point of view is concerned, the cold ‘hands’ of irrational thinking have reached out and frozen Perceiver thought. However, for the person living in the subjective, the issue goes far beyond a question of mere facts. Rather, he experiences multiple blows which literally ‘knock him out cold’ whenever he attempts to question a defining experience.

First, there is the issue of the specific object or situation. Some thing is being changed, some person is moving away, some situation is being altered. The objective thinker notices the blow and responds, “Why don’t you get another one to replace what you have lost?” However, for the subjective thinker, much more is at stake.

The subjective individual is the one who feels the second blow of Mercy pain. It hurts to lose my job. It feels awful when the comforting rituals of my religion disappear. For the person who is subjectively involved, these changes involve real situations with real feelings. Now, if this were the only additional blow, then the subjective thinker might be able to dust himself off and continue with his life, emotionally wounded, perhaps, but still reasonably intact. But, there is more.

The third blow is that of emotional disintegration. The previous effect made Mercy strategy feel bad. This blow extends the attack to the emotional core of Mercy thought. Remember that, within each mental context, the Mercy memory with the strongest emotional label becomes the emotional ‘absolute’ by which other related Mercy memories are judged. When an emotional absolute is altered, there are major mental repercussions. Whenever an idol is dislodged from its shrine, then Mercy strategy as a whole feels threatened—because Mercy memories are given emotional meaning by these absolutes.

This is the sort of thing that happens to Mercy strategy when a close friend dies. The death leaves an emotional vacuum. Someone on whom I leaned for emotional support is suddenly gone. Now I do not know whom or what to turn to. It may seem somewhat farfetched to view an idol as a ‘close friend,’ but to whom do we turn when we need comfort? We head for the chocolate box, turn on the television set, call up our confidante, or possibly light a candle or pray in a special place. Instinctively, we reach for our idols. That is why idols are so hard to live without—they are emotional crutches.[K]

The previous blow affected Mercy thought; the fourth blow attacks Perceiver strategy. This is because the same emotional experience that guides Mercy feelings also determines Perceiver 'truth.' Therefore, dislodging an idol confuses Perceiver strategy even as it bewilders Mercy thought. Perceiver mode will no longer 'know' what is solid and will lose the ability to relate one experience to another. The objective thinker views the issue as only an isolated incident. For the subjective thinker, in contrast, anything which affects this single situation has major repercussions upon all of Mercy and Perceiver thought.

The five ‘whammies’ that accompany personal tragedy.

·    Losing what I hold dear.

·    Experiencing Mercy pain.

·    Falling apart inside.

·    Doubting Perceiver 'truth.'

·    An attack on Teacher understanding.

Added to all of this is usually a fifth ‘whammy’ of Teacher distress. Idols bring order to my life. They provide fixed points around which Teacher strategy can form pseudo-theories[L] that appear to explain massive amounts of complexity. When Mercy-based emotional reference points shift, then Teacher thought is faced with undigested intricacy; things do not fit together any more; life no longer makes sense.

When these five blows strike at once, I feel as if the bottom has fallen out of my life. An observer may wonder why I react so violently to what they regard as a fairly minor trauma. But, they only see things from the objective viewpoint of the me of the physical body, whereas I experience the additional effects of hurt, emotional loss, mental confusion, and fragmented understanding. My mental structure falls apart and both Mercy and Teacher thought cry out in emotional agony. Is it any wonder that we worship and serve our idols so diligently? We must, or else we fall apart inside. Our head may tell us to go one way, but when our heart is ‘behind the wheel,’ then we have no choice but to follow.

By the way, since the Second World War, Western society, especially in North America, has had the privilege of a partial freedom from the iron grip imposed by idolatry. First, our objective mindset has allowed us to deal rationally with the external world. Second, the explosive growth of technology has permitted us to abandon deep Mercy feelings and get by with the manufactured emotions of pseudo-culture.[M] Therefore, when we look at areas of the world, such as the Middle East, Africa and Asia, where idolatry is still dominant, we wonder how those people can get so emotionally involved over seemingly peripheral issues such as land and buildings.

However, I suggest that our mental freedom in the West is only temporary. We have not explored the subjective. Instead, we have played with pseudo-theories and pseudo-cultures. The growth of political correctness, the re-emergence of New Age thinking, and the conservative backlash, all show that the curtain of idolatry is again descending upon us. As it falls, we will finally be able to ‘understand’ what motivates people in areas such as the Middle East, for we will have become like them.

Idols and Perceiver Logic

In Volume I, we looked at the way in which mental transformation can use Perceiver logic to build a new me of Mercy identification. Let us see what effect this mental reprogramming has upon the five ‘whammies’ that I have just described. First, the facts remain the same. A road is still being built, a golf course is constructed, a fishery devastated, or whatever. However, the emotional pain of change is softened. This is because Perceiver logic looks for repeatable connections—similarities between individual Mercy experiences. When somespecific Mercy experience or object is attacked, then Perceiver strategy reminds Mercy thought that there are other Mercy experiences which are similar: “I may have lost my house and my job, but I can get another one. Right now I hurt, but it is not the end of the world. There are other possibilities.”

Second, emotional absolutes are not threatened. This is because what really attracts Mercy attention is not what is, but rather what could be. If Perceiver strategy gains confidence in facts that are associated with emotional Mercy experiences, then these facts will reconnect the various elements of those emotional Mercy memories. If the outside world crumbles, then Mercy strategy can turn to internally generated Mercy images for emotional comfort; it is not forced to hold on to some external crutch for support. Emotional absolutes such as these, if backed up by sufficient Perceiver stability, cannot be shaken by the destruction of any external object or experience.

This principle can be illustrated by the way that people respond when imprisoned within a concentration camp. All of their idols are crushed. They have nothing and are treated as less than nothing. Those who survive this incarceration tend to be the ones with hope. They have an internal vision which gives comfort to Mercy strategy, and they turn to it for emotional support when the world around them is cruel and evil.[N]

In contrast, those who attempt to hold on to something in the external world can always be manipulated. Solzhenitsyn, Russian writer and concentration camp survivor, says that no matter how little a person has, there always remains something that can be taken away. Any prisoner who attempts to hang on to these external shreds can be manipulated by the guards and often turns into an evil person.[O] True freedom, he says, is to realize or envision that you have nothing, that you are already dead. Then the officials have no more power over you.[P]

Third, trauma no longer makes me fall apart inside. That is because a transformed mind is held together by internal structure. The childish mind is vulnerable to external trauma. Remove its crutches and it falls apart. Personal transformation rebuilds the mind upon a solid structure of Perceiver facts and Server sequences.

Fourth, mental reprogramming ensures that Perceiver facts survive. Remember that as Perceiver confidence grows, the Perceiver observer gains the ability to look for solid connections even in the midst of emotional pressure. Therefore, my environment may fall apart, but I still know how things fit together. Facts are facts, regardless of my feelings.

Personal transformation alters the five ‘whammies.’

·    What was lost can be replaced with something Perceiver similar.

·    My Mercy feelings are comforted by internal images of possibility.

·    My mind is now held together by a solid structure. 

·    I gain confidence in Perceiver facts that do not fall apart. 

·    I have a rational Teacher understanding.

shrine.jpgFinally, Teacher understanding will tend to remain intact. This is because my Teacher theories are based upon rational thinking, and not in myth and magic. My worldview doesn’t collapse, for instance, if some massive cedar is cut down. Rather, I understand that forests can be managed and trees replanted. Likewise, my personal philosophy doesn’t depend upon some pile of dirt remaining ‘sacred.’ Instead, I learn from history and apply these lessons to the present. Similarly, my doctrinal system doesn’t require the exaltation of some Holy Book, because I know and understand the principles that are behind the words of the book. And, I don’t need to revere some individual as my sole source of 'truth.' Instead, I learn that there is an order which holds everything together and which can be discovered, apart from people, through honest investigation.

The end result is that mental transformation removes the need for idols. The childish me of Mercy identification may require its ‘security blankets’ and ‘teddy bears,’ but the me of the adult has internal stability and integrity. It continues to think rationally, even when dealing with emotional issues.

Let us stop for a quick pause before going on. We have discussed the tentative premise that “Building me upon a foundation of emotional 'facts' leads to idolatry.” However, our original statement was that “Building me upon a foundation of emotional 'facts' leads always to personal pain and suffering.” We may be willing to admit that idols are childish, foolish, and even dumb, but do they always cause pain and suffering? What is wrong with teddy bears, sacred crystals, Holy Books, religious rituals and Monday night football? Come on, give me a break. Can’t a fellow have any fun? Of course! The whole idea of this exercise is to have as much fun as possible.

The problem is that idolatry prevents us from having fun. Idols are such serious business. One must tread so carefully in the presence of an idol for fear of committing some awful sacrilege that might disturb the fragile integrity of the defining experience. This leads to the rather bizarre paradox of a weak ‘Deity.’ Isn’t ‘God’ supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing? Why should He, in the incarnation of this idol, need the help of us sniveling little mortals in order to survive? Who or what is the real ‘god’ in this situation anyway?

Hmmm. Off on a tangent again. Oh well, that’s what you get from a book written by a Perceiver person—a set of connected interruptions.[Q] We have shown that a me of emotional 'facts' is linked to idolatry. Let us see now if we can build the connection between idolatry and the consequence of pain and suffering. We will do this by looking at how the idol worshipper interacts with his natural environment.

Before we continue, though, I would like to clarify two points. First, I suggest that the specific area of thought affected by emotional 'truth' can vary dramatically. Emotional 'truth,' by definition, always involves the me of Mercy identification; Mercy thought has identified with some emotional experience, and the Perceiver observer is mesmerized. But, what one individual regards as part of the me of Mercy identification, another will view as belonging to the me of the physical body.

For instance, modern man connects the natural world with the me of the physical body, and uses common sense to guide this aspect of his life. He knows that using his physical body in a way that ignores Perceiver logic and common sense will eventually cause him to suffer the pain of a physical wound or even a disability. However, if we look at the ways in which previous generations treated their bodies, we see that such common sense was often more the exception than the rule. Before the birth of modern science, people had a completely different perception of reality. For them, much of the external world belonged to the me of Mercy identification, and was inhabited by mythical creatures and ruled by magic. Therefore, when Galileo popularized scientific thinking, he was opposed by a general public that used emotional 'truth' and the me of Mercy identification to guide its view of the natural world.

Today, unlike the time of Galileo, society as a whole approaches the natural world objectively, apart from emotional 'truth.'[R] However, we also have areas that are ruled by the irrationalism of emotional 'truth.' My personal experience in writing this book definitely has involved a pursuit of logical thinking in the face of stubborn mysticism, wishful thinking, and denial.

Second, I suggest that it usually takes a lot of pain before a person is willing to make basic changes to his personal character. We may gripe endlessly about the suffering brought upon us by idols, but if some individual suggests a solution to our problems, then our natural tendency will be to band together and turn upon the individual who presents the answer. Why? Because we would far rather experience pain than mental disintegration. We may complain about our hang-ups, but heaven help the one who tells us how to get rid of them.

I understand this reaction, and I empathize with the pain that is behind it. Therefore, this book will try to provide a complete set of mental tools for changing me. It will describe the fastest and easiest way to transform me, and will show the utter stupidity of leaving me unchanged. Surely, if we can use technology to build such incredible gadgets, then we can do something with our internal world of feelings.

The Suffering caused by Emotional 'Truth'

Let us return our attention now to the theory that “building me upon a foundation of emotional 'facts' leads always to personal pain and suffering.” We have established that emotional 'facts' and idolatry are related. We will now explore the connection between emotional 'facts' and personal pain and suffering.

I suggest that one fundamental flaw characterizes all thinking based upon emotional 'truth.' It assumes that 'facts' come from important people and defining experiences, and that good or bad experiences are the result of the approval or disapproval of some person.[S] In essence, it views the world through the wrong set of ‘glasses.’

Blaming the Wrong Source

What happens when a person who has built his mind upon emotional 'truth' encounters some painful result from the external world? Let us suppose he gets sick, breaks a leg, loses his job, is robbed at gunpoint, or experiences some other type of physical upheaval. First of all, he is going to blame the wrong source for his afflictions. Because his me is held together internally by powerful individuals and defining experiences, he will 'know' that his external world is also governed by the ‘powers that be.’ Therefore, whenever he is zapped, he knows that someone has zapped him, and he will automatically blame some person for his discomfort: “I caught the flu from Joe at the office; I broke my leg because some idiot built the sidewalk unevenly; I was laid off because the immigrants are taking our jobs,” and so on.

People with emotional 'facts' will blame the wrong source for their problems.

The natural world, though, is not governed by people, but by natural law. Diseases do not come from people, they result from bacteria and viruses; people are only the carriers. When I fall and break my leg, some person didn’t reach down and snap the bone. Instead, the combination of stresses was too great and my bone gave way. Even when people are involved, as when I am laid off or robbed, I suggest that rational cause and effect is still in control. I lost my job because some other person is providing a better alternative at a cheaper price. When I am robbed and shot, a piece of metal slams into my body at high speed.

But wasn’t it a person who fired me and who fired at me? True, but what is a person? Is he not a mind living in a body? His brain follows certain rational principles of cause and effect, which we are describing in this book, and his body also obeys certain logical rules, which can be learned by studying the science of medicine. Why was my job taken away by the immigrant? Because his mental programming is better suited to the situation than is mine. Why did someone point a gun at me and pull the trigger? Because his mind is programmed in such a way that he tries to solve his problems through violence.

Someone who grows up in civilized surroundings will automatically tend to blame the wrong source. This is because he seldom encounters the natural world. Instead, all of his needs and desires are met by people. When he is hungry, he goes to the grocery store and pays aperson for food. If he is sick, he sees a doctor. If he needs transportation, he buys a car from a salesman. If this car breaks down, he takes it to a mechanic. In every case, he is shielded from the physical world of cause and effect through the actions of some person. It is natural for such an individual to conclude that everything comes from people—because for him it does. Thus, the rational thinking that makes civilization possible also creates an environment which teaches the next generation that all 'truth' is based in people and their opinions.

Rejecting the Facts

We have seen how a mind based in emotional 'facts' blames the wrong source for the cause of its sorrows. I suggest that it also resists learning about the real cause. This was illustrated in our ‘frozen fish’ analogy: When the ‘warmth’ of Perceiver logic melted the ‘frozen’ blocks of emotional 'facts,' then the childish me of Mercy identification was threatened with disintegration. It responded by reaching out with its cold ‘hands’ to re-freeze the Perceiver observer.

Using Perceiver logic within an atmosphere of emotional 'truth' is like trying to warm an igloo with central heating. For a short while, everything is nice and cozy, but soon the house caves in, and then nothing remains to shelter identity from the cold, arctic air.[T] Once the igloo begins to collapse, then the ‘hot stove’ of logical thinking is thrown out of the (melting) window, and mental survival occupies central stage. A person in such a predicament will do his utmost to ‘refreeze’ his mental surroundings, so that he can reconstruct a solid igloo of frozen 'truth.'

If you want an example, then try to analyze religious 'belief.' Those who follow blind 'faith' will instinctively sense that to explain, is to explain away. They will 'know' that reason leads always to skepticism and a ‘falling away from the faith.’ If you insist upon pursuing Perceiver logic, then eventually cold hands of blind 'faith' will reach up from the deep freeze of mesmerism, clutch you by the throat, and demand that you stop.[U] Your audience will turn to you and state with finality that “God is unfathomable. No finite human can ever comprehend the nature of God.”[V]

People who 'believe' emotional 'facts' will resist learning about the real cause for their suffering.

Clutching a Hot Iron

The situation becomes even worse when an idol violates natural law: The idol must still be protected, because it provides the foundation for mental structure. The very presence of this idol, though, causes problems—because it breaks a rule of nature. The result is that people will cling to the source of their pain and refuse to let go. But, because a mind rooted in emotional 'facts' thinks that bad results come from people, this hurt will be blamed on others. The more hurt the idol causes, the more others will be condemned for causing this hurt. And who will receive the most condemnation? Those who attempt to point out the truth. Because their words are consistent with the bad results caused by violating natural law, emotional 'truth' will conclude that they are responsible for causing these bad effects.

I could give many current examples, but to avoid being lynched—or sued—I will give an illustration from the last century. Ignaz Semmelweis was a medical doctor, born in Hungary in 1818. While working at the obstetric clinic in Vienna, he decided to investigate the high mortality rate among pregnant women. In those days, one out of four who came to a hospital to give birth ended up as a dead corpse. So, if there were four of you in a room waiting to have a baby, odds were that one of you would not make it.

Dr. Semmelweis eventually discovered that the main cause was a lack of personal cleanliness. The doctors were doing autopsies and then examining pregnant women without washing their hands in between. When he ordered his medical students to scrub their hands in a solution of chlorinated lime, the mortality rate in that section of the Vienna hospital dropped from 18%[W] down to 1.3%. Imagine the newspaper headlines: “Incredible Breakthrough, Medical Doctor Saves Hundreds of Lives!” The crowds must have cheered. If Dr. Semmelweis had lived in our day, he surely would have won a Nobel Prize.

People with emotional 'facts' will hang on to their idols despite major suffering.

Unfortunately, things did not work out that way, and that is the point of my illustration. The chief physician at the hospital was strongly against the reforms of Dr. Semmelweis. Like most doctors of the day, he had reconciled himself to the idea of a high mortality rate. In other words, the emotions of death had become for him a defining experience and had turned into an idol,[X] along with the idol of his status as a doctor.[Y] Although Semmelweis was able to prevent the deaths of many women by applying his principles at a hospital in Budapest, most other European doctors stood firmly against his ideas. The editor of the Viennese Medical Journal stated, for instance, that it was “time to stop the nonsense about the chlorine hand wash.” Semmelweis wrote several open letters to professors of medicine, but they were all ignored. He went to a medical conference and presented his findings, but was rejected by most of the other speakers. Eventually, the strain was so great that he suffered a mental breakdown and later died in a mental hospital—ironically of an infection.

Imagine thousands of women dying just because some insane group of medical doctors, in the face of clear, incontestable evidence, refused to wash their hands. As I said, idolatry leads to personal pain and suffering. Couldn’t they see? Couldn’t they think? They were human, weren’t they? No, they could not see, they could not think, and they were not human. Instead, they were emotional animals who idolized their jobs, their titles and their experiences. Of course, we would never be that stupid, would we? I am sure that future generations will be able to answer this question.

Spreading the Suffering Around

Sadly, the problem does not stop there. Not only does building me upon a foundation of emotional 'facts' lead to personal pain and suffering, but it also creates a society in which suffering spreads from one person to another. This is because the individual who is violating some law of nature or principle of mental cause and effect will want approval from others in order to help him to overcome the pain that he is experiencing. After all, he is hurting inside, and he 'knows' that good, as well as bad, experiences come from people.

People with emotional 'facts' look for approval to help them ignore their pain.

·    This spreads the suffering around.

We see this illustrated whenever government money is used to prop up an obsolete or inefficient industry. Suppose that some company is finding it difficult to survive in the marketplace. One approach is to use rational thinking to search for the underlying cause and then either look for a better alternative or find some way to solve the problem. That is the way of the adult me: What is the problem, and how can it be fixed?

The other approach is to go to the government and ask for a handout. In other words, the government is expected to put a bandage on my wound by taking hard-earned wealth away from other individuals and giving it to me. This makes others suffer for my mistakes. In order to help rectify the impression that I am just a Canadian citizen indulging in ‘America-bashing,’ I would like to suggest that we have just uncovered a major Canadian disease. We in Canada have for years expected the government to subsidize us or bail us out. It’s the Canadian way. Again and again the government steps in to save some poor company or preserve some downtrodden cultural group, only to have the same problem reoccur in a few short years. This approach leads generally to budget deficits, government debt, and enforced fiscal restraint for future generations—another case of ‘spreading the suffering around.’

Canadians tend to see ‘success’ as access to the pig trough of government largesse. In contrast, the American ‘solution’ often involves the talk show and the libel suit. Suppose that I violate mental rules of cause and effect and end up in some state of personal misery. One ‘solution’ is to go onto a talk show, air all of my dirty laundry in public, and have some caring host apply the salve of approval to my wounds, using the emotional significance of national television to reprogram my mind with a ‘new and improved’ set of emotional 'facts.' Just listen to a typical talk show and see how much human garbage these poor individuals are trying to dump upon the rest of mankind. Likewise, a person who wins a multimillion-dollar settlement in court also ‘spreads the suffering around.’ Before, he was suffering. Now everyone has to bite the bullet.[Z]

Black is White

Who are the ones who demand the most government help, cry the loudest for the approval of society, or sue for the most money? The ones who suffer the most. Those who are doing fairly well do not need to ‘come out of the closet.’ They are relatively happy. Instead, it is those who really mess up and who violate natural law in a major way who will clamor the most for the approval of others. The result is that actions which totally violate natural law and mental cause and effect will become approved by society.

With emotional 'facts,' actions that cause the most suffering will become approved by society.

·       This causes suffering to become an accepted part of life.

For instance, the person who appears on talk shows is not normally the average citizen from next door. This individual is too busy living life to waste time with talk shows. Instead, these public confession booths are populated mainly by ‘wackos’ and ‘sickos’—because they are the ones who want the approval. Similarly, it is individuals who operate at the very edge of mental sanity who are driven to band together and have their way of living approved as an ‘alternate style of life.’[AA] The result is that approval conscience becomes diametrically opposed to natural law. The very responses that violate natural law the most end up being approved by society. Not only does pain and suffering increase, but it multiplies.

The military, I suggest, provides a good example. From the viewpoint of natural law, there really are few things more idiotic than making a profession out of killing people. Physically, mentally, emotionally, environmentally, economically, and socially, it is all a dreadful waste. So, how do we respond to those who become proficient at tearing the bodies of their opponents into bloody, lifeless fragments? If the previous paragraph is true, then a violation of natural law that is so blatant should become approved by society. And that is what we find. We bestow medals upon those who snuff out the existence of others. We give soldiers special status and call professional murdering an honorable task. What honor is there in butchering another fellow human?

medal.gifThis does not mean that armies have never had a purpose. First, when a society is completely oriented around emotional 'truth,' then only the threat of life and death is strong enough to teach principles of common sense. In other words, it is during wartime that people are most willing to think rationally and to question their idols. Similarly, military service is one way of knocking common sense and ‘backbone’ into a young person.

Second, weapons are needed for self-defense when countries or individuals use force to obtain their goals. For instance, I suggest that the Second World War was probably a necessary conflict. Fighting Nazi Germany was horrible, but the option of not fighting likely would have been worse. Similarly, when a person breaks into my home and threatens to molest my family, then armed force may be the only option.

While armies may, at present, be a necessary evil, I suggest that it is easy to fall into two errors of thinking. First, we assume that armed force will always be required, because it is needed today. This amounts to idolatry, imposed by the emotional horror of the experience, that holds on to the 'truth' of the inevitability of war. Why not look for a better way, instead of giving up and stating that nothing can be changed?

