What's New?


MicroscopeHigher Thought and Lower Motives Part 4




Teacher Idolatry

Science and Holiness

Holiness and MBTI®

S/N Holiness and Mercy Idolatry

Blaspheming Holiness


The Next Holiness?

Drugs and Internal Decay

In Conclusion

State Defined Holiness

The End of Science

Capitalism and Big Business


“Growing Wings”

Rejecting a Rational ‘God’

The Real Issues


Sex—An Example of Patience

Personal Transformation through Suffering

The Cul de Sac of Denial

Buddhism and Denial

The Dead End of Bitterness

An Overview of Facilitator Thought

Local Optimization

Karma and Suffering

Suffering and Contributor Thought

Bitterness and ‘God’

Tolerance and Fairness Explained

Why Suffer?

Relative Suffering

Imposed Relative Suffering


Suffering and the Five ‘Whammies’

Idolatry and the Five ‘Whammies’

Revealed 'Truth' and the Five ‘Whammies’

MBTI® and the Five ‘Whammies’

The Five Whammies and Me

Anger and Personal Transformation

‘God’ and the Fifth ‘Whammy’



Copyright © 2010, Lorin Friesen


We have looked at many aspects of scientific thought and have seen how they interact with society. Let us now focus upon the moment at which science was born. Specifically, who were the ‘parents’ of science and how did this ‘couple’ come together? Of course, because we are dealing with an imaginary ‘child,’ we shall have to begin by defining exactly what it means for something like science to be ‘born.’ Once we have finished examining these ‘family details,’ we will then see more clearly how the birth of science impacted social and personal transformation.

Like any family story, this one requires some background explanation. In essence, we are looking at the issue of intellectual growth. We have seen that emotional 'truth' can stimulate societal growth, at the price of personal conflict. Similarly, I suggest that intellectual growth that is rooted in emotional 'truth' leads inevitably to intellectual conflict. This intellectual struggle arises because thinking and 'truth' find themselves on opposite sides of the Perceiver threshold of uncertainty.[A]

Let us look again at the reasons for this conflict. On the one hand, 'truth' and 'facts' are defined by emotional experiences. Therefore, whenever 'belief' falters, people look for some great leader, massive rally, awesome event, or other type of defining experience that can help them to 'know' again what is 'true.' This strong emotion attacks Perceiver confidence and makes it more difficult for people to think rationally.

On the other hand, when rational thought feels under pressure, it tends to react by emphasizing raw Perceiver logic. However, this focus upon Perceiver facts and reasonableness will minimize emotional content, calling into question 'truth' and its foundation of defining experiences. Therefore, culture and religion feel threatened by rational thought, even as thinking tries to disencumber itself from what it views as the shackles of culture and religion. Because of this pressure, rational thinking becomes ‘secular,’ as opposed to ‘religious.’

I suggest that it is this conflict between ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ thought which is the key factor in the birth of science. We have looked at the requirements for science and seen that rational thought can be developed either by observing the external world or by digesting revealed 'truth.' Thus, either ‘religious’ education or ‘secular’ observation can introduce a student to scientific thought. But, what about birthing science itself—starting scientific progress when people don’t even know that such a thing is possible. Are both of these methods equally effective? No. Rather, I suggest that this birthing will only occur if there is a very specific crossover between religious and secular thought. In other words, ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ thought become the two ‘parents’ of science.

A conflict between religious and secular is a key factor in the birth of science.

Let me explain. In essence, science is a search for universal understanding driven by Teacher emotions. It believes that specific events in the natural world can be explained by a general Teacher theory. The average pre-scientific person observing his external environment will not stumble across Teacher generalities. Why? Because he is focusing upon the use of Server force to manipulate specific Mercy situations.[B] He simply cannot see the forest for the trees.

Generality, however, is part of religion—which teaches that a general Person called ‘God’ is responsible for all specific situations. Thus we conclude that the birth of science must begin with religion.

Revealed 'truth' may be great for introducing the idea of Teacher generality, but it is not good at working out the implications of this concept. This is because of the very nature of revelation. In order to 'believe' in revealed 'truth,' one must feel that the source of this 'truth' is far more significant than any experiences associated with me or with my personal environment. Therefore, a religious thinker may 'believe' that universal Teacher understanding exists, and may even use Perceiver logic to analyze this understanding, but he will not dare to use this thinking to decipher the natural world.[C] First, he feels that he lacks the emotional significance to think for himself. Second, he thinks that his physical environment is unimportant. Third, as far as he is concerned, he already has access to the ultimate source of all 'truth.' Why does he need to search around for any more 'truth' if he is convinced that anything he finds will of necessity be inferior to that which he already possesses?

Teacher Idolatry

What lies behind this third point is Teacher idolatry. Normal idolatry builds the mind around specific Mercy objects and experiences. In contrast, revealed 'truth' idolizes specific Teacher words. The 'believer' may be willing to attach Perceiver meanings to these words, and might even accept that these Perceiver facts apply to many different Mercy experiences. But, he is unwilling to allow his supposedly universal Perceiver truths to become free of the specific Teacher words of his Holy Book.