Second, we assume that if armies are necessary, then they are good. ‘True’ is not the same as ‘good.’ ‘True’ is a Perceiver statement; ‘good’ is a Mercy feeling. Equating the two is an aspect of emotional 'truth.' Armies may be required, at present, but the fact still remains that war is hell, and that killing a person is the ultimate violation of natural law.

War creates experiences that devastate Mercy thought and sensitivity. In response, some Mercy people have historically led society in developing the alternative path of ‘non-violent resistance.’ In essence, this tries to change the behavior of an opponent by appealing to his conscience rather than by applying force to his body. In place of resisting the me of the physical body, it attempts to use internal content to reprogram the me of Mercy identification.

Mahatma Gandhi, a Mercy person, said it quite clearly, “My ambition is no less than to convert the British people through non-violence and thus make them see the wrong they have done to India.” Similarly, Martin Luther King, another Mercy individual, “talked about black people being freed from oppression, though never in terms of violence. He believed ardently in Christ’s words about loving your enemies. Even if you get beaten by not defending yourself, he said, somehow your suffering helps redeem the other person and to purge your hatred of that person.”

Is non-violent resistance effective? Yes. It did manage to defeat communism, a feat which seventy years of armed force was unable to achieve. Of course, it also took decades of cold war, concentration camps, and political dissidents to create an emotional climate within which non-violent resistance could operate successfully.[BB]

I suggest that the religious 'belief' of ‘self-denial’—the idea that I must ‘deny myself’ in order to ‘serve God’—is another example of approval contradicting natural law. Supposedly one becomes religious in order to get on good terms with God and to gain His blessing, both now and after death. If the goal of religion is to save oneself, then why does religion tend to exalt those who succeed in denying themselves? This is like a hospital decorating its waiting room with pictures of patients who died from the treatment that they received there. I suggest that again emotional 'facts' are being supported by approving those who deliberately ignore natural law. If a supposed God made the world, then one would think that He would be pleased with those who follow the natural order that He created. Isn’t this logical?[CC]

Does this mean that religious fervor is always bad? No, it has its place—when society is at a certain stage of maturity. Later on in this book, we will be examining the historical role that is played by conventional religion.

Sexual orientation is another area in which individuals demand approval in order to alleviate personal suffering. Here I must tread very carefully. As we know, sex generates the strongest positive physical feelings. One would predict that violation of natural law in this area would lead to major emotional trauma. What is the natural law of sex? That question I will not answer. However, I suggest that it is possible to recognize those who violate natural law by their behavior: First, they will attempt to center all of their existence around the emotional Mercy experience of a specific form of sexual act—it will become their idol. Second, they will be incapable of rational analysis in this area of thought, for their defining experiences destroy Perceiver confidence. Third, they will formulate issues in terms of people and groups, for their 'truth' is defined by persons with emotional status. Fourth, they will attempt to control their sexual environment and to suppress experiences that make Mercy thought feel bad. Fifth, they will demand approval from society for their behavior—this is the sign that they are experiencing bad consequences. After all, why do they need the comfort of approval if everything is going fine?

As a final related point, I suggest that Russia is a country in which suffering has become part of the entire culture. Some of you may find it offensive that I would take an entire nation and equate it with childish thinking and emotional immaturity. However, that is not what I find offensive in Russia. Rather, I find it disturbing that a culture would emerge in which suffering would literally become an integral part of the national psyche. The Russians have had so much agony over the centuries that they feel confused when they are not hurting, almost like the fatalistic Jews in the former ghettos of Eastern Europe. I hate hell on earth, I loathe suffering, and God help me, I am going to do my best to root it out of our minds and hearts, even if I have to insult a whole nation or an entire civilization. If life is centered around suffering, then why live at all? What is the point of existing if our destiny is pain, pain and more pain? Is it wrong to make the world a better place in which to live? Is it right to lift up self-denial and agony? What sort of twisted morality is this in which black becomes white and white becomes black? Argghhhhh!!![DD]

Pardon me, but your tour guide just stepped into a huge mudhole. Could you all wait for a moment while he cleans his boots… Alright, I think everything is now back to normal (whatever ‘normal’ is). By the way, I suppose that little outburst shows that deep down I really do believe that building on a foundation of emotional 'facts' will lead to personal pain and suffering.

White is Black

This is the opposite of ‘Black is White.’ Not only will people who build their minds around emotional 'facts' end up giving approval to those who violate natural law and encounter bad Mercy results, but I suggest that they will also ignore those who achieve success, and give approval to those who attempt to take shortcuts. They will do this by paying people to live out their dreams.

To understand this effect we need to go back to basic definitions. How is the mind filled with emotional 'facts'? Through the process of identification. Whenever a good experience comes along in the external world, I pretend that it is me. This process involves both Mercy and Perceiver thought: First, the experience with the strong emotional label enters my internal world of Mercy strategy and becomes an emotional absolute. Second, this same event also acts as a defining experience that fills Perceiver strategy with so-called 'facts.' Therefore, when I experience something good, Mercy thought focuses upon it emotionally, and Perceiver strategy 'believes' that this single event will be repeated.

I suggest that Mercy identification, when carried to its logical conclusion, violates two fundamental principles. First, it pretends that something is me when it is not me. I am not the Queen of England; I am not a sports superstar or a billionaire. Instead, I live in my own body and have my own set of skills and knowledge. However, when Mercy identification sees the Queen, the superstar, or the billionaire, it likes to act as if these people are me—until the cold facts of reality re-establish themselves.

But I would like so much to be rich and famous! And reality is such a harsh master! Reality? What reality! Why not use approval to override common sense? Why don’t we all agree that we can get away with pretending. This corporate decision creates a society that gives approval to those who specialize in being what they are not. People who perfect the art of identification are highly paid, and society idolizes those who make a career out of wishful thinking. We call these individuals actors. We pretend that they are ‘somebodies’ and shower them with money, attention, and approval. But how can somebody be somebody if his only claim to fame is the ability not to be somebody?

Those who follow emotional 'truth' exalt worthlessness.

·    They give approval to wishful thinking.

·    They emotionally identify with shallow experiences.

Meanwhile, those who accept the facts honestly and who really become somebodies are generally ignored. Why? Because they make everyone feel bad. First, they are too real, and this reality shows up the shallow veneer of tinseltown. Second, they work too hard, and even looking at what they have done makes others feel weary.

At this point I need to step back and add a caveat. First, wishful thinking may be stupid, but it does have its place at a certain stage of societal development, just as little children benefit from pretending to be firemen, nurses, and astronauts. However, a child eventually stops role-playing, grows up, and builds his own identity. Do we wish to remain children, or are we willing to grow up?[EE]

As a second caveat, an actor may have a weak identity, but he can nevertheless gain significant knowledge and talent by pretending to be someone else, just as the soldier can develop professional skills while training how to kill others. But, does peripheral development justify central decay? What is the point in improving my mind if I violate the essence of my identity? Why develop skill in manipulating objects and people if my principle goal is to destroy them? Wouldn’t it be much better to develop both the objective periphery and the subjective core of my mind?[FF]

The second faulty premise which Mercy identification follows is that of instant meaning. Identification takes an experience from my external environment and pulls it intact into my internal Mercy world. It then expects this instant emotional high to have deep meaning. But, emotional memories only acquire depth as they gain a rich network of mental associations. It is as if we expect food from a can to taste like grandmother’s home cooking. We may see the label ‘home cooking’ on some mass-produced item, grab it, take it home, and eat it with great anticipation, but we usually find that it still tastes like canned food. Similarly, we may try to make up for our lack of Mercy depth by adding Teacher feelings of professionalism, but if we do not have the mental associations, then the emotional dimension is at most temporary—it fades in, and then out, leaving us grasping for what is gone.

Meanwhile, our minds keep telling us that it takes time and effort to build meaningful memories. But who needs the annoying voice of reality? If we all pretend that triviality has meaning, will this not make it significant? Therefore, we multiply our approval to those who live out our dreams. People who can extract meaning from triviality become multi-millionares. We happily give mega-bucks to those who can spend their lives eating ‘canned food’ and pretend in a believable manner that it really is grandma’s secret recipe.

However, in our case, we do not deal with cans of food, but rather with balls: big balls, little balls, oblong balls, hard balls, softballs and flattened balls. You know, the sort of round things that a cat plays with. Except that the cat’s ball must be scented with catnip or else the cat will find the object too boring. We humans, of course, have an intellect which is far superior. We can take these trivial objects and build a whole career out of moving them from here to there within a confined space, and then come back in a few days and do the same thing over again, and then come back the next week and do the same thing over again, and then come back the next year and do the same thing over again.

By now you are probably sick and tired of that phrase, but not we humans. We continue doing the same trivial thing over and over again until our bodies grow old and we can no longer continue doing the same thing over again. And that is not all. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars building huge sports stadiums in which thousands of people pay large sums of money to sit and cheer a group of people who take these balls—baseballs, footballs, basketballs, volleyballs—and move them from here to there within a confined space. And then we come back the next week and do the same thing over again. And then we pay more megabucks so that every home can receive images of people moving these trivial objects from here to there within a confined space. And what do we talk about when we get together? We excitedly discuss episodes in which groups of people took trivial objects and moved them from here to there within a confined space. Sheesh. Even cat food tastes better than this type of ‘canned soup.’

How about those who build genuine meaning, who actually take the time and effort to have significant feelings? We dismiss these individuals as worthless, because imitating them involves commitment. That means patience, solving problems, and caring about relationships. Oh no. Give us the canned soup.[GG]

Are sports bad? No. They are great for practicing skills, developing mental maturity, learning cooperation and so on. In other words, they can be an excellent simulation of life. The error comes when we try to pretend that the simulation is the real thing. It is not, no matter how much approval, money, or professionalism we throw at it.

Do movies and professional sports lead to personal pain and suffering? Directly, no. Movie makers and sports organizers take elaborate precautions to ensure that no physical harm is done to any person or animal.

The real pain and suffering comes later. First, there is the psychological harm of pretending that me has good experiences, and then having to lose them. Then, there is the internal emptiness created by building my life around triviality. Finally, there are the wasted resources, thrown at temporary, meaningless extravaganzas—assets that could be spent on lasting, meaningful pleasure.

These statements are proven by the magazine headlines that we read standing in line at the grocery store. Gleefully, they chronicle the personal pain and suffering of actors, athletes and entertainers.[HH]

Worst of all, a society which pursues escapist entertainment is setting itself up for a fall. When that crash comes, then the real price is paid in pain and suffering. Just as the Roaring 1920s led to the Great Depression, so a path of wishful thinking will always smash itself eventually against a brick wall of cold reality.

The Rule of Unlaw

The next reason why a foundation of emotional 'facts' leads to personal pain and suffering—is guilt. Suppose that I make some major mistake and follow a path that leads to a mental dead end of pain and misery. If some law of nature or principle of mental cause and effect governs this area, then my failure wasn’t just bad luck. Rather, have blown it and am responsible for my present condition.

This impending sense of responsibility will cause me to reject rational thinking, because learning the facts would reveal my inadequacies, and cause me to suffer emotional discomfort. The specter of this guilt may be so fearsome that the subject becomes undiscussable and the very idea of natural law unthinkable.

If someone does raise the facts, then I will instantly blame him for my problems. This is because emotional 'truth' equates pain with punishment; if I feel bad, then someone is responsible for causing my distress. But, when I violate natural law, then the facts that describe my situation are themselves sufficient to bring personal pain. Therefore, my response to rational analysis will be: “Don’t you dare condemn me or tell me that I have done something wrong!” The greater my pain and the deeper my potential guilt, the louder I will scream.

When people violate natural law, potential feelings of guilt will cause them to censor logical analysis.

·       They live in emotional 'truth.'

·       They dare not face the facts, because they would be condemned.

·       Instead, they attack the researcher who discovers the facts.

We see this illustrated in the demands made by political correctness. It is not enough to give approval to those who feel bad. Instead, every statement that in any way denigrates the offended individual or lifestyle must be expurgated from our vocabulary. The more blatant the violation of natural law, the more strident the demand for complete control over all verbal expression. This judgmental behavior is illustrated by the term ‘political correctness’ itself. The focus is upon the approval of society—political, and moral judgment over its behavior—correctness.

Previously, we saw that when a society is rooted in emotional 'truth,' then its standards of approval are eventually determined by its sickest members. Here we see a further development. Not only do the failures of society demand approval for their behavior, but they also heap disapproval upon those who think rationally, and they clamor for society to suppress those few individuals who dare to speak the truth. In other words, the sane end up worshipping and serving the insane. It is as if the inmates of a mental asylum took over the hospital and forced the doctors to become the patients.

The Vicious Circle of Suffering

So far, we have discussed only internal factors, which involve the me of Mercy identification. Now we see that inverted morality can rule supreme in the external as well. If the ‘inmates’ take over the ‘hospital,’ obviously they will use their political power to reshape their external environment into one which reinforces their idea that evil is good and good is evil. The me of the physical body will then find itself living in a new environment—one that is consistent with this twisted morality, and that is designed to give physical and mental stability to suffering.[II]

We see this principle illustrated by southern slave plantations of the pre-Civil War United States. On the one hand, white ‘owners’ lived in palatial mansions, emphasized external politeness, wore beautiful clothing, supported the arts, and protected their women from physical harm. On the other hand, black slaves survived in shacks, endured brute force, wore tattered rags, sang Negro spirituals and had their women and children taken away from them. These external differences logically convinced the me of the physical body that blacks and whites were essentially different and allowed this system of cruelty to continue.

Even after the Civil War, when all of this external structure had collapsed, the visible difference of skin color was still used by many to reinforce an emotional 'belief' that allowed suffering to be overlooked. A person might be ‘poor white trash,’ but as long as he had the right skin color, he could ignore the misery of his surroundings. This principle, I should add, can also operate in reverse. An individual may be lawless, brutal, uncouth, ignorant, unskilled, and uneducated, but if he has a black skin color, then he can forget his pain and revel in the counterculture of his ‘soulmates.’

External objects and experiences can give stability to the suffering imposed by emotional 'facts.'

I suggest that a core of this ‘southern mentality’ has survived even to this day. The southern states seem to breed a peculiar kind of ‘morality’ which combines visible perfection with hidden sins. On the one hand there is politeness, high culture, grand motives, and strict ethics. However, hidden beneath these charms often lies an emotional core of insensitivity, crude behavior, base desires and amorality. It is as if the slave plantation, with its juxtaposition of magnificent mansions and hidden hovels, has become implanted into the soul of the average citizen.

Notice the progression. First, there was slavery. Then, slavery became socially acceptable. Then, towns were built up, and an economy established, which depended upon slavery. Finally, the mindset of slavery became an integral part of the southern culture. In other words, using approval to change the me of Mercy identification allowed a new physical environment to be constructed which altered the me of the physical body. The experience of living within this altered physical world then led to further changes in the me of Mercy identification. This allowed the external world to change some more, repeating the cycle.[JJ]

This vicious circle of backwards walking molds the average citizen, step by step, into the image of the extremists who control society. The process, when it is triggered, can actually propel a civilized world, in only a few short years, into utter barbarism.[KK] The analogy would be for the inmates to take control of the mental hospital, remodel the building to suit their insanity, and then to force the former doctors to adapt to their insane world. As the physicians adjusted to their new environment, the inmates would then feel free to remodel the building further, forcing the doctors to make even more behavioral changes, and even to come up with medical reasons to justify these changes. Eventually, the doctors would begin to resemble the inmates, and it would be hard to tell who was and who was not insane.

We see this progression illustrated quite clearly in Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Jews. Generally speaking, Jewish citizens were not sent straight from their homes to the gas ovens. That would have been too great a jump for the average German mind to handle. Instead, the ‘final solution’ proceeded in stages, each one supported by a physical contrast and leading to a further social distinction.

First, the Jews were made to look different. They were forced to wear distinctive armbands and their businesses were labeled as ‘Jewish.’ This created an external contrast similar to the difference in skin color that separates black from white. This visible distinction then made it possible for the Nazis to alter the social status of the Jews—they were ordered to leave their homes and move into ghettos. The me of the physical body in Germans, having been prepared by an altered emotional me, now found this disapproval reasonable. After all, people who are different should live in differing neighborhoods.

This led to a physical separation between Jew and German. One could compare this step to that of taking blacks out of the mansion and putting them into their own housing at the back of the property. With Jews physically locked within their ghettos, it became possible for the government to mistreat them. As they say, out of sight is out of mind. This made social abuse not only possible, but also reasonable. If Germans and Jews lived in different physical neighborhoods, then the me of the physical body, within each German citizen, would think it rational that they were treated in different ways and had differing social rights. It was similar to the way in which blacks living in houses at the back of the property could be treated as servants.

Persecution of ghetto Jews made them look like slaves—they were thin, sick, and ill-clothed. It therefore became both possible and reasonable for Germans to take the next step and treat them as slaves. And those who are treated like slaves should live in surroundings that are appropriate for slaves. Therefore, ghettos gave way to concentration camps. Similarly, the step for blacks from servant living in the back yard to slave was also quite ‘logical,’ along with the transformation of backyard house into slave hovel.

The Germans, with typical Teutonic efficiency, added only one more step—genocide. Jews who looked like death were given the fate which objective, ordered thinking deemed reasonable.

But didn’t anyone protest? Couldn’t the Germans perceive the coming holocaust? Didn’t the southern Americans see the suffering of the blacks? Yes, they could. But, the average citizen lacked the Perceiver confidence that was needed to stand up to the regime. First, there was the influence of leaders. A dissident would have needed sufficient Perceiver knowing to withstand the dogmatism of the belligerent insane who were in charge. Second, there was pressure from approval. Any Perceiver facts would have had to survive the emotional displeasure of an entire society. Finally, there was the physical environment. The sane thinker would have needed sufficient Perceiver knowledge to construct—and live by—a mental picture of what the world could be. No wonder most citizens caved in and allowed their 'truth' to be determined by the feelings of the moment. Meanwhile, this emotional 'truth' and insanity led to more and more personal suffering—first to the blacks, and to the Jews, then to their respective societies as a whole in the Civil War and the Second World War.[LL]

Amplified Suffering

One would think that a ‘modern’ civilization would never allow such incredible pain. However, I suggest that technology, rather than preventing suffering, instead amplifies pain. We touched upon this concept in Volume I when we saw how a combination of technical advancement and emotional backwardness leads naturally to racism, sexism and class distinctions. I suggest that Western slavery is a further illustration of this relationship.

When the Portuguese sailors ‘discovered’ the natives of black Africa, they encountered massive technological differences between them and the local inhabitants. The Europeans could build huge castles and magnificent cathedrals and sail around whole continents in large boats. The Africans, in contrast, lived in grass huts and paddled about in dugout canoes. Because of this vast technological advantage, the Europeans had total military superiority over the Africans. In other words, the Europeans could impose their me of the physical body upon the physical environment of the Africans.

Similarly, the separation between the two cultures was so emotionally striking that the me of Mercy identification became emotionally convinced of the 'fact' that there was no internal connection between whites and blacks. Many Europeans even suggested that black Africans did not have a soul and were not fully human.[MM]

I suggest that this juxtaposition of emotional 'facts' and logical facts led naturally to the suffering of slavery. Like today’s society, the slave-trading Europeans made a separation between objective and subjective. In the objective, their thinking was guided by rational logic, cooperation, efficiency and profit. Therefore, when it came to the me of the physical body, the Europeans were fully willing to integrate black slaves into their economies—growing cotton and sugar, or performing physical service. However, within the me of Mercy identification, Perceiver strategy was unable to build connections between experiences, but remained mesmerized rather by the emotional differences between the cultures. As a result, the bodies of the slaves were integrated into Western society, but their feelings remained distant and separate.[NN]

This allowed the whites to treat the blacks as beasts of burden. Their technological superiority gave them the ability to control the blacks, their integrated economy provided the motivation to use the blacks, and cultural differences between them removed any feelings of guilt associated with mistreating the blacks.[OO]

The suffering imposed by emotional 'facts' is amplified by technology.

Advancements in the external world, it turned out, magnified the problem. Blacks in Africa had been making slaves of prisoners from other tribes long before the Europeans arrived on the scene. Slavery itself is an old institution. Thus, the emotional 'facts' of African culture already included the physical suffering of slavery. However, when the Europeans came along, their external expertise turned the local slavery into a global ‘economy’ of human cargo—suffering was multiplied.

A similar situation exists today with third world labor. Those who live in the developing world are no strangers to suffering. They have never known the wealth of the West. Multinational corporations exploit this situation. Economically, they strive to bring global integration, by building factories in which third world peasants can create products to export to wealthier nations. The economic superiority of the West allows this imperialism to be carried out effectively. As with slavery, the suffering imposed by emotional 'truth' becomes amplified by the application of technology.

Does this mean that companies should not built factories in the third world? No. These institutions play a major role in developing the economies of the newly industrialized nations. Should third world factory workers be paid Western wages? Not necessarily. For many nations, their only economic advantage is the low cost of their labor. However, when a company gives a single basketball star—who specializes in exalting the trivial—more for endorsing a pair of runners than it pays all of its factory workers in a third world country for assembling those shoes, then something is radically wrong.

The problem, I suggest, lies in the emotional 'truth' that allows us to place a sports star on a pedestal while at the same time relegating productive workers to the garbage heap of humanity. Perceiver logic would tell us, in contrast, that both the workers and the sports star are humans, and should be treated as such.

Hypnotic Suffering

We will end this section by examining one more way in which external structure can exacerbate the personal suffering which comes from emotional 'truth.' As we already know, emotional 'truth' is established by defining Mercy experiences. These situations mesmerize Perceiver thought into accepting specific facts as universal 'truth.' Normally, the emotion behind a defining experience is provided by Mercy feelings. However, it is also possible for this emotion to be provided by Teacher thought. The result is a pseudo-defining experience, a sort of super pseudo-culture.

When pseudo-defining experiences become the basis for culture, then I suggest that the result is a mindset which can ignore extreme levels of personal pain and suffering. This is because a mental circuit has been formed which completely ignores personal Mercy feelings: The defining experience comes from Teacher thought, this provides the foundation for approval conscience, approval guides the behavior of society, and society gathers together to produce the pseudo-defining experiences.[PP]

But, we learned in the first book that the human body cannot directly sense Teacher feelings. Therefore, how can sufficient Teacher emotion be created to mimic a defining Mercy experience? By taking advantage of existing Teacher order.

One way to create pseudo-defining experiences is to base oneself in the natural Teacher order of the stars and planets. This method is not common today. Modern thinking is no longer affected by the heavens. If the sun goes down, we turn on artificial light; if the season is wrong for growing, we put our plants into a greenhouse; if the climate is too hot or too cold, we adjust the thermostat. In many ways, our personal existence has become independent of natural sequence. In fact, the average modern citizen seldom looks up at the sky, and if he does, the background glow of city lights blots out most of the stars.

For our ancestors, however, the situation was completely different. Their lives were ruled by times and seasons, and at night, the common person could step out of his house, look up, and see a celestial display of cosmic order far more awe-inspiring than anything that his agrarian mindset could produce. Most ancient civilizations exploited this cosmic structure. The average individual, on the one hand, could see the stars and the planets, but he did not know the order that lay behind this complexity. Astronomers, in contrast, studied the celestial patterns, and learned to predict when and where the planets would appear. Most of these observations, incidentally, focused on the planet Venus, because it is the brightest ‘star’ in the sky, and because it traces a very convoluted path through the heavens.[QQ]

By timing official celebrations to coincide with seemingly random celestial events, such as the reappearance of the planet Venus, ancient rulers could create pseudo-defining experiences that associated their persons with the Teacher order of the solar system. Most early civilizations used this connection as a way to buttress official power. The result was personal suffering on a grand scale. A vivid example is provided by the Aztec civilization. Thousands, even millions, of humans were sacrificed in order to support a monarchy which drew much of its emotional power from an ability to predict the path of the planet Venus. Did the people care that their kings were bloodthirsty butchers? No. The pseudo-defining experiences of cosmic convergence mesmerized Perceiver thought into 'knowing' that their rulers were the ultimate source of personal 'truth.'

As modern humans, we find it very difficult to comprehend this type of mindset. This is because a different type of Teacher order—civilization—surrounds us. We have used objective science and technology to create an artificial world of incredible Teacher order-within-complexity. Therefore, when our leaders want to create pseudo-defining experiences, they turn to technology for help, rather than to the natural order of the heavens.

Modern dictatorships love massive and mesmerizing technological displays. Nazi Germany had huge rallies at Nuremberg, and Russia and its satellite countries had grand May Day parades. Like the ancient despots who associated themselves with the Teacher order of the sky, so these modern tyrants linked themselves emotionally to the Teacher order of a technological society. The resulting mass hypnosis was sufficient to survive the murder of millions, both in Germany and in Russia, because no matter what happened, the people 'knew' that their dictators were 'right.'

Today, both fascism and communism have been defeated, and the average individual is suspicious of large political rallies. However, I suggest that new systems of Teacher order are emerging as focal points for pseudo-defining experiences. Two of these are sports and entertainment. As I have mentioned before, an athletic event is only a game—an artificial contest between individuals, with no real Mercy meaning. However, surround this game with a huge stadium filled with 50,000 screaming fans and it turns into a pseudo-defining experience. Similarly, most entertainment also has humble origins. But, put a song behind a few thousand watts of speaker power and in front of a large mass of writhing bodies, and it also becomes a pseudo-defining experience.

When pseudo-defining experiences reinforce emotional 'facts,' then incredible suffering can be ignored.

Do experiences such as these cause individuals to ignore personal pain and suffering? For an answer, I would like to turn to the country of Brazil. In 1994, the Brazilian soccer team won the World Cup. The whole country went into a state of euphoria. The average Brazilian was convinced that something wonderful had happened to me. In fact, all that occurred was that several men staying in the United States had managed to kick a few round balls past some metal arches. But, since the game of soccer is idolized as a national sport in Brazil, ecstasy resonated throughout the country as approval reinforced the pre-existing mass hypnosis.

The reality is that thousands of abandoned children, living as wild animals on the streets of Brazilian cities, are being shot and killed as though they are vermin. But, a culture of self-deception allows this horror to be ignored. Millions of people live in slums on the outskirts of Brazilian cities. What do they do with their money? They save up for most of the year so that they can splurge during the Mardi Gras Carnival, and create an orgy of pseudo-defining experiences which will allow them to continue in an emotional glow of self-deception and to ignore, for another year, the fact that they are stone poor.[RR]

But come on, Lorin. It’s the Brazilian culture! How dare you judge the behavior of an entire group of people. You can’t expect to change the attitudes of a whole nation. Exactly. As I said, it is amazing how much physical suffering can be ignored when pseudo-defining experiences are used to support a culture of self-deception. Don’t blame me. Put the blame on a dumb culture that teaches people to use their hard-earned wealth to fuel a ‘flash in the pan.’ I have nothing against fun. I just want the fun to last.[SS]

The Conflict Caused by Emotional 'Truth'

So far we have looked at the suffering that is caused when a single group of people bases me upon a foundation of emotional 'facts.' What happens when differing cultures with different sets of emotional 'facts' come together? I suggest that the result is yet more pain and more suffering. By the way, does my tentative assertion that “Building me upon a foundation of emotional 'facts' leads always to personal pain and suffering” seem a little more believable now? Are we becoming convinced? I don’t know about you, but right now I feel like throwing up. How much pain and suffering will it take to convince us that we need to become mature? We are not that stupid, are we?

On the other hand, remember the five ‘whammies’ that we talked about at the beginning of this extended discussion—the problematic situation, Mercy pain, emotional disintegration, Perceiver confusion, and Teacher hurt. Unless we manage to find some way around these, we may complain until we are blue in the face, but we will never change.

Are we ready for more punishment? Good, then we will continue to slosh through the mud of mental misery. Suppose that a group of people practices idolatry. The result, I suggest is cultural preservation, a societal system in which people use approval to support a common set of emotional 'facts.' In other words, emotional Mercy experiences define the 'beliefs' and the 'rules' of culture; this culture in turn allows people to build and protect a group of idols; and these idols provide the focus for emotional 'truth.'[TT] In essence, cultural preservation sums up the type of society that develops when the majority of its members build me upon a foundation of emotional 'truth.'

A multiplicity of cultures is great, when guided by the rule of law.

Notice that cultural preservation differs completely from culture. Culture is great; it is the spice of life. Human existence becomes much more meaningful when people or countries take the initiative to do things in their own way without having to copy others. Imagine how boring it would be if everyone was just the same. The problem is not with culture or even with a plurality of cultures, but rather with the use of emotional pressure to hypnotize the Perceiver observer into 'believing' certain 'facts.' In other words, a multiplicity of cultures is great, when guided by the rule of law.

Colliding Idols

Let us suppose that Culture A and Culture B, both of which practice cultural preservation, happen to come into contact with one another. I suggest that this will always lead to a collision of idols. Let me explain. Each group of people wants the external world arranged in such a way that its emotional 'facts' are not shaken. However, here we have two societies that are trying to live within the same external world while holding on to a different set of idols. The same world cannot be arranged in two different ways at the same time. Therefore, either one group, or the other, is going to feel that its source of 'truth' and meaning is being attacked.

But why can’t Group A decide to build a shrine to its ‘gods’ on one block and Group B put up its idols down the street? That way each group can coexist peacefully while having its own set of emotional absolutes. Isn’t that the rational thing to do? It may not be the intelligent response, but I can certainly say that it is the Canadian way. This is how we in Canada ‘solve’ the problem of various cultures with differing idols. We call it multiculturalism, and allow each ethnic or religious group to preserve its core of rituals and customs. As a result, almost all Canadians have a hyphenated citizenship. We are not Canadian, but Irish-Canadian, Indo-Canadian, German-Canadian, Chinese-Canadian, and so on. And, because Canada is a comparatively young country populated mainly by immigrants, a Canadian identity does not really exist.

Unfortunately, I suggest that multiculturalism works only as long as the key element of rational thought is present.[UU] However, remember that we are talking in this section about groups of people who base their 'facts' upon a foundation of emotional experiences. Wherever this type of mindset predominates, there I suggest that any individual who refuses to accept my set of idols will be perceived by me as an evil, lawless rebel. Let us look at the type of society that would result should some particular ethnic group gain control of the political agenda.

Whenever groups with different emotional 'facts' interact, the result is a collision of idols.

First, choosing not to revere the accepted idols of society will be viewed as a rejection of 'truth.' Remember that 'truth' is definedby a certain set of emotional experiences—they embody 'truth.' If the cultural source of these absolutes is rejected, then 'truth' itself is also being spurned. We often find it hard to realize the depth of these feelings. This is because in areas where Perceiver strategy has the confidence to think logically, we find it absurd that someone should be so ‘narrow-minded,’ whereas in situations where we follow emotional 'truth,' our Perceiver observer is ‘sleeping,’ and we are unable to see the extent of our own narrow-mindedness.

Moving further, the individual who holds on to a different set of idols will be branded as a hereticNot only does he reject 'truth,' but he also sets up his own definition of 'truth'—in direct opposition to what I and my society 'know' to be 'true.' When basic axioms differ in this manner, then discussion is not possible.

What about someone who uses rational thinking to point out the facts? He ends up being judged as an apostate—someone who is worse than a heretic. At least the heretic can be ‘converted’: Give him the right set of emotional experiences and his 'facts' may eventually be rewritten to conform more closely with 'truth.'[VV] The logical thinker, on the other hand, is beyond hope because he does not even accept the concept of revealed 'truth.'[WW]

There is one more factor. If idols only determined Perceiver 'truth,' then we might be able to live with those who 'believe' differently. However, not only do defining experiences establish Perceiver 'facts,' but they also act as emotional absolutes that guide Mercy feelings. Therefore, the person who follows a differentset of idols not only rejects what is generally regarded to be Perceiver 'truth,' he also spurns what society considers to be the ultimate Mercy good. As a result, he is judged to be both Perceiver ‘wrong’ and Mercy evil. As for the poor individual who tries to work facts out for himself on the basis of logic, he will be viewed as amoral—so evil that he no longer accepts distinctions between good and evil.

Avoiding Conflict through Common 'Beliefs'

If all of the various groups within a society accept the same set of primary idols or the same core essentials of revealed 'truth,' then I suggest that major conflict can be avoided. For instance, the Roman Empire tolerated almost any type of religious 'belief,' no matter how bizarre or sensual. How could these various religions coexist? Because they all agreed upon two main issues: They accepted idolatry, and they worshipped the emperor as the ultimate ‘god.’[XX] Therefore, the Roman state allowed these various systems of 'belief' to continue. Then along came Christians who refused to accept idolatry and who would not offer even a symbolic sacrifice to the emperor. These new 'believers' were viewed by the general populace as lawless and evil, and all manner of hideous behavior was ascribed to them—regardless of their actual conduct.

I suggest that a similar situation exists within the present world. While our society is divided into myriad mutations of religious and philosophical belief, it appears that all of these systems agree upon two major points: First, they all 'believe' that there is a division between objective and subjective. What is placed within these two divisions and how one responds to these two areas vary massively, but almost everyone agrees that the separation between objective and subjective does exist. Second, everyone 'believes' that the subjective is ultimately irrational and incomprehensible. This irrationalism may be cloaked in logical language, but it appears that the underlying assumption is always the same: The artist 'knows' that his emotional expression is beyond analysis, the religious 'believer' 'knows' that the ways of God are beyond human fathoming, the average person on the street 'knows' that no one can put himin a box; the scientist shies away from analyzing the depths of the human psyche,[YY] the psychologist 'knows' that the core of each human mind contains a reptilian brain, and the social reformer accepts the personal desires of each special interest group as intrinsically valid.[ZZ]

Cultural conflict can be minimized through a common set of core 'beliefs.'

Now suppose that someone comes along who insists that the subjective can be analyzed rationally and that there is no essential division between subjective and objective. Thankfully, feeding people to the lions has gone out of style.

So how does one survive as a rational thinker? I suggest that the answer lies in making oneself indispensable. As long as people have a sufficient need for you, then they will not ‘burn you at the stake.’

The history of the Jewish Diaspora in Western Europe provides a good illustration of this principle. Until the time of the Enlightenment, when the growth of rational thinking began to permit freedom of religion, the Jews were never accepted by their society. At best, they were tolerated. However, when it came to areas such as business and commerce, they were more advanced than their fellow Europeans.[AAA] Therefore, whenever a country wanted to stimulate its economy, the Jews would be invited to settle there. Once business was sufficiently established, then the Jews would be ‘kicked out.’ This cycle happened again and again, and over the centuries, the Jews were forced to migrate from one region to another, each time fulfilling the mission of ‘being a light to the Gentiles.’

Becoming ‘indispensable’ may seem like an onerous requirement, but it is not that difficult when one is the only rational thinker around. As we have seen, building me upon a foundation of emotional 'truth' creates a lot of personal suffering, and this pain can only be addressed by the application of rational thought. Those who are in agony may not yet be able to change their ways, but they are probably willing to have a doctor come along and tell them how to alleviate the worst of their suffering. That way they get the benefit that comes from a cure without having to face the blinding light of direct understanding. As long as the ‘doctor’ learns to move on before the others decide that he is no longer needed, he will have a fairly good chance of surviving, and even of coaxing a few others on to rational thought.

The Inevitable Conflict of Differing Axioms

We have seen that groups can coexist with each other if they accept the same core set of emotional 'truths.' However, if there is disagreement over these primary issues, then I suggest that the result will be some sort of conflict, or in other words, more personal pain and suffering.

At the beginning, this rivalry is usually couched in lofty and principled terms. Each group 'believes' that individuals outside of its fold are lawless rebels and proclaims a mission of ‘saving the world’ by introducing members of opposing 'beliefs' to the genuine source of 'truth,' thus ‘redeeming’ the enemy from ‘evil’ and leading him to a fellowship with ‘good.’ One is reminded of the attitude of the Mercy or Perceiver ‘dictator,’ who thinks that he is helping others, but actually is doing more harm than good.[BBB]

In actual fact, this conflict is generally nothing more than a battle over Mercy ‘turf.’ Each group wants the other to abandon its idols and to bow down to the only ‘true’ images. In other words, each side desires to control the emotional experiences that define 'truth.' As with most emotional tug-of-wars, things generally start off at a fairly low-key level and then gather momentum as each side digs in. The main weapon at first is approval conscience. Those from the opposing camp may be given the dirty look, denied business, fired, or possibly shunned.

Cultural conflict occurs when groups disagree over fundamental 'truth.'

·    This struggle can degenerate into personal conflict.

·    This conflict can also help each side to know what they actually believe.

As this emotional sniping grows, the specific differences between the various groups clarify. Initially, many of the participants were not even aware of what they 'believed,' they just assumed certain 'facts' to be 'true.' However, each exchange gradually helps Perceiver strategy to distinguish which 'facts' and emotional experiences belong to us and which belong to them. As a result, cultural, religious, and national identity will begin to emerge.[CCC]

I suggest that this explains why nationalism became such a strong force in Western Europe during the nineteenth century. Until then, Western Christendom was just that, a ‘domain’ of the ‘Western Christian’ religion. As long as the Catholic Church (the word ‘Catholic’ means universal) provided an emotional foundation for 'truth,' questions of nationality were irrelevant. Then along came the Reformation and the age of absolute monarchs, which collectively shook off the yoke of Roman ‘bondage.’ Slowly, prevailing 'beliefs' changed. Finally, when Napoleon went to Rome to be crowned Emperor by the Pope, it was no longer the Pope who placed the crown upon the head of Napoleon, but Napoleon who grabbed the crown from the Pope and placed it upon his own head.

Having rid itself finally of the common idols of ‘God ordained’ church and state, Western Europe found itself in a battle over the idols that remained. Nationalism began to rear its head, spurred on by the successes of the French Revolution and the French takeover of Europe. People started to notice distinctions between us and them, in this case the difference between ‘us’ and ‘those French soldiers occupying our countries.’ Does nationalism lead to personal pain and suffering? We only need to look at the devastation caused by the wars of the last two centuries to answer this question in the affirmative.[DDD]

This helps us to see one dimension of cultural conflict—that of physical warfare. If the goal is to control the source of defining experiences, then why not use physical force to tear down the idols of the opponent and to replace them with my own? Why not use physical domination to make the opposing person accept my defining experiences as absolute? And so, armies fight for physical ‘turf,’ each side convinced that victory can be reached by holding more physical ground and by controlling more physical bodies.[EEE] However, Napoleon’s Empire collapsed, Hitler’s Third Reich was defeated, and even the Russian Communist Hegemony eventually dissolved.

The Nature of Holiness

It is also possible for cultural conflict to develop a religious dimension. Nationalism focuses mainly upon the control of external objects and physical bodies. In other words, it manipulates the me of the physical body. Religious struggle, in contrast, focuses more directly upon the me of Mercy identification; it controls the emotional experiences which reside within the inner world of Mercy thought.[FFF]

I suggest that religious conflict centers around the issue of holiness. This, obviously, is a rather religious term. However, I suggest that the concept of holiness is based in a legitimate mental need which can be analyzed rationally. Whenever emotional 'truth' is accepted, then some form of holiness will naturally follow. Let me explain: Emotional 'truth' is vulnerable. It is defined by a core set of emotional Mercy memories—which are programmed by specific objects and situations in the external world. If these external items are altered, then 'truth' itself will change.[GGG] This means that objects which are responsible for defining 'truth' must be protected. In others words, they must be regarded as ‘holy’—they must be idolized.[HHH]

Holiness can support 'truth' either directly or indirectly. I suggest that the direct method uses the same mental mechanism that is involved in forming a phobia. Suppose that a ferocious dog bites me. The emotion associated with this event will mesmerize Perceiver thought into two types of 'belief': First, it will 'know' that the two Mercy experiences of ‘dog’ and ‘being bitten’ belong together. Second, it will also 'know' that the experience of ‘seeing an approaching dog’ is followed by that of ‘having the dog fasten its jaws on my leg.’ These spatial and temporal connections will be accepted as universal 'truths.'

Religious conflict centers around idols and idol worship.

·    Any person or object associated with an idol is regarded as holy.

·    Any action performed upon an idol or in the presence of an idol becomes holy.

Now replace the ferocious dog with a holy item. As with a phobia, the emotion associated with an idol convinces Perceiver thought that objects and people that are close to this idol always belong together with it. In other words, a building that contains an idol will become holy, and a person who spends his time around an idol will also be regarded as holy. Perceiver thought will be mesmerized into 'believing' these connections to be universal 'truth.' The result will be temples and priests—buildings and people that embody 'truth.'

Likewise, any sequence of events which occurs in the presence of an idol will also be regarded as holy, especially if this sequence is performed by a person who spends his time aroundthe idol in a building which contains the idol. This leads to the practice of religious ritual—carried out by priests and viewed by laity. Why must there be a watching audience? Because, the average person can only program Mercy thought with the necessary defining experiences if he sees what is happening. One thinks, for example, of the celebration of the mass, a ritual that is at the center of the Catholic 'faith.' It is performed by priests, in front of an altar, in a cathedral, before an audience.

If an idol is to survive, then I suggest that three requirements must be met. These needs are rooted in the nature of emotional 'truth.' First, an idol must be protected by worship. This is because 'facts' are determined by emotional experiences. Whenever the intensity of religious feeling fades, then the Perceiver observer will begin to disbelieve its 'facts.' This doubt grows fairly slowly; it takes time for the Perceiver observer to ‘wake up.’ Therefore, if a dose of emotional fervor is periodically applied, then no one will be troubled with fading 'belief.'

However, if peoples’ hearts begin to ‘grow cold’—or, looking at it from the viewpoint of Perceiver thought, if Perceiver logic gains in confidence and begins to thaw out frozen 'truth'—then a new round of religious events will be needed to re-mesmerize the Perceiver observer and to reinstate 'belief.' Otherwise, the idol will lose its special status and become just another common object.

Second, an idol must be surrounded by temples and rituals. This is because emotional 'knowing' takes an isolated incident and turns it into universal 'truth.' Remember the illustration about the trout, the pebbles and the candy wrapper? The Perceiver observer was mesmerized into 'believing' that this collection of objects always belonged together. Similarly, Perceiver thought will accept as absolute 'truth' any special experience or ritual that occurs repeatedly in connection with some holy object and its associated temples and priests.

Suppose, though, that temple objects, events or rituals are altered. Feelings of religious fervor will then mesmerize Perceiver thought into 'knowing' a new set of 'facts.' This means that a system of idols is especially vulnerable to those who revere the same holy objects but who use these idols to support a different set of emotional 'beliefs.' Because of this vulnerability, idol worship reacts strongly against those who commit ‘blasphemous’ behavior. For instance, horrible persecution was perpetrated in Tsarist Russia against Orthodox 'believers' who made changes in religious ritual that we would regard as relatively minor. The Russian religious system was so firmly rooted in icons and rituals that it could not tolerate any change without feeling that 'truth' itself was being threatened.[III]

Idols have three requirements:

·    They must be worshipped.

·    They must be surrounded by temples and rituals.

·    They must be kept away from normal existence.

Idols have a third vulnerability. In order to survive, they must remain separate from secular existence, logic and common sense. This is because 'facts' cannot coexist with facts; the Perceiver observer cannot be both asleep and awake at the same time. Therefore, a buffer zone must be constructed to separate the ‘sacred’ from the ‘profane.’ Why do I use the word ‘profane’? Because common sense, by its very nature, corrodes or profanes emotional 'truth,' which is the foundation of idolatry. Thus, ‘sacred’ objects and rituals must be separated from normal physical existence. First, there must be a spatial separation; idols must be restricted to certain places, which remain holy. Second, there needs to be a temporal separation; religious rituals must be restricted to specific times, which are then regarded as sacrosanct.

If an idol wants to survive, it must never come into direct contact with normal life; it must always be shielded by either temple or ritual. Without this defense, emotional 'truth' dies. We see this principle illustrated in Western history. Idolatry survived millennia of skepticism and blasphemy, but fell apart when faced with the relentless progress of rational modern science and its associated common sense. Only now that the consumer society has created a buffer between technology and the average person is idolatry beginning to make a comeback.[JJJ]

Notice that the 'truth' of idolatry is entirely nonverbal. Its 'beliefs' are not taught, but rather experienced. Of course, a priest may use his holy status to make pronouncements about 'truth,' but the core 'truths' of idolatry are always acquired experientally, through contact with holy objects, temples and people. In fact, I suggest that this is a hallmark of idolatry. Whenever a religion claims that 'truth' must be acquired nonverbally through direct experience, then we can know that the religion is based in some form of idolatry.[KKK]

Revealed 'Truth'

We have looked at the direct route from Mercy-based idolatry to Perceiver 'truth.'It is also possible for idolatry to lead indirectly to emotional 'truth.' In this case, it is not a collection of objects that is revered, but rather a specific set of words. Many of us feel uncomfortable discussing the concept of holy words, or revealed 'truth.' However, I suggest that the mental mechanism involved is the same one which schools apply when teaching children. Why does a student 'believe' what he is taught? Because he reads certain 'facts' in a book, and these 'facts' are echoed to him by his teachers. The emotional status of ‘the educational system’ convinces Perceiver thought that these 'facts' must be 'true.' Replace the school, its textbooks and its instructors with a religious system, a religious book and religious leaders, and you still have the same method of revealed 'truth.'[LLL]

Before I go on, I should emphasize that we are looking here at the method of learning, and not the accuracy of the material itself. For instance, most of what is taught at a school or a university is fairly accurate. However, I suggest that the typical university student views his campus as a ‘shrine’ to higher learning, regards his professors as ‘priests’ of hidden knowledge, and accepts his classes as ‘rituals’ performed by the ‘priesthood’ for the benefit of ‘acolyte’ students. Some college graduates move beyond blind 'faith' in the revealed 'truth' of science. Many don’t.[MMM]

Similarly, I suggest that individuals who accept an openly religious system of revealed 'truth' are not predestined to a fate of blind 'faith.' They too can gain Perceiver confidence by testing what they learn and holding on to what is solid. What religious 'truth' is solid? Ah, that discussion must be postponed until later. However, one thing is clear: If a person—religious or secular—rejects information because it comes from the 'wrong' source, then that is a sign of blind 'faith.' He is not using logical thinking. Instead, he is focusing upon the Mercy source of 'truth.'