Mercy idolatry builds my mind around specific Mercy objects, experiences, and people.

Teacher idolatry builds my mind around specific Teacher words, sentences, and books.

Before we go on, I suggest that you re-read the previous paragraph. So far, this book has implicitly assumed that all idolatry involves Mercy experiences. Now I am suggesting that idolatry actually comes in two different flavors, one rooted in specific Mercy experiences and the other in specific Teacher words.

Why have I waited until now to talk explicitly about Teacher idolatry? Because of the nature of ‘modern’ society. Those who work with words, such as educators, clergy, lawyers, philosophers, bureaucrats, and government officials, pride themselves on their role in delivering ‘the common people’ from the ‘dark ages of barbarism.’ While these intellectual leaders may admit to ‘occasional lapses back into idolatry,’ they like to think that their use of words frees them from the emotional attachment which the childish mind has to experiences, objects, and people. And, they are right. Word-based education plays a major role in freeing us from Mercy idolatry. But, it does this by replacing one form of idolatry with another.

So, is Teacher idolatry equivalent to Mercy idolatry? No. Because of the nature of our external surroundings, it is far better for humans to hold on to Teacher words than to idolize Mercy experiences. It takes mental content to exalt words. In contrast, emotional experiences can be ‘sucked in’ straight from the environment. However, if one wants to reach full mental maturity, then one must let go of all idols—both Mercy experiences and Teacher words.

Mercy idolatry protects itself through Mercy taboos. Similarly, Teacher idolatry exhibits itself as a lack of intellectual curiosity. This absence of curiosity only becomes apparent when the Perceiver truths described by a Holy Book are associated withother Teacher words and theories. Theoretically, Perceiver absolutes are facts which apply equally to all situations. But, the 'believer' who idolizes his Holy Book is not willing to consider this possibility. When faced with a choice between his Teacher specifics and his Perceiver absolutes, he chooses to exalt words over truth.[D]

Mercy idolatry protects itself through taboos.

Teacher idolatry preserves itself with a lack of curiousity.

This describes, almost without exception, the response that I have received from Christian 'believers.' They claim to trust in the Bible. Most, if not all, of the key concepts in our theory can be found in the Bible. You would think that a modern citizen who 'believes' in the Bible would be delighted to encounter a scientific theory which appears to validate his 'doctrines.' He isn’t. Why? Because the connection is a Perceiver one instead of a Teacher one. Rather than quoting specific words from the Bible, I am using the theory of mental symmetry to work out facts which happen to be Perceiver similar to the doctrines contained within the Bible. In other words—and I really do mean in other words—I am using different Teacher words to describe similar Perceiver ideas.[E] Because I use the ‘wrong’ verbal source, anything I say is automatically called into question by the ‘Bible believing Christian,’ regardless of my actual Perceiver content. This almost universal response has led me to conclude that most ‘Christians’ are Teacher ‘idolators’ who only claim to believe in universal moral truth. In actual fact, they exalt the words of the Bible, and are only willing to accept truth to the extent that it preserves this intellectual idolatry.[F]

Science and Holiness

Now, imagine a society, such as Western Europe in the Middle Ages, that is dominated by this type of book-based scholasticism. If science is to emerge, then, somehow, mental attention must be drawn from ‘heaven’ to earth—from revelation to sensation. And what can accomplish this? Secular thought, because it ignores ‘God’ and the hereafter and focuses upon sensation and the here-and-now.[G]

Therefore, we conclude that science can be forced to emerge only if society rebels from religion and embraces the secular world. First, this causes peoples’ attention to move from the iNtuition of revealed 'truth' to the Sensing of the physical world.[H] Second, individuals who are no longer under the mental cloud of an ‘Almighty God’ can revolt from religious self-denial and begin to think and act selfishly.

Science was born when society rebelled from religion and embraced secular thought.

This is precisely what happened during the Renaissance. People ceased to be mesmerized by religion and began to think for themselves. The result was the ‘renaissance man.’ However, this godless, personal rebellion came from a mental foundation which assumedthat universal Teacher understanding existed as taught by religion, but which also now assumed that people should look beyond their subjective feelings and focus upon their environment. This combination allowed science to be born.[I]

Notice the various levels of requirements that were needed to begin science. First, the four requirements involving Perceiver logic and Teacher/Server ‘glue’ had to be met, and the four accompanying roadblocks overcome. Second, there had to be both a religious and a secular stream of thought. Third, religion needed to be initially dominant, and then the secular had to take over.

How does one make religion dominant? By ensuring that the church is more powerful than the state.[J] How can one make sure that religion is associated with universals? By having a universal[K] church—a single organization that dominates all of society. How can one get people to rebel from this church? Well, remember that the church does not have secular power. Instead, it operates through conscience and moral authority. Thus, if people are to rebel from a church, then it must become morally reprehensible. It must be ruled by a ‘bunch of hypocrites’ who deserve no respect.