Like any other form of idolatry, I suggest that revealed 'truth' makes two assumptions related to space and time. First, it assumes that absolute 'truth' is limited to the words of a specific book.[NNN] It 'knows' that no other book contains absolute 'truth' except that particular volume. Second, it makes an assumption regarding time and sequence. A book, by definition, is not just a jumble of words. Rather, it contains letters, words, sentences, and chapters—all arranged in a specific order.[OOO] For instance, try making sense of the following sentence: “is sentence the a happens of are words jumbled. what when This” You can’t. This is because the sequence of words has been mixed up.

Revealed 'truth' is an indirect form of idolatry.

·    It 'believes' that absolute 'truth' is limited to the words of a specific book.

·    Only this sequence of words is regarded as holy.

Whenever these two assumptions are questioned, then a system of revealed 'truth' reacts in self-defense. For instance, many North American Protestants argue long and hard over which version of the Bible to use. Some only accept the King James Version and denounce other translations as less holy.[PPP] Why? Because of the second assumption about sequence: Revealed 'truth' requires a specific set of words arranged in a certain way. If this holy arrangement is altered, then revealed 'truth' itself becomes confused. As for the first assumption about sources, the typical fundamentalist Protestant 'knows' that absolute 'truth' comes only from the Bible. He will only accept 'beliefs' that are backed up by direct quotes from this book and spoken by accepted leaders of his Christian community.

A similar mindset appears in other religions of revealed 'truth.' For instance, no book has been as carefully preserved as the Jewish Scriptures. Scribes who copied the Tanach went to obsessive lengths to ensure that every single letter was transcribed accurately. As for the Quran, Islamic 'believers' are so convinced about the holiness of their Scriptures that even the idea of a translation is regarded with suspicion. Unless it is in the original language of Arabic, it simply is not the Quran. Here, we see that assumptions about space and sequence are completely inflexible.

Actually, I suggest that revealed 'truth' is a mental paradox. On the one hand, like every other form of idolatry, it is based in emotional 'facts'—Mercy feelings mesmerize Perceiver thought into accepting a set of 'beliefs.' On the other hand, unlike ‘normal’ idolatry, these 'facts' cannot be acquired experientially, through the senses. Instead, they must be read from the pages of a book. Therefore, the Perceiver observer must be sufficiently asleep to 'believe' in the 'truth' of a Holy Book, but at the same time sufficiently awake to read and to analyze the words of this book.[QQQ] Somehow, Perceiver thought has to remain semi-hypnotized, half asleep. Any deviation from this mental twilight zone causes revealed 'truth' to fall apart. This inherent tension pervades all religions that have Holy Books. Unlike normal systems of idolatry, they are constantly struggling with their 'faith.' Meanwhile, they are still subject to the three requirements of emotional 'truth.' Let us re-examine these.

First, a Holy Book must be protected by worship—but not too much worship. If the Mercy emotions are too strong, then 'believers' become mesmerized by their religious experiences and ignore the words of their Holy Book. On the other hand, if they spend too much time studying the book, they turn into skeptics, and regard their scriptures as just another piece of literature. Therefore, the Holy Book must be analyzed, but not excessively. It must be worshipped, but not totally. One notices this schizophrenia in most religious writings.[RRR] They usually contain rational thinking interspersed with outbursts of irrational ecstasy. Similarly, most worship services combine rational teaching with ecstatic worship.[SSS]

Secular education faces a similar tension between the need for worship and the desire to avoid its stultifying effects. In previous years, school students were expected to memorize 'facts' and obey their teachers. This system created adults who did not know how to think for themselves. Then, somewhere around 1970, the emphasis shifted to personal expression. Students were given freedom, and told to develop their own ideas. This liberation succeeded as long as students still had some respect for their teachers and continued to accept established 'knowledge.' Today, however, many students are unwilling to learn anything from their elders, let alone submit to an adult authority figure. In response, education is calling for a return to traditional learning, with its emphasis on respect and memorization.

Revealed 'truth' requires that Perceiver thought remain semi-awake.

·    If a 'believer' worships 'truth' blindly, Perceiver thought will be unable to 'believe' in 'facts.'

·    A 'believer' must remain in awe of 'truth,' or else he will lose emotional respect for his 'beliefs.'

·    If a student of 'truth' thinks too much, he will turn into a skeptic who abandons the 'faith.'

Because of the need for a semi-hypnotized Perceiver observer, I suggest that revealed 'truth' is vulnerable to two forms of skepticism. First, there is the skepticism, already discussed, of a ‘cold heart.’[TTT] If emotional respect for a Holy Book fades, then people begin to doubt its words. Like idolatry, revealed 'truth' responds by calling for a ‘revival’ that revitalizes religious fervor. However, revealed 'truth' also has a second vulnerability—one that is not shared by idolatry. It can be shaken by the skepticism of higher criticism. If a scholar spends too much time analyzing a Holy Book, then his Perceiver observer will wake up to such an extent that religious revival is no longer effective. Instead, his 'belief' in revealed 'truth' will enter the threshold of confusion, and he will no longer know what to trust. The more he analyzes, the more his intellectual raw material turns into mud, and the more immune he becomes to the emotional draw of religious fervor.

I suggest that the fate of revealed 'truth'—and remember that this extends widely from organized religion to university education—itself depends upon its response to the thinking individual. Suppose that the teachers of 'truth' use their emotional status to bludgeon thinkers into submission. This will destroy their own ability to think rationally, because they are using emotional pressure to overwhelm Perceiver thought. Such repression will gradually turn revealed 'truth' into idolatry—with the established institutions and the accepted leaders becoming the idols.

On the other hand, suppose that teachers of 'truth' accept the newly discovered facts, and create an environment designed for logical thought. This helps to preserve rational thought in the leaders, and also assists the thinker in making a transition from 'knowing' to knowing. This, for instance, is the path that a university usually attempts to follow. If a student wants to pursue higher learning, then he is permitted to enter graduate studies. Here he is expected to do original research, using Perceiver logic to go beyond the 'facts' of revealed 'truth.' If he succeeds, then he is allowed to become a professor, and to think for himself. That is the ideal case, in which universities allow people to think, parents help children to grow up, and religions permit individuals to interact with truth directly without having to go through a priesthood. In practice, teachers of revealed 'truth' usually do not want to lose control, and therefore the amount of free thinking that they permit is generally limited.

We have seen that revealed 'truth' must by protected by a modicum of worship. Like idolatry, it must also surround itself with temples, priests and rituals. It needs these special objects, places, actions, and people in order to maintain the Mercy significance behind its 'truth.' If these accouterments are ever completely lacking, then the edifice of revealed 'truth' will crumble. However, if these institutions are ever openly idolized, then the ability to analyze 'truth' will itself be lost. This causes revealed 'truth' to have a schizophrenic attitude towards its idols. On the one hand, it preaches strongly against any form of idolatry. On the other hand, it insists upon clothing itself with special buildings, actions and people.[UUU] This contradiction can often be seen in both churches and schools. They preach the universality of their 'truth,' and yet at the same time they insist that 'truth' must be housed in property and buildings dedicated to the protection and the pursuit of this 'truth.'

As with the first factor of worship, I suggest that this second requirement for temples, priests, and rituals again leads to a double threat for revealed 'truth.' First, there is the danger of the cult. A cult is a religious group that accepts the same temples, priests, and rituals, along with the same Holy Book, but ascribes different meanings to the words of this Book. Revealed 'truth' is vulnerable to the cult because it is forced to limit the extent of its rational analysis, in order to leave room for the mystical and the inexplicable. This intellectual fuzziness makes it possible for people to bend the 'facts,' especially those which describe the source of 'truth.'

This cult mentality is illustrated by the struggle between church, state, and school over the control of education. All three of these institutions practice some form of revealed 'truth': Church preaches 'truth' from its Holy Book; the state reveals 'truth' by making and writing the laws of the land; schools teach 'facts' from textbooks. All three are in reasonable agreement over what information should be taught to students. And yet, each is convinced that only it can put the ‘correct’ slant on these facts, and that the other two are biased in their approach. Thus, the state regulates education, churches teach students in private schools, and universities demand independence from both religious and governmental control.

Revealed 'truth' is also vulnerable to the commentary. The weakness, this time, is a byproduct of the process of learning. A good student goes beyond merely memorizing the facts. Instead, he attempts to understand the Teacher theories that lie behind individual Perceiver facts. Similarly, a good instructor does not simply parrot the party line. Rather, he describes a subject in his own words, rephrasing and paraphrasing the original material. This mental processing may be good for learning, but it is hard on revealed 'truth'—which depends upon a specific set of words arranged in a certain order. Thus, as commentaries multiply, the special status of the Holy Book is gradually lost.

How can revealed 'truth' deal with this crisis? I suggest that the underlying problem is the source of intellectual integration. If facts can only be held together by a Holy Book, then thinking about these facts will inevitably cover this book with a blanket of rational analysis. This will cause students to lose sight of their original source of information, just as a thick layer of dust makes it more difficult to see underlying objects. However, if the facts themselves can coalesce to form a source of integration, then students can graduate. Instead of clinging to a textbook, they now have a system of understanding which is capable of holding both new and existing facts. The result is an invisible ‘body of knowledge.’ As learning continues, this ‘body’ grows and develops. Its facts may be exactly the same as those taught by the Holy Book, but it is no longer integrated around any specific physical volume. This allows a Holy Book to remain pure and simple, free of the intellectual crud of generations of commentary.

This principle is partially illustrated by the modern school system. The student begins by treating his teacher and his textbook as a source of revealed 'truth.' As he encounters additional teachers and more books, he begins to question the ‘holiness’ of his original sources. By the time he graduates from university, much of his knowledge has made the transition from revealed 'truth' to general understanding.

Revealed 'truth' requires some temples, priests, and rituals.

·    If these become the primary focus, then the Mercy idols will replace Perceiver 'truth.'

·    A cult associates these Mercy items with a different set of Perceiver 'beliefs.'

·    A commentary buries the source of 'truth' with peripheral knowledge.

Usually, though, some ‘holy book’ mentality survives. The ‘general understanding’ of most graduates is limited to their specialization or defined by their school of thought. Each of these subsets of universal understanding is held together by the writings or theories of some founding thinker.[VVV]

Let us move on to the third weakness of revelation. Like idolatry, I suggest that revealed 'truth' is also vulnerable to secular thought. It cannot survive in an atmosphere of rational thinking and Perceiver logic. Why? Because revealed 'truth' is based in Mercyimportance—it has a core of blind'faith.' Building Perceiver confidence automatically causes Perceiver strategy to question all 'facts' based in blind 'faith.' We see this interaction in the typical response of the teenager to his parents. As he learns to think for himself, he naturally rejects what his parents taught him. He does this not because his parents are wrong, but because he acquired his 'truths' from them through blind 'faith.' Because he was a child, he denies the knowledge of his parents.

We can also see this transition demonstrated in recent world history. For the past four centuries, Holy Books have been on the defensive as the logical thinking of secular science has invaded one area of thought after another.[WWW] As with the defiant teenager, this secular rebellion has generally ignored the content of revealed 'truth.' Instead, it has rejected revealed 'truth' simply because it was learned as revealed 'truth.'

That leads to a paradox. While revealed 'truth' is vulnerable to secular thought, it also breeds secular thinking, because it encourages people to go beyond pure idolatry to intellectual research. Therefore, if enough people learn how to think for themselves, they will demand the creation of a secular realm free of the restrictions of blind 'faith.' This leaves revealed 'truth' in a quandary. If it does not encourage independent thought, it will slip back into pure idolatry. However, if it does encourage people to think, then it runs the risk of being sidelined into insignificance by the growth of secular thought.

This problem shows up in both religion and education. On the one hand, there is a constant splintering as successful ex-students set up their own schools and start their own movements. On the other hand, the established organizations try to regulate these offshoots and suppress those that are not officially accredited. This conflict can occur, for instance, when a university researcher embarks on a novel path of study. Because this new research does not fit into an established specialization, those who pursue this new path often have to work outside of the system for a while, using surplus equipment and borrowed offices. This continues until the new area of research becomes accepted as another legitimate specialization within the field of learning. Such struggles for legitimacy occur frequently within both science and religion.

Revealed 'Truth' and Individualism

We have looked at three problems that revealed 'truth' shares with idolatry. I suggest that revealed 'truth' has an additional vulnerability which is not present in idolatry. Revealed 'truth,' I suggest, is vulnerable to individualism.[XXX] Pure idolatry does not have to deal with the individual. This is because idolatry fixates Mercy attention upon defining experiences. It leads to idol worship. People are so busy focusing upon their emotional absolutes that they never even think about me. One can see this illustrated in tribal societies. People within such groups do not think of themselves as individuals. In fact, they do not even think of themselves. Rather, they instinctively feel part of a group—family members of a tribe, whose existence is defined by its leaders and its idols.

In contrast, rational thinking does create a mental image of me. First, Perceiver thought can place confidence in facts. As it learns facts about me, the result will be the formation of a self-image. Second, the logical thinking that results leads naturally to feelings of self-importance. Why? Because whenever Ithink, the source of the facts is me. The more thinking that do, the more my mind contains facts which have their source in me and not in my emotional source of 'truth.'

In fact, I suggest that independent thought is impossible unless I believe that I have some personal importance. Why? Because if I feel that I am an ‘insignificant worm,’ then I will always doubt my findings. The icy hands of personal insignificance will reach up and freeze any attempt by Perceiver strategy to reach an independent conclusion.

Therefore, as I study revealed 'truth,' I become an individual—with my own opinions and ideas. But, if I can think for myself, then I don’t need someone else to tell me how to think. In particular, I don’t need any Holy Book, textbook, or set of laws breathing down my neck with their absolute judgments. Thus the very individualism that allows people to learn from revealed 'truth' also causes them to reject the concept of revealed 'truth.'[YYY]

Revealed 'truth' is vulnerable to individuality.

·    Studying 'truth' develops Perceiver thought which defines personal identity.

·    The emotional foundation for 'truth' crumbles if a person becomes ‘selfish.’

How on earth can revealed 'truth' survive such pressure? I suggest that the only solution is to create an adult society in which graduates of 'truth' can find their place—one that accepts the individual and gives him personal freedom. If those who have learned from revealed 'truth' must remain emotionally bound to their ‘school,’ then they will feel that individuality can only be achieved by attacking revealed 'truth.' Thus, 'truth' will find its graduates continually sniping at it. However, if individuals can find personal fulfillment in an adult world, then they will no longer feel emotionally driven to attack and belittle their teachers.

In summary, I suggest that revealed 'truth' is a transitional form of thought. This is because it demands a Perceiver observer that is semi-awake. But, studying revealed 'truth' wakes up the Perceiver observer. Therefore, revealed 'truth,' by its very nature, has a finite lifetime. It must allow its students to graduate and permit them to live in an adult world of Perceiver logic. If it attempts to hold on to its students, then it will destroy itself and turn into idolatry. [ZZZ]

If revealed 'truth' plays only a temporary role, then does this mean that revealed 'truth' itself will vanish after its mission has been accomplished? We can answer this question by examining how the discovery of modern science changed the nature of scholarship. Medieval thinkers saw study as an end in itself. For them, book learning was the ultimate expression of knowledge. In contrast, today’s educators see learning as a means to an end. Back then, a student never really graduated, because nothing existed to which he could graduate. Today, the student leaves school and enters an adult world governed by science and technology. Thus, while modern society no longer accepts the study of revealed 'truth' as the ultimate form of intellectual existence, it is still valued as a transitional method for taking children and turning them into adults.

In addition, modern science has changed the source of revealed 'truth.' Students used to study textbooks written by ancient experts. In contrast, the most respected textbooks today are the ones that were written most recently. The transition from ancient to modern books took place during the eighteenth century. It was then that schools stopped using Greek and Latin tomes and began to teach from modern ones.[AAAA] Does this mean that the old textbooks were wrong? Not necessarily. Even today, we still find ourselves amazed at some of the knowledge and skills of the old experts.

So, suppose that a student becomes an individual and graduates from revealed 'truth.' Will he then abandon the group and stop learning from others? No. This is because every person is finite;no one individual can know everything or be able to produce everything. Even as ‘mature adults,’ our finite limitations force us to cooperate with others and learn from them. Thus, there will always be a need for schools, churches, governments, laws, textbooks and Holy Books. However, I suggest that graduating from revealed 'truth' changes the nature of this interchange. School students usually interact with others on the basis of status and inequality. Teachers are transmitters of 'truth,' and students are not; advanced scholars have greater status than junior students. In contrast, adult interaction is based upon equality. Each individual has graduated from school in certain areas, giving him an area of expertise in which he is a source of 'truth' for his colleagues. In other topics, he defers to other experts. Thus, there is a mutual give and take between one person and another.

Revealed 'truth' and the Adult World

We have seen that revealed 'truth' naturally gives birth to a secular society.[BBBB] If secular thought becomes dominant, then revealed 'truth' will then find itself displaced from its traditional role. No longer will it be the assumed source of all 'truth.' Instead peoples’ worldviews will be shaped by the rational thinking of those who have graduated from revealed 'truth.' These new masters will expect revealed 'truth' to act as a school for producing more graduates.[CCCC] Can revealed 'truth' survive in this new role? Yes, if the 'facts' that it teaches are compatible with logic and with common sense. Let us examine how the presence or absence of logically based teaching affects the relationship between a school and its graduates. Notice that we are now looking at the content of 'truth' and not just the method of revelation.

Suppose, for instance, that my teacher says that the moon is made of rocks. This fact is accurate. Therefore, as I learn to think for myself, I will examine the fact and continue to accept this piece of information. This will have two results. First, because what I learned describes the real world accurately, I will be able to live in the real world as an adult, and form a rational society along with other graduates. Second, I will look back as an adult at the information I acquired as revealed 'truth' and conclude that I learned the right information for the wrong reason. Thus, Perceiver logic will be able to accept the existence of revealed 'truth' as an essential transitional step in my intellectual growth. The end result is that revealed 'truth' will be supported and valued by its graduates.

Revealed 'truth' may be permitted to survive in such an environment, but unless it plays an active role in education, it will have no reason to survive. Therefore, a school of revealed 'truth' needs a continuing flow of new students. This can be produced in one of two ways. First, there can be a growingpopulation—youngsters who know nothing and who need to be taught. Such students fill most of our schools. Second, there may a growing body of knowledge. Here the number of people remains the same but the amount of information increases. This leads to a need for continuing education—I may know things today, but in ten years, my knowledge might be out of date and my intellectual state reduced to that of the beginning student.

Revealed 'truth' can educate children and turn them into adults.

We have looked at the situation in which 'truth' is compatible with logic. Suppose, in contrast, that my teacher tells me that the moon is made of green cheese. Obviously, this fact is not correct, and will not survive my adult probing. This will produce two problems for revealed 'truth.' First, it will be impossible for graduates of revealed 'truth' to leave the system, because their knowledge is not linked to the real world. Instead, those who should be graduates will be forced to exist permanently within the confines of revealed 'truth.' Second, it will be impossible for this small group of partial graduates to love the system of revealed 'truth,' because their repeated attempts and failures to graduate from it teach them the shortcomings of the system. The result is that revealed 'truth' will be forced to live with dissidents, it will have to protect itself by suppressing these dissidents, and this act of suppression will destroy revealed 'truth' and turn it into idolatry.

If you want an example, then I suggest that you look at the recent history of Islam. The spread of Western secular thought showed Islamic scholars the possibility of graduating from a school of revealed 'truth.' Unfortunately, Islamic education has demonstrated that it cannot handle logical thinking, and it refuses to tolerate independent thought. In defending itself against the ‘Satanic’ influence of Western secular thinking, Islam has descended into idolatry. Today, while democracy and free thinking spread around the world, most Islamic countries remain islands of control, ruled by dictators and demi-gods, even as Islam continues to uphold the absolute sanctity of the Arabic text of its Holy Book and to proclaim that it alone knows the One and Only True God.

Similarly, I suggest that this process describes the recent history of communism. This system preached the revealed 'truth' of Marxist-Leninism. Unfortunately, this 'truth' did not work. Therefore, communism was unable to birth a rational society. Instead, its ‘graduates’ turned into dissidents who opposed the regime. Communism responded by persecuting those individuals who thought for themselves. Thus, it turned from a philosophy into an idolatrous dictatorship, even as it continued to preach its grand theories and universal 'truths.' Ultimately, the brutality and the lies were so great that the whole system collapsed like a wooden structure undermined by termites.

Religious Conflict

Now that we understand some of the mental mechanisms behind religion 'belief,' let us examine the nature of religious conflict.[DDDD] We will start by looking at religious strife in general, and then examine how the presence of revealed 'truth' alters this struggle.

Is religious conflict inevitable? If a religion is based in either idols or revealed 'truth,' then I suggest that it is.[EEEE] Why? Because emotional 'truth' has its source in emotional Mercy experiences, and we have seen that someone who does not share my defining experiences is instinctively labeled as both 'wrong' and 'evil.' If this is how the mind reacts to cultural differences, imagine the way in which it responds when disagreement extends to religious feelings, sacred objects, Holy Books, consecrated sites, revered persons, and anointed rituals.

As with cultural discord, I suggest that there is an inherent hypocrisy in religious conflict. Verbally, the struggle is couched in high and lofty terms. People are ‘shown the light,’ they are being ‘saved,’ ‘good’ is fighting against ‘evil.’ But, whose light, whose salvation, and whose good? Yours or mine? If people with Mercy status define 'truth,' then 'truth,' by definition, is always delineated by some person and not defined by other people. Therefore, in reality, religious strife inevitably boils down to a question of power and control. In other words, like cultural conflict, it is a struggle over Mercy ‘turf.’

Pointing out this discrepancy, though, is unpardonable. The temple worshipper will be offended if you tell him that he is bowing down to idols. Likewise, the 'believer' in revealed 'truth' will not react kindly if you accuse him of idolatry: “How dare you call the Holy Book an idol! It is the Word of God!” Therefore, before I am lynched, let me quickly expand these concepts.

In essence, the hypocrisy is rooted in a conflict between specific and general. As I have mentioned before, a Mercy memory is a specific incident—something happened in a specific place and at a specific time. In contrast, Perceiver truth is general—it is universal, an absolute fact that applies to allsituations at alltimes.[FFFF] Emotional 'truth' binds specific with general. It takes a specific Mercy incident and treats it as universal Perceiver 'truth.' Therefore, if a religion wants to come up with universal answers, its thinking must become independent of specific situations. In other words, it must be cross-cultural. But, what if the religious 'beliefs' themselves are based in the words of a specific book? The result is a contradiction. On the one hand, the religious 'believer' claims that his 'truth' is universal and applies to all situations. On the other hand, he insists that all absolute 'truth' was revealed at a specific time, within a specific culture, by a specific person.[GGGG] How can truth be simultaneously universal and not universal?[HHHH]

Religious conflict talks about universal principles but fights over specific idols.

This is why a religious 'believer,' especially one who 'believes' in revealed 'truth,' will reject accusations of idolatry. He must, or else his ‘universal’ answers are reduced to the opinions of a special interest group, and his religion becomes just another collection of cultural practices. Come to think of it, isn’t that how secular Western society views religion—as a special interest group, alongside prairie farmers, tobacco growers, labor unions, women, Hispanics, and gays.

I suggest that this paradox between specific and general makes religious strife irresolvable. We can understand this with the help of an analogy. Imagine having to live with a know-it-all person who is convinced that he has all of the answers, and feels that it is his mission to share these solutions with the entire world. But, whenever you try to tell him something, he refuses to listen to you. And, if you suggest that he is narrow-minded, he gets angry and curses you. This describes the behavior of revealed 'truth.' If our expert really had the answers, then he wouldn’t need to force them on people. Instead, others would come to him with their questions. Likewise, if his knowledge really was universal, then he wouldn’t have to be so defensive. Rather, he could examine other subjects with an open mind, knowing that his understanding would survive. In the same way, if some Holy Book really did contain universal truth, then its adherents wouldn’t have to force this truth onto others, or close their ears to supposedly secular discoveries. Instead, there would be underlying consistencies between revealed 'truth' and the truths of common sense and non-religious research.

Now, picture a neighborhood filled with narrow-minded experts, each convinced that he has a monopoly on 'truth.' You can imagine the sort of strife that this would engender: First, there would be interaction, because each 'believer' would attempt to preach 'truth' to his neighbors. Second, this interaction would lead to conflict, because each system of 'belief' would be offended by the holy items of the other 'beliefs.' Finally, peace would not be achievable, because each combatant would be unable to acknowledge the root of his obstinacy. Thus, conflict would not go away.

Now that we have looked at a Holy Book’s potential for generating strife, let us look at religious conflict in general. I suggest that the attitude of a specific religious group will depend upon whether it is winning or losing. The losing side will emphasize holiness. Why? Because its defining experiences are being attacked. It faces the possibility of losing 'truth.' Therefore, like a community whose homes are threatened by a flooding river, it will surround its defining experiences with dikes.

The winner of a religious conflict talks about universal values and eternal truth.

·    Its very presence blasphemes the idols of other religions.

The losing side emphasizes the holiness of its idols—because they are under attack.

But why dikes of holiness—with all of the associated religious connotations? Because of the inherent contradiction of emotional 'truth.' The losing side must protect specific Mercy objects, buildings, rituals, and people, while at the same time pretending that it is standing for universal 'truth.' Therefore, the struggle will be portrayed as a defense of universal values. Meanwhile, the actual battle will be nothing more than, “Take your hands off my possessions, get off my land, and stop telling me what to do. I am in control and you are not.”

The winning side, in contrast, does not need to focus upon holiness—because its idols are not under attack. Instead, it can stick to the moral high ground and talk about absolutes and universal 'truth.' Meanwhile, its very presence blasphemes the idols of the losers. Just by living, it is creating a world of objects and experiences that corrodes the holy icons of its opponents. This means that the average citizen on the winning side probably will not even realize the true nature of the conflict. He 'knows' that his 'beliefs' are 'correct,' and he is convinced that societal progress really is bringing ‘light to the heathen.’[IIII]

Of course, the actions of those on the winning side are not always benign. They may tear down the shrines of other religions, persecute their clergy, and deface their idols. However, even these excesses will be glossed over by the average person: First, his idols are not being attacked, therefore he does not feel personally threatened. Second, his mind is becoming less confused, because opposing idols are being removed. Third, the emotional experiences that come from persecuting other 'beliefs' are reinforcing his own sense of 'knowing.' Fourth, the suffering being experienced by others convinces him that they really are both 'wrong' and 'bad.' After all, they are being persecuted and he is not—and emotional 'truth' knows that all results, good or bad, are imposed by people. Thus, it is possible for a society to continue functioning quite ‘normally’ even as it mistreats or even kills off its minorities.

I suggest that this is why some countries refer to the United States as ‘The Great Satan.’ The average American is shocked that others would react to him with such religious venom. That is because he is on the winning side of a religious conflict. As the dominant world power, America uses its political, economic, cultural, and military might to spread its religion of ‘The American Way’ upon the rest of the world. Because the typical American 'knows' that he is 'right,' he does not realize that, in many ways, this 'knowing' is based upon the idols of an entertainment-centered, consumer society. Those who are on the losing side, though, see that their cherished idols are being smashed, and their 'truth' turned upside down by the ‘invasion’ of the Western mindset. Therefore, they respond with calls for ‘holiness’ and label the largest Western power ‘The Great Satan.’[JJJJ]

A similar conflict is occurring within Canada. Officially, Canada is a multicultural, multireligious society. In practice, this policy often causes the government to suppress the 'beliefs' of traditional Christianity. Let me support this assertion with two recent examples. First, in 1998, a Swissair plane crashed off Peggy’s Cove, a small fishing town in the eastern Maritimes of Canada. Everyone on board was killed. An interfaith memorial service was held in honor of those who died. Being a Canadian event, representatives of several major religions were invited to speak and pray. All were given freedom to quote from their Holy Books and refer to their religious founders except for the Christian clergy, who were instructed to refrain from saying anything blatantly ‘Christian.’ Why this religious suppression? I suggest that Canada is currently experiencing a struggle between the old accepted 'faith' of Christianity and the new dominant religion of multiculturalism.[KKKK]

The Canadian government tells its citizens that they are supposed to be tolerant of all faiths. Because multiculturalism has become the accepted ‘religion’ of Canada, these 'beliefs' are promulgated with lofty language and high morality. In reality, I suggest that Canada is undergoing a major struggle over religious ‘turf.’ This is brought out by the second Canadian example. Recently, a local ‘conservative’ school board discovered that their primary school library contained a few books advocating a gay lifestyle. The board responded by taking the offending volumes out of the library. This decision was then contested in court, the board lost, and the books were reinstated. Those are the facts of the case, which we will not analyze.

What matters for our present discussion is the reason given by the court for its decision. It stated that the action taken by the school board was invalid because it was based in religious morality. In effect, the court rejected Christianity as a valid source of 'truth' and conscience. In other words, judicially speaking, it is now forbidden in Canada to worship any Christian idols, shrines, or Holy Books.[LLLL]

Of course, such verdicts are never stated in religious terms. That is because those who believe in multiculturalism 'know' that they are right. They have no need to talk about holiness.

We have looked at two illustrations of groups who are on the winning side of a religious conflict. Let us now look at two cases of groups who feel that they are losing the religious battle, starting with another example from the United States.[MMMM] Until recently, Protestant Christendom was the accepted 'belief' of America. In spite of being fractured into hundreds of different denominations, Protestant churches all shared a common set of 'beliefs' that limited the conflict between them. As the dominant religious group, they could focus upon moral issues and universal doctrines, secure in the stability of their idols. Today, however, American Protestants find themselves a minority in their own ‘Promised Land.’ Christianity is no longer accepted as the de facto religion of the United States. How have churches responded? Verbally, many have called for a return to ‘Biblical moral standards.’ In practice, what this really means is a restoration of the culture of the 1950s. In other words, they have taken the Mercyexperiences of traditional American family, work and church as they existed when churches formed the cultural majority, and have declared these Mercy memories to be holy. It is not truth that is being defended, but rather the morally oriented American culture which defined this 'truth.'

Of course, it is politically incorrect to accuse ‘Bible thumpers’ of idolatry, but if these individuals really were standing up for truth, as they claim, why would they be idolizing the culture of a previous generation?[NNNN] This emphasis is seen even in the homes of many Protestants. Their dwelling places are full of Rural Americana, shrines to the culture of a simpler and more ‘godly’ time.

A similar backlash is occurring within Islam. The spread of Western secular society has eroded the religious 'beliefs' of Islamic countries. These societies are responding by declaring traditional Islamic culture to be holy. The typical Islamic fundamentalist, like the average American Protestant, does not protect 'truth' by working with truth. Instead, he focuses his efforts solely upon the extirpation of offending experiences, the elimination of opposing individuals, and the exaltation of mosques, rituals, and mullahs. This cultural emphasis demonstrates that his 'faith' also is rooted in idolatry.

A Shell Game

That brings us to our next point. Why is it that some religions resort to the gun and the bomb to spread their 'faith,' while others are content to stand on the streetcorner with tracts in their hands? I suggest that it is because most religious conflict is actually limited by a set of common religious 'beliefs.' These 'truths' are so widely accepted that they are not even analyzed by most individuals.

What are these universal 'beliefs'? I suggest that there are two of them, and that we have already discussed them extensively. First, we all 'believe' that a separation exists between objective and subjective. Second, we 'know' that emotional 'truth' rules the subjective, and that logical principles govern the objective. Thus, in our eyes, logical analysis can never be applied to emotional issues.

I suggest that these two 'beliefs,' wherever they are present, protect us from excessive religious and political strife. First, there is the separation between objective and subjective. Modern armies may lob weapons at the enemy, but they do not brainwash them or crush their religious 'beliefs.' Why? Because the fighting is limited to the arena of the objective, and does not extend into the subjective. This chivalry limits the mental devastation inflicted by war. Similarly, modern advertising, entertainment, and religion may bombard us with emotional images and experiences, but they do not twist our arms or break our bones. Why? Because here the conflict is restricted to the subjective, and is not allowed to expand into the objective. This chivalry limits the physical devastation inflicted by psychological and religious warfare.

When the separation between objective and subjective breaks down, then it is possible to have total warfare. Fascism and communism both combined objective military control with subjective propaganda and re-education. The result was horrible personal suffering. Similarly, Islam combines religious fervor with military might. Again, we see incredible suffering.[OOOO]

Notice that a 'belief' in the separation between objective and subjective has helped society in two ways. First, the presence of this 'belief' provides a source of commonality—a fundamental 'truth' upon which all combatants can agree. Second, the content of this 'belief' restricts the extent of conflict. Whenever a struggle emerges, it is limited to its side of the separation; it is not permitted to cross over the boundary separating objective from subjective.

Modern society subscribes to two universal 'beliefs.'

·    We all 'believe' that there should be a separation between subjective and objective.

·    We all 'know' that the objective is rational and the subjective is irrational.

Let us turn now to the second 'belief'—the assumption that every area contains an irrational emotional core surrounded by a shell of rational thinking. This premise interacts with the previous one. When we see a division between subjective and objective, we expect the subjective aspect to be irrational and the objective segment to be logical—that is our fundamental assumption. Then, within each domain we also expect to find a soft core and a hard shell. That is, we assume that the subjective will itself have a periphery of logical reasoning, and we accept that the objective will also have some form of emotional core.

For instance, we label religion as subjective and science as objective. Religion is expected to deal with emotional issues in mystical ways, and science is supposed to approach the world of objects in a logical manner. That is the major split. However, all religions contain some rational components. Religious experiences are usually supported by a logical scaffolding of doctrine and 'belief.' Likewise, science is motivated by a subjective core of peer approval, pecking order, tenure, and research grants—these are areas of thought in which rational thinking does not apply.

Everywhere we look, we see these two 'beliefs.' Every subjective area has its objective counterpart. Every segment of existence has both a rational shell and an irrational core. If the area itself is objective, then the shell is larger than the core. If it is subjective, then the core predominates.[PPPP]

Notice that this second 'belief'—namely, an irrational core surrounded by a rational shell—also helps to limit conflict, again in two ways: First, like the previous 'belief' in a division between objective and subjective, it provides a basic area of consensus. Adversaries may fight over the details, but they all agree that the objective periphery is more rational than the subjective core. Second, it allows people to ‘agree to disagree.’ Emotional 'truth,' as we know, leads inevitably to personal conflict and suffering. Logical thinking, in contrast, builds bridges and permits diversity. Thus, wherever these two 'beliefs' are held, peace can be achieved by separating the combatants: “You practice your religion or culture over there, and I will practice mine over here. Then, we will build a fence between us and interact on the peripheral issues. As long as we avoid discussing emotional topics such as religion and politics, then we can be friends.”

But surely these two 'beliefs'—an objective-subjective split, and an irrational subjective—must be true! I suggest not. Suppose that someone experiences personal transformation. He will learn to become rational in the subjective. The end result will be a person who is actually more rational in the subjective than he is in the objective—because he has spent his time and effort fighting the major battles, and he has postponed lesser conflicts until later. Thus, he will contradict the second 'belief.' And, because he has become rational in the core of his identity, this thinking will naturally percolate to the rest of his life. Therefore, his mind will not contain a fundamental split between subjective and objective—contradicting the first 'belief.'[QQQQ]

If these two 'beliefs' have done so much good, then why do I attack them? After all, when they are not present, then warfare is total—without constraints, and nuclear weapons make the prospect of total warfare unthinkable, right?

Let me suggest a few reasons for questioning this 'belief.' The first two I will explain now. The last will be expanded in a later book. First, I suggest that an objective/subjective division forces people to grow through the path of suffering. In the previous volume, I stated that personal transformation can occur in one of two ways, either through the road of suffering, or through the path of patience. As these labels suggest, learning through patience is more pleasant than growing through suffering. However, the school of patience has certain entrance requirements.

Patience is motivated by an internal vision of what could be. This internal picture is created as Perceiver facts gain the power to reassemble emotional Mercy memories. Obviously, such images of ‘what could be’ cannot form if independent Perceiver thought is limited to the realm of the objective. This is because each emotional Mercy experience that is encountered, when there is subjective irrationalism, defines its own version of 'truth' by mesmerizing Perceiver thought. But, Perceiver strategy is the part of the mind that determines what is me and what is not me. Thus, whenever an emotional experience mesmerizes Perceiver thought, concepts of identity are overruled, so that Mercy strategy can identify fully with the desirable experience. Obviously, this type of mindset shortcuts patience, leaving suffering as the only alternative.

But why is it important for us to let go of suffering now? Haven’t people always learned primarily through suffering? Yes, they have. But, we have seen that technology amplifies suffering—and we live in a high-tech world in which the level of technology is exploding.

A second reason for questioning the split between objective and subjective is that these two 'beliefs' are at the end of their useful lifetime. As long as there is a frontier of undigested material, then conflict can be resolved by building walls and dividing opponents. If the split between objective and subjective is incomplete, then freedom and life—which requires an integrated network of Mercy, Perceiver, Server and Teacher memories—can be discovered by escaping the shackles of civilization. But, what happens when the whole earth turns into privately owned land—surrounded by fences? What personal freedom is left when government, aided by technology, regulates every area of human existence? What individuality remains when mega-corporations and syndicated entertainment provide for all of our needs? What mystery is left when science probes subatomic particles, and observes our very thoughts? What humanity remains when gadgets and computers invade every part of our home? Then the cure becomes worse than the disease, for everywhere we go we find walls that block our vision and barriers that cannot be crossed. That which was supposed to protect life became a source of mental ‘death.’

The third reason is also related to the effects of civilization. Not only does a civilized society restrict ‘primitive life,’ but it also gives birth to a new form of mental existence—a new way of thinking and behaving that is incompatible with humanity. What isthis new way and how is it inhuman? We will be addressing this question in great detail in the next volume. Until then, let me suggest that there is no stronger pressure for personal change than living in an environment that is inherently inhuman.[RRRR]

An objective/subjective split forces individuals to learn through suffering.

Human life can survive an objective/subjective split as long as an untamed frontier exists.

Growth that preserves an objective/subjective split creates a society that is fundamentally inhuman.

So how can one integrate subjective and objective without triggering total warfare? I suggest that the solution lies in distinguishing external versus internal integration. Whenever the subjective/objective split is bridged externally, then the result, I suggest, is personal horror. One saw this, for instance, in German Nazism. It turned military might into a religion into which German youth were indoctrinated. What tied together objective militarism and subjective mysticism? Race and blood. If you looked like you belonged to the Aryan race, and had no physical blemishes or diseases, and could prove that your physical ancestors were all from the land of Germany, then your body belonged to the state and you were expected, if need be, to die for the state. But what about the internal content which distinguishes one individual from another? Nazism declared and demonstrated that the individual was nothing. The state was everything. As the German defendants at the Nuremberg trials repeatedly stated, everyone followed orders and nobody thought for himself.

One final point, before we go on. How did these two 'beliefs' come to be so fundamental and so universal? I suggest that the objective/subjective split goes hand in hand with revealed 'truth.' Wherever revealed 'truth' exists, a split between an irrational subjective and a rational objective will also be present. Why? Because Perceiver thought is semi-mesmerized. On the one hand, revealed 'truth' must have an emotional source which can reveal it—a basis rooted in strong Mercy feelings. This provides the irrational subjective core, in which 'truth' is determined by Mercy emotions. On the other hand, revealed 'truth' teaches people to use Perceiver logic, for it is the Perceiver part that comprehends speech. This rational thinking can only develop in regions of thought that are separate from emotional 'truth'—in which Mercy feelings are low and revealed 'truth' will not be affected. The result is a rationalobjective shell.

This has a major implication. Suppose that revealed 'truth' attempted to govern all issues of life, and told people what to 'believe' and do in all situations. Now there would be no area where Perceiver thought and logical thinking would be free to develop. Instead, all of Perceiver thought would remain mesmerized—and revealed 'truth' would degrade into idolatry. This means that revealed 'truth' can only operate successfully if it speaks about some issues and ignores other topics. In other words, revealed 'truth', to survive, must live within a world that is divided into secular and religious.

Therefore, we conclude that the Islamic model of revealed 'truth,' which does attempt to regulate all areas of life, is a contradiction in terms. We see also why the average fundamentalist Muslim finds it so hard to think rationally. His system of revealed 'truth' leaves no room—no mental ‘back-yard’—in which rational thought can develop. In fact, I suggest that it is only the presence of a Western secular world that makes it possible for the revealed 'truth' of Islam today to function as revealed 'truth.'[SSSS] Similarly, if a Jewish or Christian 'believer' attempts to bring every 'fact' under the control of religious 'truth,' he too will experience similiar effects.

But what about all of the incredible discoveries made over the centuries by the Islamic civilization? Don’t they prove the viability and even the superiority of Islam? Baghdad, for instance, was a thriving metropolis of several million inhabitants at a time when Western Europe was still in the depths of the dark ages.

The answer, I suggest, lies in the nature of religious conflict. Remember that those who are winning such a struggle react differently than those who are on the losing side. The winner does not worry about holiness, because his idols and his 'truth' are not being endangered. He 'knows' that he is 'right,' and that is sufficient. It is only when a group begins to lose a religious struggle that it focuses upon holiness and 'truth.'

Thus, as long as Islam was the dominant Mediterranean power, it was relatively free of the limitations associated with revealed 'truth.' The global spread of Western science and technology, however, changed the equation. The rise of rational thinking caused many people to question all revealed 'truth.' Believers of all faiths have lost respect for their Holy Books. This has led to a global backlash of religious fundamentalism, as each religious group responds to the growth of Western secular society by emphasizing holiness and blind 'faith.'

Observation indicates that Islam has defended itself with unusual violence, brutality, and inflexibility. Why? Because it tries to extend revealed 'truth' to all areas of life, both objective and subjective. Therefore, when its 'truth' is threatened, it instinctively responds with global idolatry and universaldictatorship.[TTTT]

The Intolerance of Tolerance

We have seen that modern society makes a separation between objective and subjective. In the objective, there is logical thought and scientific progress. In contrast, the subjective is an irrational realm ruled either by Mercy idols or guided by the rules of revealed 'truth.'

We have also learned that revealed 'truth' is inherently unstable. If it wants to survive, then it must have a continual flow of new students, and it must allow its old students to graduate. Otherwise, Mercy importance will win over Perceiver logic and revealed 'truth' will revert back to pure idolatry.

Suppose, though, that revealed 'truth' finds some way of postponing its demise and continues to survive.[UUUU] I suggest that two related types of thinking will then emerge, which we call fairness and tolerance. While these use logical thinking, they operate upon the wrong information and are driven by a warped motivation.[VVVV]

First, let us look at the logical thinking. Revealed 'truth' helps to develop Perceiver logic. It teaches Perceiver thought to look for connections between Mercy experiences, and it encourages behavior that is guided by rational principles. The limitation is that this logical thinking is limited to the objective—the shell of non-emotional situations surrounding the core of revealed 'truth.'

Second, there is the wrong information. With emotional 'truth,' the individual is the ultimate source of 'facts'; he is the basic building block; all 'truth' comes ultimately from some person. Are people really the atoms—the fundamental particles—of subjective thought? No. The theory of mental symmetry proposes that the human ‘atom’ can be split into seven different thinking patterns; the house of the human mind in fact contains seven rooms. And, as we will soon see, it is also possible to erect mental walls that further subdivide the mind. Thus, not only is the person not the basic building block, but most individuals are themselves highly fragmented mentally.[WWWW]

Now suppose that we combine logical thinking with wrong information. The result, I suggest, is modern individualism. Rational Perceiver thought in the objective has caused us to question almost all traditional 'beliefs.' Left, right, and center, the emotional pedestals of revealed 'truth' have toppled. All that remains is the fundamental assumption of revealed 'truth,' namely, the ‘wrong information’ that 'facts' come from people.

Several factors protect this basic assumption and prevent this essence of revealed 'truth' from being completely digested. First, the success of modern technology convinces subjective thought that the objective world really is governed by rational laws. Second, rational, objective thought looks at thephysical bodies of people and concludes that the person must be the fundamental building block of thought—take a body apart and the person dies. Third, the threat of potential guilt stops objective thinking from probing too far within the human mind. When there are emotional skeletons in the mental closet, then it is best to keep the doors shut. And finally, disregarding natural law produces sufficient physical results to convince a person that irrational thinking should be restricted to the realm of the subjective.[XXXX]

This brings us to the third point of a warped motivation. Here I must introduce another factor, which we will be discussing in detail later on. When 'truth' is revealed, some important person is telling me what to 'believe.' As long as my respect for this individual is high, then my 'beliefs' will remain intact. But, if I begin to think that am someone or something, then my 'faith' in revealed 'truth' itself will waver: “Who is he to tell me what to believe? I can think for myself, thank you very much.” The result is that revealed 'truth' is always accompanied by some sort of self-denial, some manner in which I ignore me and focus my attention upon others.

Put these three points together, add some time, and I suggest that the resulting mixture generates a mindset of tolerance. And, along with tolerance will come its partner—fairness. While these two are related, they are not identical. This is because tolerance emphasizes the Teacher aspect of this mixture, whereas fairness focuses upon the Perceiver side.[YYYY]

Fairness results when the mindset of revealed 'truth' is combined with objective rationalism.