These characteristics describe the history of the Renaissance. Before that time, the Catholic Church defined Western Christendom. But, it became so corrupt that its followers turned away from it in disgust. However, they still thought in terms of a universal church and a single God. Thus, they discovered science.

But why did they have to abandon religion in favor of science? Why couldn’t these two be combined? Because of the MBTI® splits. Religion is rooted in Feeling. Its revealed 'truth' has its source in Mercy emotions, and it interprets the resulting general Teacher understanding in terms of subjective Mercy experiences. In contrast, modern science is objective. It avoids Mercy feeling and limits itself to Perceiver thinking. The two lie on opposite sides of the T/F split.

How can one tell when the transition from religious to secular thought has been followed to its logical conclusion? When science deniesthe existence of God. It does not matter whether God actually exists. The point is that if a religious society believes in the existence of God, discovers science, and then insists that God does not exist, this indicates the end of a process. Thinking and the remnants of Feeling are now completely separate.

A T/F split separates facts from experiences. It causes people to deny that facts can be used to describe emotional experiences. In contrast, a P/J separation rebels from the facts, because it asserts that excitement is found outside of the facts. Therefore, if a society had accepted the relationship between T and F and then discovered science, then instead of denying the existenceof God, it would have rebelled from Him.

A T/F split leads to denial.

A P/J separation is associated with rebellion.

Why is this distinction between denial and rebellion so important? Because of the relationship between social and personal transformation. If a society integrates S/N while keeping T/F separated, it is pursuing only social transformation. And, we have already seen that this combination is very hard on the individual. Why? Because it continually transforms the corporate at the expense of the individual. Thus, as long as we live as humans within physical bodies, it is rather essential for us to follow paths which preserve our humanity.

So, where are we today? Well, do we believe in the existence of God? Generally speaking, no. Even those who claim to believe in Him usually act as if He does not exist. Do we acknowledge that modern science and technology were seeded by Western Christianity? No. In fact, Western society is doing its best to exorcise all memories of its Christian past. Almost every day, my local newspaper describes another example of people, organizations, or government suppressing traditional Christian belief. As a civilization, we are practicing historical genocide.

In fact, Western intellectual history for the past four hundred years can only be described as a progressive denial of religion. In almost every situation, science has grown at the expense of 'faith.' As much as possible, it has denied a belief in God and has replaced the image of a Deity with an impersonal, secular, godless, general Teacher understanding. Then, it has done its best to excommunicate and belittle any who dare to breathe the traditional name of God.

But who cares about God, old-fashioned 'faith,' and religion? That, I suggest, is the wrong question. What really matters is that this history of denial indicates the presence of a profound T/F split. The fact is that Christian religion was one the parents who gave birth to science and science has responded by disowning, torturing and killing this parent. Such blatant mental suppression, if practiced on a real person, would generate headline coverage in our newspapers.

But why is the T/F split so strong? I suggest that we are dealing here with the issue of idolatry versus universal understanding. Mercy idolatry, on the one hand, is rooted in MBTI® Feeling, builds the mind around defining emotional experiences, and insists that these Mercy icons be preserved at all cost.[L] Revealed 'truth' adds a Holy Book to this mixture, allowing Mercy icons to give emotional status to the specific Teacher words of a specific book. The result is Teacher idolatry, based upon an assumed foundation of Mercyidolatry. When universal Teacher understanding demands that idolatry let go of its specific Teacher words, revealed 'truth' refuses, for these words are based in an emotional Mercy source for which there is no alternative.

Universal understanding, on the other hand, is held together by the Teacher feelings provided by a general Teacher theory. However, modern science, with its MBTI® Thinking and objective logic, has built its universal understanding by following a process that suppresses Mercy feelings. Thus, it refuses to analyze the specific words of a Holy Book because it feels that they are incurably tainted with Mercy emotions.

This dichotomy between Mercy-based revelation and Teacher-based universal understanding allows us to pin-point the ‘birth’ of science. Its coming to ‘life,’ I suggest, was indicated by a transfer of mental integration from Mercy to Teacher thought.[M]

Science came to life when mental integration shifted from Mercy to Teacher thought.

·    This occurred when Isaac Newton published The Principia.

When you examine the history of science, you find that it is divided into a pre- and post-Newtonian era. Why? Because Isaac Newton developed a universal theory of science. Before him, science was just a collection of Perceiver facts. After him, it was a growing, integrated understanding.

Holiness and MBTI®

We have seen that idolatry comes in two different flavors. Mercy idolatry takes specific Mercy objects and experiences and makes them the emotional source of mental integration. Teacher idolatry, in contrast, builds the mind around specific Teacher words. Because the human body is only capable of sensing Mercy emotions, Mercy idolatry is the more fundamental of these two.[N] Physical pain and pleasure can be used to give emotional strength directly to specific Mercymemories. In contrast, Teacher idolatry must operate indirectly, by using Mercy feelings to give emotional status to objects and people which are then associated with specific Teacher words.