·    Objective rationalism uses Perceiver thought to find connections between objects.

·    Emotional 'truth' feels that the person forms the basic unit of thought.

·    Religious self-denial attempts to help other people.

Let us look first at fairness. Fairness upholds law and order, and uses Perceiver logic to examine Mercy situations. According to fairness, every being which occupies a human body should receive the same external treatment and experience the same external benefits. Whenever Perceiver thought sees an external difference between the life of one person and that of another, fairness strives to remove this discrepancy. In general, fairness avoids focusing on self and tries to help others. It has pity upon the disadvantaged and helps the underdog. It takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

Notice that fairness does not look for mental principles of cause and effect. This is because Perceiver logic is only being applied objectively. A person does not have to do or become anything to qualify for fairness. He or she—and according to fairness these two are identical—only has to occupy the object of a human body.[ZZZZ] Thus, fairness treats the person as the basic unit, and believes that the desires and aspirations of each individual are holy. Why do I use the adjective ‘holy’? Because the word literally means ‘separate,’ and by refusing to apply Perceiver thought to internal content, fairness implicitly enshrines the subjective of each person as holy.

But, fairness still operates within the context of Perceiver thought and Perceiver logic. Therefore, what fills the subjective is not idolatry but rather revealed 'truth'—a very strange form of 'truth,' in which every person becomes his own source of revealed 'truth.' And, because fairness denies the existence of internal connections, it ends up preventingPerceiver logic from being applied to this subjective 'truth.' Thus, the subjective becomes caught in the ‘school’ of revelation, prevented from slipping back into childhood idolatry by the overall mindset of Perceiver logic, while unable to graduate into the adult world of rational thought.

Let us turn our attention now to tolerance. What fairness assumes, tolerance, I suggest, makes explicit. Like fairness, tolerance also believes that Perceiver logic and Perceiver rules should be used to regulate societal interaction. And like fairness, tolerance also looks kindly upon the views of those who are on the ‘fringe’ of society and insists that they should not be judged. Where tolerance and fairness differ, is in their focus. If each person is his own source of revealed 'truth,' then it makes sense that each individual will also develop his own worldview—his own general Teacher understanding. Fairness emphasizes the objective Perceiver thought that promotes the concept of personal 'truth,' whereas tolerance exalts the Teacher theories that are based upon this subjective 'truth.'

Let me restate this. Fairness uses Perceiver thought in the objective to remove external differences between individuals. Tolerance, in contrast, protects the Teacher theories that each person has developed to explain his set of subjective 'truth,' and prevents one person from altering or influencing the theories of another. In the words of tolerance, ‘live and let live.’ ‘You have your own set of beliefs and I have mine. I will not impose my beliefs upon you and you will not force your ideas upon me.’ Thus, fairness removes personal differences in the objective, whereas tolerance protects personal differences in the subjective—both based upon the same three assumptions described at the beginning of this ection.

In my country of Canada, tolerance and its associated fairness have in essence become the state religion. If a portion of the country is underprivileged, then the other provinces are expected to chip in to help the poorer region financially. Handicapped people, single mothers, new immigrants, aboriginal natives, and many other minorities are all given government assistance so that they can lead a ‘normal’ existence, just like any other person. If life could be compared to an apple pie, then fairness ensures that everyone’s piece of the pie is the same size. It does this by taking pie from those who have more and giving it to those who have less.[AAAAA]

Fairness removes objective differences while refusing to analyze subjective 'beliefs.'

Tolerance respects the subjective 'beliefs' of each while insisting that they are logically equivalent.

Fairness sounds good, but I suggest that the overall effect is to attack Perceiver logic and to lift up emotional 'truth.' First, examine the disadvantaged person. We saw previously that emotional 'truth' leads to personal pain and suffering. This means that those who suffer some sort of problem or limitation are in that situation, in many cases, because they do pursue emotional 'truth.'[BBBBB]

Now, suppose that I 'believe' in emotional 'truth' and suppose that the government takes money from those who are successful and gives it to me. This social assistance will reinforce my faulty way of thinking, because emotional 'truth' 'knows' that all 'facts' are determined by important people. Therefore, if I have problems, I will be 'certain' that some person is to blame. If those who are in authority come to me and give me money, help, and approval, then their status will line up with my 'belief' that important people are responsible for the 'facts' of my situation. In addition, the emotional experience of receiving from them will 'convince' me that they are the important people who are responsible for putting me in my unfortunate situation. Thus, theirdonation will be seen as an admission of guilt. Therefore, I will not be grateful for their help. Instead, the more that I receive, the more I will think irrationally, and the more I will blame my problems upon society.

Let us turn now to the person at the giving end of the financial redistribution. Chances are that he made his money by following rational thought in some way.[CCCCC] How will he view the situation? He will notice that every time he gets ahead financially, the government takes away a large chunk of his hard-earned wealth and gives it to those who did not work for it and who do not deserve it. Obviously, this will discourage his financial endeavors: “Why should I go to the risk of trying to make money if so much of it goes to the government?”

But, why do I focus on money? Because, I suggest that fairness naturally emphasizes the financial. First, because rational thinking is limited to the objective, most success will involve objects—these will be counted and measured financially. Second, because fairness applies justice to the objective, people will be viewed as disadvantaged whenever they suffer visible problems—and these can usually be helped with financial assistance. Finally, the tolerance that accompanies fairness will prevent people from addressing root causes. If anyone attempts to analyze mental principles of cause and effect, tolerance will declare that each person has his own 'beliefs,' and that no one should impose his 'truth' upon another person. As a result, people will demand money for their problems, but resist constructive criticism; the money will be available, and the problems will not go away.

This dilemma is exacerbated by the development of technology. Obviously, not all personal handicaps are caused by people. For instance, I may have been born blind. But, as objective knowledge grows, people gain the ability to solve more and more problems. Thus, whenever objective research makes another discovery, fairness will expect it to be used—by people—to remove external differences. For instance, maybe I was born blind because the doctor gave my mother the wrong drug, or did not give my mother the right treatment. Or, possibly a new medical procedure exists that can give me sight, and if one doesn’t, then why isn’t the government spending more money on research about blindness, or at least modifying the world so that I as a blind person can live a normal life just like everyone else?

Meanwhile, as I mentioned in Volume I, those who grow up with the benefits of civilization will be convinced that 'truth' does reside with people, because people provide all of their needs and wants. Therefore, not only will more problems be blamed upon people, but also more people will blame their problems upon people. All of this perceived intolerance will be addressed by the doctrine of fairness. Government will grow, taxes will increase, and the economy will falter.

Eventually, fairness will reach a critical mass and the mindset of society will shift. Instead of being a way of redistributing wealth, fairness will become the overriding principle of society. On the one hand, this will affect those who make money. Companies will look to the government to bail them out whenever they are financial trouble—for the sake of preserving the jobs of their workers. Thus, logical business thought will be replaced by political maneuvering that manipulates the opinions of people with status in order to protect the ‘normal existence’ of people. On the other hand, those who are handicapped will demand to be treated in every way as normal individuals, while simultaneously demanding special treatment as a handicapped minority. Thus, problems will become taboos—black holes that absorb money but refuse to be analyzed.

Fairness attempts to use Perceiver logic to minimize external distinctions.

·    The tolerance that accompanies fairness attacks Perceiver thought.

·    When confusion sets in, people turn to the idols of those who suffer the most for their 'truth.'

This will have two results. First, the rights of the underprivileged will submerge revealed 'truth.' Initially, the subjective was ruled by revealed 'truth.' This solidified the division between subjective and objective. But, now no one listens any more to the old experts. Instead, those who feel the most disadvantaged and who cry out the loudest for fairness have become the new sources of 'truth.' This will cause logical thought in the objective to falter. People will be apprehensive of pursuing business opportunities, and afraid to analyze situations logically. They will be too scared to speak the truth, and too frightened to act upon it. Therefore, society will increasingly be afflicted with all of the problems and the personal suffering that comes from following emotional 'facts,' because revealed 'truth' will have given way to idolatry. Thus, the preservation of revealed 'truth' leads ultimately to its demise. Again we see the transitional nature of revelation.

Now that I have outlined the progression of this alternative path, let us look at the specific example of Canada. As a people, we simultaneously pursue two incompatible goals. On the one hand, we have a strong societal glue of Perceiver principles. Mention the word ‘Canada’ and what comes to mind is the Red-coated Mountie who ‘always gets his man.’ Similarly, when the traffic light is red, then we Canadians stop and wait for it to turn green, even if it is the middle of the night and no other cars are in sight. On the other hand, Canada goes out of its way to protect the idols of its minorities, in the name of multiculturalism and tolerance. This combination has created a strong sense of fairness. As the joke goes, a Canadian is someone who apologizes to you when you step on his toes.

I suggest that the Canadian split between irrational subjective and logical objective has survived over time because each of these two segments has been nourished and supported by a different region of the country. This juxtaposition is illustrated by the makeup of the current parliament (2001): The Canadian Alliance, which forms the official opposition, represents the ‘shell’ of common sense. These elected members are almost all from Western Canada, the most recently settled region—a place where frontier thinking still holds. Western Canadians, though, suffer from a lack of deep personal feelings.[DDDDD] The third largest party—the Bloc Québecois from the province of Quebec, promotes the emotional ‘core.’ Its primary aim is to protect the cultural, linguistic, and ethnic aspirations of the French-speaking people of Quebec, regardless of the cost to the rest of Canada.[EEEEE] These two parties differ fundamentally in philosophy. The Bloc demands special status for Quebec, and the Alliance insists that all regions must be governed by the same rules. Finally, the middle ground of fairness is occupied by the ruling Liberal party, which attempts to bring order to the country while at the same time doling out special favors to Quebec and other ‘disadvantaged’ regions.

So, how is Canada doing with its grand experiment? As our analysis suggests, it appears that the core is eating up the shell; gradually, rational thinking is being replaced by emotional 'truth.' The method by which this occurs, however, is rather strange, because it involves an unusual form of cultural preservation. The typical Canadian does not try to protect his own culture. We do not even know what Canadian culture is. Instead, we go out of our way to preserve the cultures of our minorities. Unfortunately, these minorities increasingly do not 'believe' in a shell of rational thinking. Instead, they 'know' that all of life should be ruled by tradition, culture and religion. Thus, by protecting the idols of others, we are shutting the door on Perceiver thought, and slowly losing the ability to follow law and order. It does not matterwhose culture I preserve. Whenever emotional 'facts' win out over Perceiver logic, then Perceiver confidence drops in strength.

Now, at the turn of the century, we are at a point where the shell of Perceiver confidence is finally crumbling. In other words, the thinking of Canadian society has entered the threshold of uncertainty. When a crisis of knowing strikes, then people search for something solid on which to base Perceiver truth. Where are we as Canadians looking for answers? Obviously, we will search for solutions on the path which we are already following. Therefore, we are not looking to Perceiver logic and confidence for answers, but rather to the idols that we have been so assiduously protecting. These have become ournew sources of 'truth.' And which idols are becoming our new masters? Obviously, the idols of the minorities that are hurting the most, and thus crying out most vociferously for government support and approval.

The largest minority within Canada is the French-speaking province of Quebec.[FFFFF] It does not share the British history of democracy and the rule of law, but rather comes from the French tradition of a strong church and an absolute king.[GGGGG] However, it is an ethnic, linguistic, and religious minority within the melting pot of North America. With the development of mass media and global economies, it was only a matter of time before Quebec’s religious and cultural foundation of emotional 'facts' began to crumble under outside pressure, leading the French population into a state of societal angst. How has Quebec responded? By turning its culture and language into a form of revealed 'truth'—thus making a religion out of Quebec distinctiveness.

The result is a ‘cold heart’ combined with ‘warm hands.’ The cultural foundation of French emotional 'truth' is dissolving, but the British tradition of respect for law and order has also become part of the Quebec psyche. Therefore, for the last third of the twentieth century, the province of Quebec has tried to find some way of using warm hands to keep its heart cold, some method of using Perceiver logic and rational thinking to preserve its cultural foundations. For instance, Quebec wants a national constitution that guarantees its status as a ‘distinct society.’ But this is a contradiction in terms, because law by its very nature provides rules that are common to all people—Perceiver thought looks for solid connections between individual Mercy experiences. How can a constitution be ‘national’ unless it applies to the whole nation? As a result, every time that Quebec tries to solve its problems with the warm hands of rational thought, it ends up melting its heart and suffering more cultural angst. On the other hand, whenever it follows its heart and threatens to leave the rest of the country, then it gets ‘cold hands’ and clutches onto the rule of law in order to bring warmth back to its extremities.

What effect has this had on the rest of Canada? Unfortunately, every cycle of threatened separation has lowered the overall level of Perceiver confidence.[HHHHH] That, combined with the mind-numbing effects of civilization, has caused Canada to enter the threshold of uncertainty. Now, at the turn of the century, we as a nation no longer know how to distinguish ‘right’ from ‘wrong.’ Unlike Quebec, though, the rest of Canada emphasizes objective thought and has no real subjective culture of its own.[IIIII] Therefore, it is turning for emotional support to the idols of one of its minorities. Which minority? The one which has the longest history of emotional 'truth' and therefore cries out the loudest for government assistance—the Native Indians. If any group in our nation is suffering cultural angst, it is the Native population. This society has never experienced the upheaval of a scientific or industrial revolution, neither has it been ruled by a Holy Book of revealed 'truth.' Therefore, a significant shell of Perceiver logic has been unable to develop. Aboriginal people did acquire common sense from their natural environment, but now the comforts of civilization along with government largesse have taken away even this opportunity for learning. As a result, natives have paid the price for their lack of Perceiver logic in the personal suffering of alcoholism, sexual abuse, and drug addiction. Like any threatened minority, they have responded by making idols out of their culture and by calling for more government money to deal with their suffering.[JJJJJ]

Presently, in English-speaking Canada, Native culture and religion are highly respected and honored by Canadian media, government programs, and the educational system. In fact, what I have just said would be judged by many Canadians to be highly intolerant.[KKKKK] However, let us apply some logic. When the United Nations itself says—for several years—that Canada is the best place in the world to live, does it make sense that Canadians should turn for spiritual ‘wisdom’ to a minority troubled with drinking and emotional bondage, which earns money by smuggling cigarettes and building gambling casinos, and which seems to make a profession out of ignoring laws, exploiting privileges, and blockading roads? Does the richest man in the neighborhood go to his poor acquaintance for advice on how to become rich? And yet that is exactly what we as Canadians are doing.[LLLLL]

What then is the underlying problem? I suggest that a major factor is the finite lifetime of revealed 'truth.' We as Canadians have assumed that a split between subjective irrationalism and objective logical thought can continue for always. Instead, this division has ultimately created a group of ‘students’ who do not respect revealed 'truth,' a society which does not permit students to ‘graduate’ from revealed 'truth,' and a set of teachers who no longer teach revealed 'truth.'[MMMMM]

National Tolerance

Is Canada the only country in this type of situation? No. In fact, I suggest that Western society, since the end of the Second World War, has practiced tolerance at a national level.[NNNNN] In this case, the basic unit is not the individual but rather the ethnic group. Each ethnic group is viewed as an indivisible unit with equal value. Individual actions are judged according to the rules of their ethnic group, and national tolerance insists that every ethnic group is equal and that no ethnic culture is superior to another. In addition, each ethnic group is supposed to receive ‘fair’ treatment internationally, and no group is supposed to suppress or persecute another group.

At first glance, this policy seems quite enlightened, and appears far superior to the blatant racism that existed before. However, I suggest that national tolerance suffers from two fatal flaws.

First, national tolerance condemns individuals to the standards of their culture. Judging each individual according to the rules of his culture may work when all cultures have similar standards, but when different ethnic groups practice radically different social policies, then the world becomes divided into first class citizens and second class citizens.

For example, democracy, individual freedom, and rational thinking have never played a major role in African society. Instead, tribalism is the predominant form of government—even today. Each tribal group has its leader, and the individual is supposed to submit to the wishes of the group. And, tribal thinking believes that the natural world is ruled by magic.[OOOOO]

Tolerance believes that each person is his own source of 'truth.'

·    National tolerance believes that each cultural group has its own source of 'truth.'

National tolerance condemns individuals to the moral standards of his culture.

“But,” says the believer in national tolerance, “you are just a Westerner imposing your standards upon African society. How dare you exhibit such an attitude of racial superiority.” Such a response, I suggest, suffers from the same error that it is attempting to correct. Racism, which national tolerance abhors, attempts to impose the standards of one ethnic group upon another ethnic group. National tolerance, in contrast, insists that no ethnic group shall judge another ethnic group. But, both racism and national tolerance agree that the fundamental unit is the ethnic group. Thus, both are equally racist.

Here is the real question: Are there standards which apply equally to all individuals, regardless of their race or culture? When tolerance says that “There shall be no discrimination based upon race, culture, or gender,” its basic unit is still the ethnic group. Because it is a reaction against racism, it can never move beyond racism. In contrast, justice searches for principles which apply equally to all people.

Do such principles exist? Yes. At the most basic level, everyone has the right to life and personal protection. An individual should not have to go into hiding for fear of being raped or murdered. Similarly, children have the right to grow up in peace, without being turned into child-soldiers forced to kill or be killed. Fundamental principles, such as these, apply to everyone, regardless of his ethnic group. Furthermore, one can say with certainty that a culture which encourages or condones such activities is morally inferior to one which does not. If such a culture is not morally inferior, then one is forced to conclude that, in some situations, rape, murder and child abuse are good.

Does this mean that every element of an inferior culture is bad? Of course not. That sort of conclusion again assumes that the tribal group is the fundamental element. Every culture—even an inferior one—has some good elements.[PPPPP]

In general, I suggest that a culture based in idolatry or emotional 'truth' is inferior to one that is rooted in rational thought. Why? Because “a mental foundation of emotional 'truth' leads always to personal pain and suffering.” By definition, any culture that imposes lasting personal suffering upon its people is inferior to one that leads its citizens to long-term individual pleasure.[QQQQQ] If this statement is not true, then we are led to the absurd conclusion that there is no difference between pain and pleasure. Any person who suffers from chronic pain will tell you that this is not the case.

That brings us to the second fatal flaw of national tolerance. When an inferior culture exists alongside a superior culture, then a policy of national tolerance will permit the inferior culture to attack and possibly destroy the superior one.

National tolerance makes an inferior culture parasitic upon its more enlightened neighbors.

In essence, this occurs because national tolerance gives legitimacy and protection to the actions and attitudes of the inferior culture. Suppose that some society achieves the sort of personal wealth and freedom that we take for granted in today’s Western world. Now suppose that this prosperous community lives alongside some other society that is rooted in idolatry and Mercy importance. Because a mental foundation of emotional 'truth' leads to personal pain and suffering, we know that the people who are part of this idolatrous society will experience personal problems. How will the members of this tribal society respond to their predicament? They will fixate upon the wealth possessed by their wealthier neighbors and attempt to make it their own. In addition, they will blame their inadequacies upon their successful neighbors. Why? Because emotional 'truth' will see the discrepancy in personal wealth and prosperity, 'know' that people are responsible, and place the blame on those who are wealthy—because it was their prosperity that made the tribal members feel bad.

And how will national tolerance respond to this situation? It will condone the suffering, idolatry, and theft of the inferior society as a legitimate expression of its culture, and grant this childish behavior the full protection and status of nationhood. Thus, the inferior culture will be able to attack, steal from, and blame its wealthier neighbor with impunity. If the wealthier society responds in kind, it will be condemned for acting in a way that is inconsistent with Western standards of personal freedom and dignity. Similarly, if the superior society uses force to limit the marauding of the inferior society, then it will be accused violating the national integrity of its neighbor. Finally, if the wealthier society complains that it is being treated unfairly, it will be reminded that all cultures are equal and that it has no right to label the behavior of its neighbor as either wrong or inferior.

This conflict will be most severe when wealthy and tribal societies coexist within the same country, because national tolerance will then combine forces with tolerance. National tolerance will treat each culture within the country as an indivisible entity, equal in stature to every other culture. This will lead to the type of interaction described in the previous paragraphs. Tolerance, in contrast, will look at the individuals residing within this country apart from their ethnic background. It will see that those who belong to the superior culture have far more wealth than those who are part of the inferior culture and conclude that this situation is grossly unfair. This inequality will then be tackled at the individual level, by taking wealth from those who have more and giving it to those who have less. Officially, tolerance will studiously avoid any mention of culture in its redistribution of wealth. Practically speaking, though, this taking from wealthy individuals and giving to poor people will become a subsidy by the superior society upon the inferior society.

The eventual outcome will depend upon the relative size of these two societies, because the inferior society will become a parasite that feeds off the wealth and freedom of its more advanced neighbor. If the parasite is smaller than the host, then the superior society will be able to survive the draining presence of its bloodsucking neighbor. However, if the ratio of tribesmen to citizens is sufficiently high, then the modern society will hemorrhage to death.

If the superior society ever becomes a minority within its country, then tolerance will conspire to ruin society. Obviously, such a country can only maintain its wealth and prosperity if the superior minority retains political control over the country—so that it can enforce law and order, encourage rational growth, and prevent the idolatry, Mercy importance, and emotional 'truth' of the majority from turning into national policies. National tolerance, however, will see that one social group is suppressing another, condemn the situation, and demand that the superior society stop ‘oppressing’ the inferior one. Tolerance will then join in the struggle and insist that every individual should have equal political power—one man, one vote. The superior minority will then be forced, in the name of tolerance, to call national elections, the inferior culture will take over control of the country, it will institutionalize idolatry and tribalism, and the economy of the country will collapse, bringing everyone down to the level of the inferior society.

National tolerance, combined with tolerance, allows tribes to destroy nations.

·    National tolerance deifies the impulses of the tribe. They are free to act like mental children.

·    National tolerance restricts the responses of the nation. They are supposed to act like adults.

·    Tolerance gives each adult person the right to vote, handing political power to mental children.

Such an analysis may sound racist in our age of tolerance, but let me support it with an analogy. No country gives full rights to its children. Those who are underage are not allowed to drive, vote, or drink, and are expected to remain under the guardianship of adults until they grow up. Similarly, a tribal society cannot be given the status of a modern nation, for it has not matured to the point where it can handle such responsibilities.

“But,” says tolerance in all of its forms, “how dare you suggest that one individual or society is superior to another? That comment is racist and should be forbidden.” However, if tolerance is true, then it makes both this book and the previous volume irrelevant. In the same way that physical travel becomes meaningless if every town contains exactly the same buildings and stores, so personal change becomes pointless if, as tolerance says, every personal state is equivalent to every other personal state. Similarly, why should a society grow if, as national tolerance insists, there is no such thing as a less or more advanced culture? Why move if there is no where else to go?

Thus, tolerance indirectly brings personal development to a halt and national tolerance implicitly prevents societies from changing.[RRRRR] However, if transformation is possible, then a person or society that is not transformed is inferior to one that is transformed. And, if an individual or society feels that it is inferior, then it will be motivated to change. As I mentioned earlier in the book, an individual or society will only climb out of its cradle if it is convinced that its present location is bad, horrible, and terrible, along with at least a dozen more condemning adjectives.

In general, I suggest that a person or society that has experienced transformation cannot be treated in the same way as one which has not undergone such transformation. Similarly, once a person or group is transformed, then the way that it is treated should change as well.

The African country of Zimbabwe, I suggest, provides a classical example of a country destroyed by an inferior majority. As Rhodesia, this country was ruled by Whites. Its citizens had high incomes and exported food to the rest of Africa. National tolerance looked at this situation, saw that the White ethnic group was controlling the Black ethnic groups and demanded that the Whites stop ‘oppressing’ the Blacks.

But, if the previous paragraphs are true, then the Black ethnic groups of Rhodesia were inferior to the White ethnic group. Black Africa is continually subject to tribal warfare. Time and again, those who belong to ‘other’ tribes are raped and murdered. Repeatedly, children are used as soldiers. And, generally speaking, emotional 'truth' and idolatry control decisions and actions. Rational thought is hard to find.

Why did Rhodesia have national wealth and prosperity? Because its policies were determined by a superior ethnic group—one which followed rational thinking in the realm of the objective.[SSSSS] In other words, Whites were permitted to make national decisions and Blacks were not. But, in the eyes of national tolerance, this political imbalance was morally repugnant. National tolerance insisted that Black African culture was morally equivalent to White African culture, and demanded a halt to the ‘oppression.’ Therefore, the Blacks were given control of Rhodesia. This was done in the name of tolerance, supposedly giving each adult the right to vote. What happened then? One ethnic group, led by a Mercy-based dictator, took control over the country, suppressed all other ethnic groups, and ruined the national economy. Today, Zimbabwe has descended into poverty and anarchy, and systematic rape and murder are practiced as government policy. Why? Because emotional 'truth' leads inevitably to personal pain and suffering.

Meanwhile, tolerance looks at Zimbabwe as a success story in equality. But, did the Blacks gain economic prosperity? No. All except for a few friends of the dictator are at least as poor as they were before. Did the Blacks acquire political freedom? No. They went from oppression to dictatorship. There still is no justice for the average citizen. Have the Blacks gained self-confidence? No. Black leadership continues to blame the Whites for its difficulties, even after most of them have fled the country. Pick any yardstick you choose, the situation for the Blacks is at least as bad as it was before. Despite this, tolerance insists that any who question its assumptions are morally deficient. But, how can tolerance speak of morality when it denies the the very existence of a moral yardstick? Again we see the intolerance of tolerance.

Does this mean that every aspect of Black African culture is inferior to White African culture? No. We have already seen that Western civilization has its own fatal flaws. When it comes to accepting to the existence of personal feelings, then Black African culture is superior to Western society. Can one conclude that White people are superior to Black people? Of course not. That assumes that a person’s personal character is determined solely by the culture into which he is born—a racist statement. Instead, one must conclude that tribal culture is inferior to democratic freedom, irrespective of the skin color of the people who practice this culture.

Should Black Africa always be governed by Whites? No. That assumes that individuals and societies are incapable of change—another aspect of treating either the individual or the tribal group as the fundamental unit. How does a person or society change?[TTTTT] Through transformation, the main topic of this book.[UUUUU]

The same principles, I suggest, can be applied to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. From the viewpoint of national tolerance, Palestinians have their own culture and identity and are expected to follow the norms of Arab culture and religion. Similarly, Jews also have a culture and identity and are supposed to live according to the standards of Western society. These two are regarded as equal partners and neither is supposed to oppress the other.

But what if one side indoctrinates its children to hate the other side, trains them fight the enemy, and then sends them out to battle with inadequate weapons, knowing that many of them will die? What if it glorifies death and praises those who commit suicide in order to inflict damage upon the enemy. By the most basic standards of human existence, such a culture is inferior. To say otherwise is to equate life with death.

Furthermore, what if that same side always allows the emotional status of its culture to define 'truth'? What if it rejects any fact that makes its culture or religion look bad and what if it habitually responds to criticism by inciting rage and violence? By definition, it is an inferior culture, for its identity is rooted firmly in emotional 'truth' and we know that such a foundation leads to personal pain and suffering.

And yet, national tolerance looks at Palestinian hatred, death and propaganda and states, “We must not judge. They are just following the standards of their culture.” It then turns to those who attempt to limit this violence and says, “How dare you try to control another culture. You are not being tolerant.”

But what about the thousands of Palestinian children who are condemned to a life of suffering and death just because their culture makes a religion out of hatred, suicide and murder? National tolerance is convinced that these children should be locked into their cultural prison of child abuse and that the key should be thrown away—all in the name of tolerance. Thus, national tolerance ends up becoming guilty of the same ‘crimes against humanity’ for which it condemns racism.

Should all regional, tribal, and ethnic aspirations be squelched? No. I suggest that they meet a legitimate need in an illegitimate way. Let me explain. Among other things, the split between objective and subjective creates a separation between Teacher and Mercy thought. Objective thinking discovers natural order and develops general Teacher theories—while suppressing Mercy emotions. In contrast, subjective thought exalts Mercy feelings, but the resulting mental and physical fragmentation tends to destroy Teacher understanding. Thus, ethnic, tribal, and religious groups continue to exist in our ‘modern’ world because they meet a valid mental need: They combine Teacher and Mercy feelings. Ethnic ties build Teacher order and words upon a foundation of Mercy relationships. Tribal myths create Teacher theories that explain emotional Mercy experiences. Likewise, religions use Teacher words and ideas to bring comfort and help to Mercy identity.

In all cases, the fundamental problem is undigested identity. Tribalism worships and serves childish identity. Racism says that my me is better than your me, and tolerance says that all me’s are equal. None of these three actually try to digest the old me and rebuild it upon a more solid foundation. What is the solution? Personal transformation.

The Rise and Decline of a Civilization

We have seen that revealed 'truth' has a finite lifetime, and we have outlined the sorts of problems that develop when a society is based upon revealed 'truth.' I suggest, though, that a vibrant, growing civilization can be built upon this mindset, even though its foundation involves idolatry. The only catch is that this growth will inevitably be accompanied by conflict and the civilization itself will eventually grow old and collapse in a convulsion of chaos. You see, I did not say that idolatry makes civilization impossible, I just said that “building me upon a foundation of emotional facts leads to personal pain and suffering.” As communism has demonstrated, a society that rejects logic, truth, and honesty, is capable of superhuman effort, for a while—if individuals are willing to disregard the consequent physical and mental agony.

Let us look first at a situation in which idolatry and cultural preservation are accepted fully. I suggest that in this type of environment, growth becomes impossible, because any major change will end up threatening some idol. Ancient Egypt is an example of a society centered upon cultural preservation and idolatry. Mention the word ‘Egypt’ and the pyramids come to mind. These were tombs built to shelter the earthly remains of pharaohs, whom the Egyptians regarded as ‘gods.’ Talk about idolatry. The entire country gave emotional significance to one individual and then preserved his physical body in a monument so stupendous that we still marvel over it today, four thousand years later.

One would predict that this major effort at preserving culture should stifle growth completely. This is what happened. The three largest pyramids were all constructed at the beginning of Egyptian history, around 2200 BC. Everything built later was much smaller. It is interesting to compare Egyptian artifacts from the Old Kingdom with those of the New Kingdom. You can see that for 2000 years there was almost no change in Egyptian culture. And, if you want to know whether this cultural preservation led to suffering, ask your Jewish friend. His history is branded with the trauma of delivery from the slavery of Egypt.

In contrast to the frozen state of a purely idolatrous system, I suggest that growth is possible under idolatry if three other factors are also present. For these, I must give credit to Arnold Toynbee, the British historian.[VVVVV] These factors create a window of opportunity within which Perceiver logic is free to operate. In this restricted domain, growth becomes possible.[WWWWW]

First, society must remain split up into independent regions. This thwarts cultural preservation. While everyone will try to impose his idols upon others, no one will succeed. Society remains fluid because the ‘cold’ hands of emotional 'truth' cannot reach up to freeze Perceiver thought and they also cannot reach out and hold on to their idols. This resulting mental uncertainty will force Perceiver strategy to step in and try to tie Mercy experiences together.

Second, the various groups within the society must see themselves as related and must not label each other as totally ‘bad.’ The first factor gives Perceiver thought the opportunity to develop. The second gives it the permission to think. Remember that Perceiver strategy develops as Perceiver thought learns to distinguish Perceiver labels of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ from Mercy feelings of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ But, if emotional 'facts' run the show, then Mercy strategy will never accept Perceiver facts that link ‘good’ Mercy experiences with ‘bad’ ones: “How could I learn anything from my enemy? He is evil and knows nothing about truth!” Thus, the various groups must all have something within them that is seen as ‘good.’[XXXXX]

This creates a mental paradox. On the one hand, Perceiver thought can only develop when right is not always good and wrong is not always bad. On the other hand, Perceiver strategy begins life under the domination of Mercy thought, which suppresses any facts that contradict its feelings. The only way around this dilemma is for Mercy experiences to be partially good and partially bad. Then there is sufficient uncertainty to require the development of Perceiver confidence, but not so much confusion that Mercy importance steps in and shuts down Perceiver thought.[YYYYY]

Third, the conflict between the various subgroups must in some way be limited. This allows Perceiver thought to continue operating. We can understand this by analyzing the mental effects of war. Suppose that I hold a knife to your throat—or point a missile at your city—and threaten to kill you unless you submit to me. I am using defining Mercy experiences to mesmerize your Perceiver observer in order to impose my version of 'truth' upon you. Obviously, Perceiver thinking can only survive if this type of brutality is limited.

A growing civilization can be founded upon emotional 'truth' if three requirements are met:

·    Society must be divided into different groups.

·    These groups should see themselves as related.

·    Conflict between these groups must be limited.

We have already seen that people who worship idols tend to ‘solve’ their problems with force, because they define 'truth' by using Mercy feelings to control external objects, events, and people. However, if warfare is limited, then groups will not spend allof their timefighting each other but also expend some of their energy competing with one another. This channels the childish motivation and forces higher mental strategies to emerge. The result of this higher thought is a growing civilization.

I suggest that the space race of the 1960s provides one good example of these three factors. The United States and Russia were bitter foes. Each strove to impose its idols upon the other, but neither could gain the upper hand. This satisfied the first requirement of independent regions. While the ideologies of each country were diametrically opposed, they were willing to learn from each other in the realm of science and technology. Here they saw themselves as related. This provided the second factor. Finally, the horror of global thermonuclear destruction prevented each side from pressing the button and starting a fight. The result was a cold war generating intense competition between the two superpowers—the third factor. As one aspect, both sides expended incredible resources to see who could be the first to send a man to the moon. The result was explosive growth, accompanied by a worldwide fear that the world might end tomorrow in a thousand giant mushroom clouds.

Let us look at another example from history. Across the water from Egypt was the land of the ancient Greeks. First, the Greek world was splintered into dozens of independent city-states. Second, whereas the Greeks did squabble incessantly, they also looked down their collective noses at the ‘barbarians’ who surrounded them. Therefore, they were willing to learn from each other. Third, the Greeks did place some limitations upon inter-Greek warfare. For example, they all gathered regularly in peace to celebrate the Olympic games. The result was incredible growth. Greek colonies spread around the Mediterranean Ocean. Modern science and politics are built upon the foundation provided by Greek thinkers and philosophers. Along with this growth also came major conflict. Greek states were constantly at war with one another and eventually Greek society self-destructed over a major war between Sparta and Athens.

No society has experienced as much growth as our modern Western Civilization. The only constant in our world appears to be change. Again we find the same principles at work. In the 4th Century AD, the Roman Empire was split into two halves. The Eastern part managed to survive for another millennium as the Byzantine Empire. The price for this political unity was stagnation. In contrast, Western Europe broke into fragments after the barbarians invaded in the 5th Century AD. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, no single government has managed to hold on to all of Western Europe, though several have tried. I suggest that it is this political disunity combined with cultural similarity which has allowed our growth to occur. However, development has also been accompanied by continuing conflict. The history of Western Europe chronicles one war after another—limited by a collective appreciation for the balance of power.[ZZZZZ]

The modern state of Israel provides another illustration. On the one hand, Jews consider themselves to be a distinct people, separate from other races. On the other hand, as the saying goes, for every two Jews there are at least three different opinions. In fact, I suggest that the factors for growth are stronger in Israel than anywhere else in today’s world. No other ethnic group has such strong internal ties. No other country has so many people from so many different backgrounds stuffed into such a small living space. And, since its inception, Israel has continually lived under the threat of war. Its very survival depends upon remaining competitive.

Is conflict the inevitable price of growth? Arnold Toynbee, the historian, thought so. His conclusion was that in an age of atomic weapons, growth might have to be sacrificed in order to preserve humanity from self-destruction. I would suggest another conclusion: Conflict will always accompany growthif a culture is rooted in emotional 'truth.'

It is this inherent tension that causes civilizations based in idolatry eventually to collapse. First, there is the time of growth characterized by diversity and conflict. As society advances and technology develops, the fighting gets worse. Since practice makes perfect, people perfect the art of war. Usually, one of the states eventually manages to conquer all of the others, somewhat like the game of Risk. The end of fighting is such a relief that most people welcome the peace imposed by the winner. However, the lack of political diversity permits the dominant group to impose its 'truth' upon all of the others. Idolatry grows, and cultural preservation flourishes. Gradually, the compensation mechanisms that we have described come into play, and approval conscience becomes twisted. In addition, boredom sets in as cultural preservation succeeds in stifling growth, driving citizens to seek alternate forms of excitement. The resulting combination of warped approval and escapism rots out the core of society. Finally, the veneer of civilization becomes so thin that the whole structure collapses like a house eaten by termites, leaving only a small remnant. This leads to a Dark Age until the next civilization emerges from the rubble.

The decline and fall of a civilization:

·    People either get weary of fighting or else one group conquers the others.

·    The resulting lack of diversity hobbles growth and leads to boredom.

·    People break the rules for excitement or escape to alternate reality.

·    Civilization rots internally and eventually falls apart.

This describes the history of Greek civilization and the Roman Empire. The remnant that survived was the Christian Church, which provided the nucleus for our Western Civilization. Our current world also appears to be following the same path. We are now at the end of the conflict stage and moving into that of universal empire.[AAAAAA] If patterns from history are repeated, then we can look forward in the 21st Century to a worldwide Fascist state followed by societal disintegration.

Civilization and Revelation

The addition of revealed 'truth,' I suggest, has altered this process in two ways.[BBBBBB] First, it has raised the stakes. This is because revealed 'truth' encourages people to develop Perceiver thinking—in the objective. On the one hand, the resulting knowledge helps a civilization to grow further and faster. On the other hand, this same expertise permits a society to fall further and faster by producing deadlier weapons for armies and giving more control to dictators. The beginning and the end, however, remain unchanged.

Second, in addition to raising the stakes, I suggest that revealed 'truth' also makes it possiblefor a society to escape the trap of idolatry. If Perceiver logic can manage to discover general Teacher understanding, then civilization—or at least a remnant within the society—can go through personal transformation and emerge on the other side.

If societal growth is like climbing a mountain, then revealed 'truth' increases the length of the ropes and ladders. This gives the climber a greater chance of finding a ledge on which he can rest on his way up the mountain. But, if he doesn’t find this resting spot, then his fall will be that much greater when the climbing equipment eventually fails. As we have seen, revealed 'truth' has a finite lifetime. Therefore, it is a question of do-or-die. The climber must find a ledge before his equipment dissolves and he plunges to his death below.

According to Toynbee, the opportunity for personal transformation is greatest when a civilization is in the initial stages of its final universal dictatorship. People still remember how to think, a tyranny has not yet wiped out all traces of independent thought, the state of peace permits the flow of ideas, and the end of war encourages people to look for new sources of meaning and significance. Toynbee also states that the main result of this personal transformation is the development of a higher religion. If history is to repeat itself, then the same thing will happen again, today, at the transition to the twenty-first century.

Revealed 'truth' alters the growth of a civilization by raising the stakes.

·    If civilization falls, then the collapse will be much greater.

·    By stretching further, civilization may give birth to something new and higher.

But why religion? What is religion, anyway, how does it become ‘higher,’ and what type of religion could emerge? I suggest that we can use Perceiver logic and Teacher understanding to come up with an answer—but, that analysis must wait for a few more pages.[CCCCCC]

One more point. If the purpose of revealed 'truth' is to serve as a transitional element that guides a population through personal transformation, and if this revealed 'truth' is based in a book, then it is possible to evaluate a Holy Book according to its success in promoting personal transformation. If a specific Holy Book encourages 'believers' to go beyond 'truth' to mature understanding, then we could rate this Book as being ‘right.’ However, if a Holy Book discouraged 'believers' from thinking rationally, and pushed them rather into idolatry, then we could conclude immediately that this Book was ‘wrong.’

Why is an idol-promoting Holy Book ‘wrong’? Because it destroys itself.[DDDDDD] It prevents people from using the thinking that is needed to protect and to appreciate a Holy Book, and it forces its followers to survive mentally by attacking the Holy Book. In contrast, a Holy Book that encourages rational thought can survive over time. Its students learn to study it, and its graduates continue to respect it.

In religious terms, we are looking at the question of eternal salvation. Let us see if we can put a meaning on these connotation words. Suppose that a drowning victim cries out, “Save me, Save me!” What is he asking for? Salvation. He wants to be taken out of the water and brought onto land. Simply put, salvation is taking someone from one place, in this case water, and bringing him to a better place, in this case land. What makes salvation eternal? Its duration. Suppose that our drowning victim finds himself back in the water after a few minutes of resting on land. Obviously his salvation was only temporary. And, temporary, by definition, is not eternal. Similarly, a lifeguard station that operates today and shuts down tomorrow cannot claim to be eternal, for it is there to save people only some of the time—when it has shut down, then they will drown.

Therefore, we conclude that any religion which claims a Holy Book as its ultimate source of 'truth' cannot offer eternal salvation, because after a time, its 'believers' will find themselves ‘back in the water,’ and eventually, its lifeguard stations will shut down.

On the other hand, revealed 'truth,' whatever its form, can play a part in ‘eternal salvation’ if it allows its students to graduate. How does one graduate from revealed 'truth'? That is one the questions which we will be addressing later on in this book.

In Conclusion

The last few pages have probably stirred up some Mercy emotions. If so, then we have succeeded. Remember that we wanted a general Teacher theory that could pull the me of Mercy identification from its mental ‘cradle’ of emotional 'facts' and propel it into the chasm of uncertainty towards the adult world of logical thinking. Therefore, this theory must make emotional 'facts' look horrible, awful, terrible, gross, and so on. Otherwise, we would not feel motivated to grow up.



[A] This book assumes a basic knowledge of cognitive styles. Thus, if you do not know what is meant by ‘Mercy strategy’ or ‘Perceiver thought,’ then you need to read the previous book, along with some of the descriptive material written by Lane Friesen. This is all on the web at

[B] Let me remind you of a convention we adopted in the first volume. A word that is in straight quotes, such as 'truth,' indicates information based in emotional importance. In contrast, words in shaped quotes, such as ‘hold the fort,’ indicate metaphors or illustrations.

[C] We can use flying, walking, and jumping as analogies of personal transformation. From the viewpoint of Teacher thought, the process resembles flying. For the mind as a whole, it is like walking. For Mercy strategy, it sometimes feels like a blind leap into the unknown. Why three different analogies? Because Teacher and Mercy thought each live in their own ‘worlds,’ unable to ‘see’ the rest of the mind. Transformation begins when ‘walking’ reaches a dead end, becomes ‘flying’ as Teacher emotion develops, alters to ‘leaping’ as me changes, and returns to ‘walking’ with a bigger ‘stride’ as Teacher and Mercy feelings come together again.

[D] This section compares the childhood task of programming the me of the physical body with the teenage challenge of reprogramming the me of Mercy identification. Before childhood comes infancy, which gives an initial identity to the me of Mercy identification. Even before that, there is gestation, during which the physical body of the infant is formed. Notice how each stage is more active than the one preceding it. Notice also the general principle of ‘walking,’ in which one me advances at a time. Do further stages exist? That is a question for other books—and future generations.

[E] We will see later that Perceiver facts and Server skills are themselves tied together by Contributor thought.

[F] You can see why this book is a sequel. A person who has not worked his way through Volume I may feel offended by such a blatant attack on his personhood. For such an individual, it is probably better not to read this book. As they say, ignorance is bliss. A general theory with ever-increasing implications acquires the power to make a person miserable, and those who feel bad generally respond by spreading their misery around.

[G] It may sound strange to compare logic with ‘warm’ and emotion with ‘cold.’ But, we are used to seeing things from the viewpoint of Mercy thought, and in today’s world, rational thought is generally associated with a lack of Mercy ‘warmth.’ However, as far as the Perceiver observer is concerned, emotional 'facts' ‘freeze him out,’ whereas logic allows Perceiver strategy to think, move and compare—like a normal, warm-blooded living creature.

[H] Remember that self-image is the set of Perceiver facts which are known about me—and me resides in Mercy thought.

[I] The objective thinker avoids personal emotional involvement. Why? Because he fears that logical thought will not survive an encounter with subjective identity. This indicates that the subjective is the strongest force in his mind, and that this force is irrational. In other words, the me of Mercy identification rules supreme and it is firmly based in emotional 'truth.'

[J] We will see later that there are actually two forms of idolatry.

[K] If religion is idolatrous, then one truly can say that “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”

[L] I defined a pseudo-theory in the previous book. It is a Teacher theory whose generality is artificially inflated by the addition of Mercy feelings.

[M] Remember that a pseudo-culture is a set of Mercy experiences that are given emotional depth by the addition of Teacher order.

[N] While it is a combination of Perceiver facts and Mercy experiences that provides the ‘vision’ of hope, it is Exhorter strategy that drives the circuit. Therefore, it is the Exhorter person who talks the most about hope and vision.

[O] By evil, I mean someone who becomes part of a general system that produces painful Mercy experiences.

[P] Unfortunately, this method achieves personal freedom at the cost of denying me. In contrast, personal transformation attempts to rebuild personal identity.

[Q] In a sense, I am caught between two contradictory requirements. On the one hand, I want to present a unified theory of human thought. Therefore, I try to present a logical and ordered sequence of ideas. On the other hand, I want to show that this theory can be extended into many different areas. Therefore, I continually digress into related topics.

[R] But, the emergence of New Age thinking shows that many people are again using the me of Mercy identification to interact with the natural world.

[S] We saw in the previous book that emotional 'facts,' experts, and approval conscience go together.

[T] Logical thinking in the objective is like building a house upon permafrost in the arctic. If the structure is placed directly upon the ground, then the surface will melt and the house will sink slowly into the liquifying mud. Therefore, it is necessary to place a layer of insulation between the house and the ground. That way the earth remains frozen even as the building is heated. Similarly, the objective thinker can stay rational if his logical side and his irrational emotional core are prevented from coming into direct contact with each other.