We have also learned that holiness comes in more than one form. What types of holiness are possible? I suggest that the answer can be found within MBTI®. Holy, by definition, means ‘separate’ or ‘special.’ Because MBTI® describes the four most fundamental splits that exist within the human psyche, I suggest that each MBTI® division corresponds to one possible form of holiness. The MBTI® categories outline the types of mental ‘life’ that emerge when individuals meet the minimum requirements for become ‘alive’ inside. Similarly, I suggest that holiness is also a symptom of incomplete mental development.

The word holiness means separation.

·    MBTI® describes the four fundamental separations—or forms of holiness—that occur.

What type of holiness is present today? I suggest that we already know the answer to this question. The one split that pervades all of modern existence is the division between Thinking and Feeling. Thus, modern man follows T/F holiness. In contrast, I suggest that the ancient world subscribed to a totally different form of holiness.

For the Greeks and Jews, holiness was defined by the split between S and N. Before Copernicus and Galileo came on the scene, people used to think that the earth was governed by different rules than the sky, the planets and the heavens. For instance, Aristotle taught that the earth was the center of the universe, and that it was a realm of imperfection in which objects moved in straight lines. Outer space, in contrast, he viewed as a realm of perfection and he thought that all planets and stars moved in ‘perfect’ circles. That was his Teacher theory of the universe.

Today, the T/F division is regarded as holy.

In Greek times, the S/N split was holy.

This theory flowed naturally from the Greek view of holiness. In the eyes of the Greeks, the gods were superhumans who spent much of their time within the visible world. Therefore, it was natural for the Greeks to conclude that the surface of the earth belonged to humans—because it could be reached by humans, whereas the part of the visible universe that was inaccessible to the average mortal was the realm of the gods. Even today, the planets are still named after Greek gods. Thus, Sensing could be analyzed, but iNtuition—defined as anything beyond human ability—belonged to holiness and the gods.

The Jews had a similar view. Everything that went beyond their Sensing world was, in their minds, connected with God. First, they believed that God had given them instructions on how to act by speaking to Moses from heaven. Second, they believed that they were a special people, called by God. In other words, the corporate extension of their personal Sensing world connected to God. Third, they believed that God directed the course of their national history by supernaturally intervening in their Sensing world. Thus, the temporalextension of their Sensing lives also belonged to God.

A similar view of S and N was held by other civilizations of that time. Leaders were generally considered to be gods.[O] The Egyptians, for instance, built huge pyramids to ensure the immortality of their god-pharoahs. Sumerian attendants were buried with their kings. Likewise, China worshipped its ancestors and eventually turned the concept of god-leader into the philosophy of Confucianism.

Now imagine trying to bridge Sensing and iNtuition in such an atmosphere. Anyone who dared to integrate the two would be accused of blasphemy. If those who served their ‘gods’ died with them, imagine what would have happened to those who questioned these ‘gods.’ For example, in the fifth century BC, the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras suggested that the sun was not a god, but a piece of fiery stone about the size of the Peloponnesus. He also stated that the moon was not a goddess but rather made of earth with plains and ravines. For this he was convicted of blasphemy and put into prison. If this response happened in skeptical Greece, you can imagine how the rest of the ancient world would have reacted to scientific thought.

Thus, we now see the reason why science could not emerge in the ancient world. Holiness would not allow it. The frozen hand of Mercy idolatry throttled any attempt by Perceiver strategy to wake up and build connections between Sensing and iNtuition.

Of all the civilizations in the ancient world, the Jews and the Greeks were probably the only ones who had a chance of escaping this mental prison of idolatry. With them, science could have emerged. Elsewhere, it was impossible.

Why did science develop during Western Europe during the Renaissance? Because of a different view of holiness. No longer did the S/N split define holiness. Instead, as we saw in the previous volume, our modern world is characterized by a massive T/F division. The absence of S/N holiness made it possible to use Teacherunderstanding to tie together S and N. That is why the theory of Newton was such an intellectual watershed. Before him, the Sensing of ‘earth’ was divided from the iNtuition of ‘heaven.’[P] After him, Teacher emotion integrated these two. Newton’s theory predicted both the orbits of the planets up in the ‘holy’ heavens and the movement of objects down here on ‘profane’ earth. This general theory was the intellectual watershed that divided the world of natural understanding into pre- and post-Newtonian eras.

This change in emotional focus led literally to a new view of the universe. Before Copernicus and Newton, people felt that the whole sky revolved around the earth. Sun, moon, planets, and stars all turned around the human domain—the center of the universe. This viewpoint, parenthetically, illustrates the real absolute of holiness—whatever its current form. The one who accuses others of blasphemy claims to be defending God, but his real absolutes are his own personal Mercy feelings. Thus, in the Middle Ages, the universe that supposedly was so holy actually revolved around me. It was only when Mercy idolatry was replaced by Teacher understanding that me assumed its proper place in the universe.[Q]

What caused the shift in holiness that allowed science to develop? Basically, the emergence of the new religion of Christianity. What is so special about Christendom? Its doctrine of incarnation.[R] Christians believe that God actually inhabited a physical body and lived in the natural Sensing world. Thus, the Christian God spans both iNtuition and Sensing.