[U] Ironically, this also describes the response of the non-'believer.' The typical ‘rational agnostic’ is usually willing to discuss 'faith.' But, he also assumes that to explain is to explain away. Like the 'believer,' he 'knows' that 'faith' and logic do not mix. If you continue to use logic in his midst, then he will eventually reject you for being too dogmatic.

[V] We will see later that blind 'faith' can be transformed into Perceiver confidence if it is tested under pressure and if the 'facts' are compatible with common sense. Like other aspects of transformation, this process involves letting go of idols and experiencing mental disorientation.

[W] This means that the survival rate in this hospital ward was better than average.

[X] Remember that the mind can integrate around either positive or negative experiences. All that is required is sufficiently strong emotion.

[Y] Even today in Germany, the title of ‘Doctor’ is so valued that the wife of a Doctor will call herself ‘Mrs. Doctor…’ (in German, Frau Doktor…)

[Z] Remember that the answer lies in looking for a solution. Sticking our head in the sand or throwing money at the problem are both equally irrational. The problem is, and no amount of blame or denial is going to make it go away. Rather, we have to deal with the issue and discover a solution.

[AA] Exhorter strategy within the average individual finds it exciting to watch the behavior of these extremists, as long as they remain at a safe distance. This voyeuristic fascination provides the audience for the talk shows.

[BB] If Germans, and others, had appealed to conscience in the 1930s, then maybe the whole horror of World War II could have been avoided. Hitler acquired power largely because those who should have spoken up did not.

[CC] Religion defends this contradiction by stating that God blesses those who deny themselves. This is a valid principle; lasting benefits are received only by those who are willing to pay the price. However, if religion really believed in this principle, then it would focus upon the final blessing, rather than the intermediate suffering. And, if it really thought that God was in charge of all human existence, then it would teach that lasting benefits could also be received here and now, and not only in some future, nebulous, other-worldly kingdom.

[DD] Evil can never be defeated by destroying it. That is because destruction itself is evil, and thus the supposed solution becomes part of the problem. Rather, evil must be displaced by good. If good is to triumph, then the ultimate focus must always be upon good and not upon evil.

[EE] In other words, acting can serve a temporary role in growing up. The problem arises when it is given a central or more permanentrole.

[FF] Acting can support identity if my stage character is an expression of me, or if the goal of my acting is to build and develop me. Similarly, the contradiction in fighting would be removed if one used a weapon that was built upon integrity and that did not destroy it—the pen, for instance, rather than the sword.

[GG] A similar problem arises when a person or company tries to pursue rational thinking within an atmosphere of emotional 'truth.' Logical solutions will only succeed if they are ‘marketed’ properly, forcing most innovators either to abandon adult thinking or fail. This also is an illustration of ‘black is white.’

[HH] Medical researchers are discovering that being a world-class athlete has become hazardous to one’s health—apart from the obvious health risk associated with taking performance enhancing drugs. That is because being the very best now requires pushing the physical body beyond the edge of its capabilities. This is what happens when you spend all of your time and energy focusing upon one sliver of reality while ignoring the rest of life.

[II] We will see later that horrible things happen when the two me’s bring together the internal and the external worlds in such a way.

[JJ] Notice that the progression takes the form of mental 'walking'—alternately changing the me of the physical body and the me of Mercy identification. Except, in this case, the steps are all backwards, into heightened immaturity and insanity.

[KK] We will see later that this personal cruelty does not emerge out of a vacuum. Instead, it is a natural expansion of ‘civilized’ thinking and operating.

[LL] Notice what is happening with the two me’s. The me of the physical body is being convinced by reasonableness provided by a false external environment, while the me of Mercy identification is being warped by emotional pressure from society. But, the artificial external environment is being created by societal leaders. Therefore, it is as if the legs of the ‘body’ are tied together by shackles. Because no one with a conscience is appealing to the me of Mercy identification, other groups eventually have to intervene militarily and impose sanity upon the me of the physical body, breaking the chains and restoring the ability to walk.

[MM] Along with the Europeans came missionaries like David Livingstone who often did try to ‘save’ the natives. Their emphasis on religious experiences caused them to question facts about external differences and to look for internal similarities.

[NN] We will see later when we look at MBTI® that this situation describes the blending of a T/F split with N/S integration. This combination is great for society but hard on the individual. For those of you who are unfamiliar with MBTI®, the letters stand for Myers-Brigg’s Type Indicator. MBTI® is a very popular system of personality types used primarily in business.

[OO] In the previous book we saw that a 'belief' that I am different from another person ‘bombs’ my conscience and allows me to mistreat that person without feeling guilty. Thus, any concept of a ‘distinct society’ is very dangerous and leads naturally to an abuse of other groups.

[PP] The me of Mercy identification is based upon Mercy feelings. Therefore, such a society ignores this me and uses hypnosis to replace internal integration with external structure. Thus, civilization replaces the individual.

[QQ] This wandering path is the result of an orbit that is closer to the sun than the orbit of the earth. Therefore, sometimes Venus is an ‘evening star,’ other times it is a ‘morning star,’ and for several weeks in between it completely disappears from view.

[RR] It is interesting to note that slavery in Brazil was especially nasty, even worse than in the Southern States. In Brazil, slaves were expected to die after a few years, and plantation owners worked the average lifespan of a slave into their financial calculations.

[SS] The Latin and ‘Protestant’ countries of the West seem to externalize the split between a me of the physical body based in logic and a me of Mercy identification that is stuck in childhood. The ‘Protestant’ countries emphasize the me of the physical body. They excel at manipulating the external world through science and technology but have problems enjoying themselves. The Latin countries, in contrast, live within the me of Mercy identification. They at least know how to feel, but their technology isn’t always the best and they keep tripping over their idols.

[TT] Recall that we saw the symbiosis between emotional 'truth' and physical environment in the section titled The Vicious Circle of Suffering.

[UU] Huh? If multiculturalism requires the rule of law, then how can multiculturalism be used to support idols, which by their very nature attack rational thinking. Exactly. This means that there can only be a temporary relationship between idolatry and multiculturalism. Eventually one will destroy the other. In other words, Canadian multiculturalism is only possible as long as a majority of Canadians follow logical thinking and permit a minority of citizens to cling to their respective idols. If an idol-worshipping minority ever gains the upper hand, then multiculturalism will suffer a quick demise. That is because those who worship idols loathe the very idea of the ‘liberal secular’ thinking that makes multiculturalism possible.

[VV] Remember that any Mercy experience with sufficiently strong emotions will become a new defining experience that mesmerizes Perceiver thought with a new set of 'facts.'

[WW] The concept of revealed 'truth' will be discussed extensively.

[XX] Judaism, for historical reasons, had a special dispensation not to sacrifice to the emperor. It was a constant ‘thorn in the flesh’ for the Roman Empire (to use a metaphor originally from Pharasaical Judaism). Jews longed to have their own spiritual leader who would free them from the ‘godless’ emperor in Rome.

[YY] Science claims that everything subjective can ultimately be understood objectively. How then does the average scientist react to this material, which objectively explains the subjective? He should see it as a great victory. Instead, he retreats behind a screen of ‘specialization.’ First, he will claim that this is not his field. If push comes to shove, and he is forced to admit that it is his field, then he will state that he is not qualified to evaluate it. In this way, he avoids directly denying his assertion that the subjective can be objectively understood—while at the same time maintaining the division between subjective and objective.

[ZZ] When we look at MBTI®, we will see that this describes the Thinking/Feeling split.

[AAA] Any diaspora, such as the Jewish people, experiences societal pressure that encourages mental development. Therefore, these people will turn naturally to business and other professional activities, as an expression of higher thought.

[BBB] The previous book described the Mercy dictator. Perceivers can also make good dictators. They think that they are sharing truth with others, but in reality they are only imposing their personality upon the opposition. My experience is that the ‘dictator’ is removed from the Perceiver person only if he is forced to coexist for an extended period of time with perceived injustice.

[CCC] Because 'truth' is defined by emotional Mercy experiences, reinforcing these experiences will clarify the 'facts.'

[DDD] In Quebec, a province of Canada, nationalism also emerged when the Catholic church lost its hold upon society.

[EEE] Physical hegemony imposes external order-within-complexity. This generates Teacher emotion which reinforces the original defining experiences with new and improved pseudo-defining experiences. It is thus self-perpetuating.

[FFF] How did these two me’s suddenly enter into the picture? Patience, we will answer that question in a moment. First we must describe the various pieces. Then we will put them together.

[GGG] This vulnerability shows the contradiction inherent in emotional 'truth.' If this 'truth' really were absolute, then it would be independent of time and place. But, emotionally based 'belief' can remain ‘universal’ only as long as certain specific Mercy objects and rituals remain unchanged.

[HHH] Later on in the book, we will distinguish between idolatry and holiness. The key difference is that idolatry fixates upon certain items, whereas holiness builds walls between various items. These two go hand-in-hand. Idolatry fixates upon something and holiness separates this item from normal existence.

[III] This rigidity and persecution is still present. At time of writing, the Russian Orthodox church is trying to get the Russian government to pass laws restricting the rights of other religions.

[JJJ] Because secular thought has eaten away at much of the content of religion, and because religion has found itself struggling for its very survival, the 'beliefs' that are re-emerging in our current post-Christian world are not the same as those which disappeared. This has major religious implications.

[KKK] This does not mean that truth has nothing to do with experience. Perceiver facts can be learned from Mercy experiences and gain confidence as they survive emotional pressure. However, it is always possible to use logic to describe and analyze these facts. Idolatry, in contrast, never allows 'facts' to become independent of either Mercy experiences or emotions.

[LLL] Because of this fundamental similarity, it is impossible to separate school and religion. School, by its very nature, is a form of religious education. It has its priesthood, its acolytes, its temples, its rituals and its Holy Books. Therefore, when people say that they want to keep religion out of the schools, they really mean that they want to keep other religions out of the schools.

[MMM] I say that most university knowledge is fairly accurate. According to what standard? I suggest that only those who graduate from revealed 'truth' will be able to answer this question.

[NNN] There may be more than one Holy Book, or even books with varying degrees of holiness. However, all questions of 'belief' will ultimately be referred back to the words of a single book.

[OOO] The strength of this assumption becomes evident when a rational thinker paraphrases the words and separates the principles from their verbal source.

[PPP] The Christian Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. All English versions are translations from these original languages. The King James Version was first published in England in 1611.

[QQQ] Perceiver strategy plays a critical role in reading comprehension.

[RRR] According to our previous discussions about schizophrenia, this is an example of Perceiver schizophrenia. Therefore, a Perceiver person would work most easily with revealed 'truth,' and would make a good theologian. Conscious control of Perceiver thought allows him to jump between facts and 'facts.' Reasonableness tells him when to think and when to worship.

[SSS] A Holy Book can be discussed extensively if it is analyzed in a foreign language that is used only for religious topics. This provides an intellectual buffer zone between religious 'truth' and secular truth—and also ensures that religious 'truth' does not apply to real life.

[TTT] The religious person sees skepticism as a ‘cold heart.’ However, if personal transformation is truly possible, then a ‘warm heart’ is regained on the other side.

[UUU] In this case, I suggest that we are looking at a Mercy form of schizophrenia. This is because Mercy strategy is responding inconsistently to emotional Mercy experiences. Our study of historical biographies indicates that the Mercy person finds it easy to become ‘spiritually’ sensitive. I suggest that this is because he can skip consciously between worshipping the external Mercy experiences that define revealed 'truth' and savoring the internal Mercy images which result from these Perceiver 'beliefs.'

[VVV] Even the ‘hard’ sciences are still partially based in ‘holy books’ and revealed 'truth.' For example, the theories of Newton provide the ‘holy book’ for classical physics, and Maxwell’s equations hold together classical electromagnetics.

[WWW] We are now experiencing a backlash, as people reject logical thinking in favor of New Age mumbo-jumbo, environmental worship, and other forms of subjective irrationalism. However, that is another story.

[XXX] In idolatry and other forms of Mercy importance, this vulnerability reveals itself as a struggle between finite and infinite. We will examine this conflict in the next book.

[YYY] Remember that this is a consequence of indirect idolatry and the need for partial freedom from Perceiver mesmerism.

[ZZZ] Why? Because it will suppress dissidents by denying logic and exalting Mercy importance. This will establish taboos and reinforce holy objects, events and people.

[AAAA] It was during this time that the first modern encyclopaedia was written, in France.

[BBBB] Later on, we will see that revealed 'truth' leads to a T/F split.

[CCCC] Why? Because it was the school from which they graduated. Of course, if they ‘graduate’ by ‘dropping out’ of school, then they may not think so highly of their alma mater.

[DDDD] Our look at revealed 'truth' has implied that ‘revelation’ can come equally from religious books, school textbooks, or government publications. Therefore, I suggest that secular education is actually a misnomer. Revealed 'truth,' in all of its forms, and by its very nature, contains personal emotional overtones, and these are inevitably expressed in religious terms. If one religion distances itself from education, then another set of religious 'beliefs' soon steps in to fill the void. Thus, a discussion of revealed 'truth' must include the religious dimension.

[EEEE] But how can a religion not be rooted in either idolatry or emotional 'truth'? Ah, by asking this question, I indicate that I am either an ex-student of revealed 'truth' struggling to distance myself from my school, or else a religious scholar trying to protect myself from ex-students. I suggest that a better way is possible.

[FFFF] As we shall see later, religious 'belief' adds general Teacher understanding to Perceiver 'truth,' and Teacher theories are even more general than Perceiver 'beliefs.'

[GGGG] Notice that we are actually dealing here with two different conflicts between specific and general. The first involves Mercy thought. Idolatry is explicitly rooted in specific Mercy experiences; revealed 'truth' is implicitly based in Mercy experts. The second problem is with Teacher thought. By hallowing the words of a specificbook, revealed 'truth' becomes explicitly linked to Teacher specifics. This section is examining the Mercy implications. Later on, we will be looking at the Teacher connections.

[HHHH] Remember that the problem is not with religious content, but rather with the way in which this content is being studied. Maybe some Holy Book really is the ‘Word of God.’ However, if I approach this book from the viewpoint of emotional 'truth,' then my understanding of it will remain limited and, as we shall see later, warped.

[IIII] Thus, for instance, ‘secular’ educators may actually believe that education is secular, even as they silently use their majority position to ram their religious 'beliefs' down the throats of their students and the opposition.

[JJJJ] Recently, Canada hosted an international conference for governmental ministers of culture. The United States was not invited because it has no cultural minister. As the dominant world culture, it does not need one.

[KKKK] As I mentioned earlier, multiculturalism is not a stable religion. Eventually, it is replaced by the idols of its most vocal minorities.

[LLLL] Since then, this decision has come under question.

[MMMM] I know that most of my religious examples come from North American Protestantism. One reason is that this is the religious culture with which I am most familiar. However, because the United States is the dominant world power, and because Protestant 'faith' has historically been the prevailing mindset of this country, I feel justified in concentrating upon this thinking. Besides, it is hard to find a purer example of revealed 'truth.'

[NNNN] I am speaking in general terms. There are Protestants who do defend truth in valid ways by standing up for Perceiver logic and pointing out principles of cause and effect. However, these individuals, and their message, are overshadowed by the behavior of the majority.

[OOOO] We are looking here at the separation between church and state. We will examine this distinction later in the book and see how it develops from the split between objective and subjective.

[PPPP] This idea of objective ‘shell’ and subjective ‘core’ explains the illustration of Germany and Russia given in the previous book. In Germany, the objective shell is fairly large and governs most of public life. However, a subjective core still exists. It may be limited in extent, but where it rules, it is definitely in charge. In contrast, Russian culture gives far more freedom to the subjective core. Here it is the objective shell that is restricted to regions of professionalism and technical expertise.

[QQQQ] The implication is that very few individuals have experienced personal transformation. Those who do usually learn through the secondary path of suffering and not through patience.

[RRRR] We will see later on that an objective/subjective split leads to social transformation, in which society improves while people remain unchanged. Because people are not included in this process, the results become inhuman.

[SSSS] The Muslim suicide bomber is therefore mentally dependent upon the very things that he is attempting to destroy. When he comes into contact with the rational thinking of the Western secular world, this ‘wakes up’ Perceiver strategy in his mind. He is then able to approach Islam as a system of revealed 'truth,' triggering all the mental side effects associated with revealed 'truth.' It is these side effects, I suggest, that provoke his behavior.

[TTTT] In addition, the sudden riches of Arab oil money allowed many Muslim countries to make an external transition from traditional to technological civilization in a very short period of time. This produced a societal juxtaposition of universal blind 'faith' and widespread technological progress. The result is an extreme case of ‘revealed 'truth'’-itis.

[UUUU] We are not looking here at graduating from revealed 'truth,' nor at a situation of revelation backsliding into idolatry. Instead, we are examining what happens when the paradox of revealed 'truth' manages to perpetuate itself.

[VVVV] We will examine the mental mechanism behind tolerance and fairness when we look at Facilitator optimization. This section will describe the effects of these two ways of thinking. Later on we will have the tools that are needed to analyze this.

[WWWW] We will look at these fragments when we discuss MBTI®.

[XXXX] We discussed some of these points in the first volume. Notice that we are actually referring to the conflict between the me of the physical body and the me of Mercy identification.

[YYYY] We will see later than Teacher and Perceiver thought cooperate to generate abstract thought.

[ZZZZ] In environmental circles today, even the concept of ‘human’ is deemed to be unfair. Therefore, fairness is applied to every being which occupies a physical body.

[AAAAA] Fairness is often the motivation for socialism. However, socialism goes beyond fairness and replaces the individual with the group. This leads to institutions, bureaucracies, and social programs.

[BBBBB] Notice that I said many, not all.

[CCCCC] Remember that we are looking at a situation in which objective thought is rational. This will create the climate for a capitalist economy in which people can make money by respecting law and order and by pursuing opportunity.

[DDDDD] If I had been born and raised anywhere other than in Western Canada, I never would have done my research on the mind. Its combination of common sense, material wealth, positive outlook, weak cultural ties, and a relative lack of ‘superiority complex’ appears to be unique. As far as I can tell, every other place on earth has distractions that would prevent a person from making the necessary breakthroughs. This does not mean that Western Canada will apply this understanding or even necessarily benefit from it. If you look at history, you find that it is common for a discovery to be made in one place and then utilized in another.

[EEEEE] Until now, the demands of Quebec have focused upon verbal issues—the domain of Teacher thought and revealed 'truth.' Quebec passes restrictive laws to protect its language, tries to control the language in which its children are taught, and attempts to have its distinct status enshrined in the country’s constitution. This suggests that the subjective is at the level of revealed 'truth' and has not degraded into pure idolatry.

[FFFFF] It appears that Quebec itself does not subscribe to the doctrine of fairness. However, Canada as a whole does try to apply fairness to Quebec.

[GGGGG] At the end of the 18th Century, France went through the French Revolution and rebelled against this tyranny of church and king. By this time, though, Quebec was under British rule, and the British had a policy of allowing local culture to continue.

[HHHHH] On the other hand, some people are beginning to see that the only long-term solution involves the universal application of the rule of law. Will this hard-earned Perceiver knowledge be sufficient? I do not know.

[IIIII] Atlantic Canada does have some culture. It has also suffered the stultifying effects of decades of government handouts.

[JJJJJ] For several decades, Native children attended ‘residential schools,’ which taught them Western thinking and culture. Unfortunately, the objective bias of Western society ended up suppressing Native ‘spirituality’ without providing an alternative. (In some cases, Native students were abused by their teachers.) As a result, today’s Native population has no emotional absolutes and suffers from a bad self-image. In response, Natives have made a religion out of Native culture and blame the residential schools for their problems.

[KKKKK] A response that illustrates the intolerance of so-called tolerance.

[LLLLL] But, didn’t ‘the White Man’ abuse ‘Natives’ and steal their land? In a sense, yes. However, if a tribal society practices hunting and gathering, does it truly own its land? How can I ownland if I am a member of a tribe and not an individual? And, how can I claim ownership if I lack the skills needed to make use of my property?So, in a sense, also no. In the same way that the old me with its basis in Mercy importance is incompatible with the new me and its foundation of Perceiver confidence, so it is impossible to apply tribal thinking to land that has been subdivided and improved. Again we see a combination of ‘warm hands’ and ‘cold heart.’

[MMMMM] Remember that revealed 'truth' can refer to religious 'truth,' primary and high school learning, university education, and government laws.

[NNNNN] This attitude began with the French revolution and became official policy after the First World War. However, it was only universally accepted in response to the racism of German Nazism.

[OOOOO] We will look at the connection between tribalism and magical thinking near the end of the book.

[PPPPP] Nobody would choose to continue living in a culture that was totally bad.

[QQQQQ] Notice that I refer to lasting suffering and long-term pleasure. As we know, the path to lasting benefit often leads through temporary hardship.

[RRRRR] It is still possible for personal and societal growth to occur accidentally, as colliding forces maneuver the mind from one state to another.

[SSSSS] Were the individuals of this society born superior? Of course not. Instead, their culture forced them to reach a higher level of mental maturity. Similarly, if their culture no longer promotes mental development,, then the individuals of this society will no longer be superior.

[TTTTT] We will look at societal transformation in a few pages.

[UUUUU] Western culture itself has not always permitted personal freedom. Instead, personal wealth and happiness were gained as Western society broke free of its shackles of cultural bondage and government dictatorship.

[VVVVV] I recommend the one volume condensation of A Study of History (the original work was in ten volumes). It is a large book with lots of pretty pictures. It also contains the final version of Toynbee’s theory.

[WWWWW] In other words, mental and societal growth require Perceiver confidence. Idolatry and revealed 'truth' can stimulate this growth if they help Perceiver thought to develop.

[XXXXX] We are looking here at gut feelings, not verbal labels or conscious choices. This is because we are dealing with a society rooted in idolatry, in which raw Mercy feeling determines mental processing.

[YYYYY] As Perceiver thought grows in confidence, it becomes possible for Perceiver strategy to build connections of cause and effect between good and bad Mercy experiences: This good experience will lead to a bad consequence, or this bad experience will end up with a good result. Similarly, Mercy strategy becomes willing to accept that essentially no experience is totally evil or totally good.

[ZZZZZ] It is interesting to note that Western Civilization has revived the Greek Olympic Games. Every four years, we lay down our political differences and meet in peace for athletic competitions. This media extravaganza provides a defining experience that helps bind us together emotionally.

[AAAAAA] Today’s empires are not all political. Instead, we are also seeing worldwide corporate empires along with global entertainment.

[BBBBBB] Western Civilization turned to religious revealed 'truth' during the Reformation and discovered secular revelation during the Renaissance.

[CCCCCC] The next book will focus upon this question.

[DDDDDD] In other words, truth is. Any Perceiver connection which can survive over time is true. We introduced this definition of truth in the previous volume. Saying it differently, truth is internally self-consistent.