This change in attitude can be seen by comparing Christianity with Judaism. The Holy Book of the Jews tells them what to do. This, by definition, involves Server thought and Sensing. For the devout Jew, religion is halacha—a Hebrew word derived from the term for ‘walking.’ In contrast, the Christian Bible tells its followers what to believe. For the Bible-believing Christian, doctrine is all-important—salvation is ‘by faith and not by works.’[S]

S/N Holiness and Mercy Idolatry

We have looked at the historical effects of S/N holiness. Let us now use symmetry to examine this ancient form of holiness and see how it relates to Mercyidolatry.

Notice first the historical relationship between Mercy and Teacher idolatry. Mercy idolatry was a prime characteristic of Roman and pre-Roman times, along with earlier eras. Almost every city corner had its religious shrine. Western civilization replaced this Mercy idolatry with its Teacher counterpart, exalting Teacher words instead of Mercy objects, and creating Holy Books in place of Holy Shrines.

Notice also that Teacher idolatry and Perceiver facts are related, as are Mercy idolatry and Server actions. As we know, a book implies Perceiver meaning; in order to read Teacher words with comprehension, one must assign Perceiver meanings to each of these words. Similarly, I suggest that an external object implies Server action. If you want to build an object, you must do something. Likewise, either moving an object or moving to an object requires action. Unless you do something to an object, it remains unaffected. Thus, we conclude that Mercy idolatry must control Server actions, because it worshipsexternal objects.[T]

Moving on to the next point, written revelation, I suggest, leads naturally to a T/F division. On the one hand, all words have Perceiver meanings. Therefore, studying a book develops Perceiver logic. On the other hand, holy words are based ultimately in Mercy importance, which must be protected from the corrosive effects of Perceiver logic. Thus, logical thought is encouraged to develop, but then forced to remain objective. Because this relationship has been extensively discussed, let us move on to its mirror image.

In the same way that Teacher idolatry is associated with the T/F division, so I suggest that Mercy idolatry is connected with an S/N split. Let us take a few paragraphs to expand upon this relationship. I mentioned earlier that holy objects must be protected through taboos. They can only remain holy by separating them from normal objects and normal experiences. But, we have just seen that an external object implies movement. Therefore, the separateness of an idol will only be preserved if it is associated with unique Server actions. The result is a Server split, between normal movement and holy rituals.

But why does this Server split lead to a full-blown S/N division? Because objects cannot control their own actions, only humans can. Therefore, if a holy object must be protected by special actions, then these must be provided by some person. This leads to a reciprocal connection between the Mercy importance of the idol and the Server actions of the priest carrying out the holy rituals required by the idol. Anyone who carries out holy actions will himself become linked to the idol and be viewed by others as special and different.

Suppose, though, that the emotional importance of the idol begins to fade or is threatened in some way. How can its emotional significance be recharged? By having the priest carry out actions that are associated with strong emotional significance.[U] How strong? Big enough to differentiate these actions from the normal routine of life. In some way, these restorative measures must go beyond normal existence, require super-human effort and involve extreme feelings. And what is the easiest way to generate such intensity? Through personal pain and suffering.[V] Unfortunately, history abounds with examples of such religious cruelty.

Mercy idolatry is associated with S/N holiness.

·    A Mercy object implies Server action.

Teacher idolatry is accompanied by T/F holiness.

·    Teacher words imply Perceiver meanings.

Revealed 'truth' can turn S/N holiness into T/F holiness.

·    A Holy Book is ultimately rooted in Mercy importance.

·    Studying a book idolizes Teacher words while developing Perceiver logic.

·    This Perceiver logic is applied objectively, leading to a T/F division.

One can see why religious rituals would promote an S/N split. Normal life involves the day-to-day actions of Sensing. In contrast, religious ritual requires superhuman effort—action that goes beyond the normal realm of Sensing. This explains our original suggestion that Mercy idolatry leads to an S/N division—the mirror image of the association between Teacher idolatry and the T/F split.

Let us look further at this aspect of Mercy idolatry. A mind that is built around defining experiences carried out by special people performing superhuman actions will 'know' that all emotional experiences are performed by special beings performing superhuman actions. Therefore, the emotional experiences of thunder and lightning, for instance, must 'logically' be either the voice of a ‘thunderbird’ or the weapon of some powerful god. It is easy to see how a pantheon of gods could emerge, with every powerful natural event associated with some ‘superhuman’ being.[W]

One can see also how this religious mindset would affect the political realm. Among other things, the S/N split describes the separation between labor and management—between follower and leader. But, we have just seen that under Mercy idolatry, normal people live within Sensing while priestly action is associated with iNtuition. Therefore, it makes sense that such a system will expect political leaders to carry out religious functions. And, if a leader becomes really important, normal people may 'know' that he is a god and begin to worship him.[X] This political so-called god may than back up his ‘divinity’ by claiming to be the person who ensures that Nature ‘performs’ its ‘actions.’

With S/N holiness, political leaders and natural events are deified.

Let us move on to our last parallel. We have seen that modern science came into existence as society rebelled from the revealed 'truth' of Christianity. And scientific theory, combined with modern technology, has managed to integrate S/N—at the societal level. Did something analogous to this occur when Mercy idolatry ruled the world?

Basically, no. That is because, for humans, Mercy idolatry requires less internal content than does Teacher idolatry. Therefore, when individuals rebel from worshipping and serving idols, they usually don’t have enough mental ‘fuel’ to ‘drive’ very far. However, it does appear that the time of idolatry was also an age of heroes. In the same way that military training builds ‘character’ into a raw recruit, so a person whose religion forces him to carry out awe-inspiring acts will be able to do amazing things if he ever decides to choose his own Server actions.

While a rebellion from Mercy idolatry lacks the internal content to transform society, I suggest that the rebellion of Western civilization from the Teacher idolatry of the Holy Bible may end up totally transforming the internal world. We will conclude this section by opening this theological ‘can of worms.’

We have seen that the Teacher idolatry of Christianity has preserved the T/F split while indirectly promoting the integration of S/N.[Y] This integrating effect has primarily affected society and not individuals. S/N was bridged as many people rebelled from the revealed 'truth' being taught by others. The success of science and technology led to the development of a new secular worldview, which collided with the old religious worldview. For centuries, these two approaches to life attempted to convert individuals to their way of thinking.

This societal conflict has theological implications. If an image of ‘God’ forms as general Teacher understanding affects Mercy identity, and if identity is being influenced by two competing general theories, then ‘God’ is split. On the one hand, the traditional image of ‘God’ promoted by religion is fading away as science and technology continue to develop. On the other hand, the relatively new general Teacher theories of science are themselves beginning to develop into an image of ‘God.’

Today’s image of ‘God’ is undergoing ‘personal transformation.’

·    This happens whenever there is a major shift from one worldview to another.

This change from one worldview to another tells us that not only is the ‘God’ of Western society split, but ‘He’ is actually undergoing a form of ‘personal transformation.’ For the individual, personal transformation occurs as identity leaves the old me that is rooted in Mercy importance and moves to a new me based in Perceiver confidence. Here, we see that the Western image of ‘God’ is also in the process of leaving an old mental structure rooted in Mercy importance and moving into a new ‘temple’ built from the stones of Perceiver logic.

Thus, we see that revealed 'truth' can actually have one of two possible personal outcomes. Any individual whochooses to turn blind 'faith' into intelligent understanding can undergo personal transformation. In contrast, if enough people rebel from blind 'faith' and develop scientific thought, this will lead to social transformation—which will transform the imaginary internal ‘person’ of ‘God.’

In both cases, the eventual outcome is, in religious terms, a ‘new covenant’—a new ‘contract’ between ‘God’ and individuals. If an individual is transformed, he stops dealing with ‘God’ as a student of revealed 'truth' and begins to interact as a graduate. If a society is transformed, then people abandon their old religious ‘God’ and embrace a new ‘God’ rooted in secular thought.

This occurs regardless of whether God actually exists. As recent history shows, peoples’ images of ‘God’ will change—no matter what doctrines they claim to 'believe.'[Z]

So how would a real God—without the quotes—fit into such a framework? By definition, a Universal Being must extend, in some way, beyond the limitations of time. Otherwise He is not universal. Therefore, the idea of God being caught off guard by a change in the way that people view Him is a contradiction in terms. Any Person—with a capital ‘P’—who could not predict this chain of events would not be worthy of being called God.[AA]

So, why would a real God want to undergo a form of ‘personal’ transformation? We leave that question to the theologians. However, it is possible to say why a mental image of ‘God’ must experience ‘personal’ transformation. I have suggested that an image of ‘God’ forms as general Teacher understanding affects Mercy identity. If an image of ‘God’ is to be universal, then the Teacher theory in which it is based must also be universal. Now, what mental process affects the individual most fundamentally? Personal transformation. Therefore, if any Teacher understanding of me is to be universal, then it must include an explanation for this core area of me. This means, going the other way, that it must be possible to view personal transformation as a universal Teacher theory. And, if it is truly universal, then it applies to everything and everyone—including the image of ‘God.’ Summarizing, only a general Teacher theory which itself undergoes ‘personal transformation’ can become an image of ‘God’ for a transformed personal identity.

Blaspheming Holiness

We have seen that society used to base its holiness upon the S/N separation, but that it now views the T/F split as ‘holy.’ We have also seen that holiness is related to the MBTI® divisions. Therefore, if we want to analyze how holiness can change, we are really addressing the question of how a society deals with an MBTI® split.

Integrating an MBTI® division goes through three stages.

1.  The division is regarded as holy and uncrossable.

2.  People begin to analyze and rethink the implications of this split.

3.  Once there is sufficient raw material, then the split is finally integrated.

Integrating an MBTI® separation, I suggest, actually involves three stages. During the first stage, the division is regarded as holy.[BB] A split that is ‘holy’ cannot be discussed.[CC]  Eliminating the roadblock of holiness leads to the second stage of thinking and rebuilding. This is when all of the various pieces are analyzed and discussed. Once there is sufficient raw material, one can then move on to the third stage of actually integrating the MBTI® division.

For instance, I have suggested that before the Christian era, the S/N split was regarded as holy. Christianity, with its doctrine of incarnation, changed peoples’ view of holiness and allowed them to consider the possibility of bridging S and N. The actual integration of S/N, however, only began when Isaac Newton developed a single theory that could explain both ‘heavenly’ and ‘earthly’ movement. The science and technology that we enjoy today is a result of the mental integration that Newton achieved between S and N.

So, how can holiness be removed? As usual, I suggest that there is both a good and a bad way. The ‘good’ way is to use intelligent thought and behavior to bring sight to the blindness of holiness. In the case of the Teacher idolatry of revealed 'truth,' this means replacing blind 'faith' with rational thought. That is the approach followed by this book. In contrast, the ‘bad’ way removes holiness by blaspheming it.

Blasphemy can occur either directly or indirectly. In direct blasphemy, that which is regarded as holy is deliberately attacked. In contrast, indirect blasphemy is a byproduct of rational understanding. If a theory or structure is developed that covers an area regarded as holy, it will naturally be regarded as blasphemy by those who practice idolatry in this area.[DD] For instance, I am sure that some will consider the ideas of this book to be blasphemous.[EE]

By the way, notice the parallels between personal transformation and integrating an MBTI® division. In both cases, there is a ‘path of suffering’ and a ‘path of patience.’ And, in both paths, suffering can be imposed directly, or else comes as a byproduct of the success of others.[FF] In fact, I suggest that personal transformation can actually be regarded as a special case of MBTI® integration—it describes the process of integrating the T/F split.

Both personal transformation and integrating and MBTI® split can be driven in two ways.

·    There is the path of suffering, in which idols are destroyed or blasphemed.

·    There is the path of patience, in which growing understanding gradually dispels holiness.

This suggests that there are four facets to transformation: Personal transformation connects T/F, societal transformation links S/N, and I/E and P/J are bridged by… Well, what exactly happens when those two come together? Only time—and some other book—will tell. That is because those aresecondary splits, which can only be tackled after the corresponding primary division is integrated.

Now that we have looked in general at the process of escaping holiness, let us look specifically at the time during which S/N based holiness was blasphemed in preparation for the rise of Christianity. This job, I suggest, was accomplished by the Roman empire.As I have mentioned before, the Greeks and Jews could have bridged the S/N split by discovering science and technology.[GG] But, the holiness of their day prevented this from happening. Eventually, both of these kingdoms were crushed by the Roman fist. The holiness of that era was then publicly blasphemed by the hell of the Roman coliseum.[HH]

This statement may sound strange, but I suggest that our schools have given us a sanitized view of Roman so-called entertainment. First, the Roman coliseum was huge. Until Yale Stadium was built in 1900, no other building had the seating capacity of the coliseum at Rome. Therefore, what happened at the coliseum affected the average Roman citizen, and not just a few of the upper crust. In addition, smaller clones of this coliseum were erected in all major Roman cities.

Second, the depravity of the Roman coliseum was unimaginable. Millions were wantonly butchered in the name of entertainment. Like drug addicts, Roman citizens demanded their daily fix of bloodlust. Every degradation was exploited. For example, tens of thousands would gawk as bulls had sex with women in which orgasm was followed by murder.[II] In later centuries, even this debauchery did not satisfy. Therefore, the arena would be flooded and fleets of ships would do battle. Imagine watching boats ram each other, and cheering as sailors drowned and soldiers were impaled.

The Roman coliseum was possibly the major tool for blaspheming S/N holiness.

Third, Greek religious myths were often enacted in the Coliseum by convicts who played their parts to the death. Thus, this moral cesspool of violence produced defining experiences that explicitly reshaped the religious icons of the day. Finally, as we shall examine in a few paragraphs, the Roman coliseum was the pre-eminent public example of S/N integration. Individuals living in the world of Sensing banded together to participate in an iNtuitive monstrosity which exceeded even the massive Nuremberg rallies of the Nazis for emotional impact.

This Satanic[JJ] worship produced two results. First, the Roman state eventually rotted out and collapsed, leading to the dark ages.[KK] Second, the Western church came into existence amidst great persecution as people chose to follow conscience rather than submit to the insanity of their society.

Eventually, Christianity gave birth to a new world—our present Western Civilization. This society, with its new view of holiness, discovered science and technology. But, at horrendous human cost. How much better it would have been if either the Greeks, the Jews, or the Greeks and Jews together had been willing to analyze their idols instead of mindlessly worshipping them. But then, we all know that building the mind around emotional 'truth' leads to personal pain and suffering, right?

Now that science and technology have integrated S/N, it is interesting to see what is happening to the S/N holiness and Mercy idolatry of Judaism.[LL]

“But,” says the religious Jew, “we do not worship idols.” Not so. Almost all Jews worship the common Mercy idol of their special Mercy status as a ‘people chosen by God,’ just as most Christians share the common Teacher idol of the ‘Holy Bible.’ But what if the Jews really are ‘chosen’ and the Bible really is ‘holy’? The mental consequences of worshipping this as an idol are still the same, and mental maturity can still only be reached by moving beyond idolatry.

So, are modern Jews experiencing unusual societal pressure in the two areas of S/N holiness and Mercy idolatry? Yes, most definitely. For almost two millennia, Jews lived a split life. On the one hand, they preserved their Jewishness by doing the deeds of halacha—special actions associated in their minds with the iNtuitive realm of God and religion. On the other hand, they were a diaspora among the nations, living in a here-and-now Sensing world of ‘secular’ action. This situation changed in 1948 when the nation of Israel came into being. Suddenly,both iNtuition and Sensing were ‘Jewish.’ The ‘religious’ tongue of Hebrew became the language used for the day-to-day living of Sensing, and everyday life turned into a superhuman struggle to maintain the Jewish view of ‘God’ and halacha.

The Jewish idol of ‘being the chosen people’ has also come under extreme pressure, because the Palestinians, the neighbors to the Jews, now also claim to be a ‘chosen race.’ The Jews assert that the land of Israel was given to them by God; the Palestinians state, with equal religious fervor, that this land belongs to them. Jews lift up Jerusalem as their ‘eternal capital’ and exalt the temple mount in old Jerusalem as the site of their holy temple; Palestinians declare that the walled city of Jerusalem belongs to them and insist that the temple mount is theirshrine. Thus, at least four of the biggest Mercy idols of Judaism—the chosen people, the chosen land, the chosen city, and the chosen temple site—are being claimed by neighbors. Interesting, isn’t it?


Before we continue, let us pause to consider a related question. What motivates a society to pursue wholesale blasphemy? I suggest that blasphemy is an inevitable side effect of rebellion and denial. Why does the rebellious teenager belittle his parents and mock those who are in authority? Because he wants to be emotionally free of his ex-masters. Therefore, any society that becomes ‘secular’ by rebelling from its religion or denying its image of ‘God’ will naturally turn on its emotional source and attempt to destroy it.

This homicidal instinct will be assisted by two other factors. First, political leaders will tend to manipulate religious symbols.[MM] For the average citizen, this propaganda fills the emotional vacuum that was created when he rebelled from religion, giving him a ‘new and improved’ version of emotional absolutes constructed out of the icons of his ex-religion. This allows him to ‘recycle’ memories from his religious past, so that he no longer has to suppress them. For the leaders of society, such manipulation means power—an emotional handle that can be used to control the populace.

For both citizens and leaders, this influence will tend to be in the direction of greater blasphemy. The people will want their ‘reconstructed’ religion to be an emasculated version of the old, free of the guilt and condemnation that caused the rebellion and denial in the first place. In contrast to the old ‘God of judgment,’ they will embrace a new ‘God of total acceptance’ who revels in the diverse ‘lifestyles’ of the childish me. Similarly, if power corrupts, then obviously those who gain the power to manipulate religious icons will become very corrupt, and this moral degradation will be reflected in their propaganda.

Second, both leaders and followers will find blasphemy exciting. As the Marquis de Sade discovered, one can find perverse delight in tearing down religion, culture, and taboos. This excitement fuels the fires of blasphemy, and drives people to ever greater degradation. If you want an example, turn on your television set.

The Next Holiness?

Now that we have a greater understanding of the process by which S/N was integrated, let us step forward to the present. Which MBTI® split will be the next to fall? I suggest that there are two possibilities. On the one hand, we could tackle the T/F split and follow personal transformation. On the other hand, our success with S/N now makes it possible to deal with I/E.[NN]

Does it matter which one we choose? Yes, very much. That is because S/N and I/E are societal divisions, whereas T/F and P/J involve the individual. Imagine for a moment what the world would be like if both societal splits became integrated while both personal divisions remained split: First, S/N integration would mean that everything would be high-tech. Second, I/E integration would remove the distinction between internal and external. Virtual reality would permit us to live out our fantasies, while mind control would allow external forces to guide our thoughts. Third, there would be no individuality, because the individual only becomes defined as T/F is integrated. Instead, objective logic would coexist with subjective childishness. Finally, the secondary P/J split would mean an abundance of crime and lawlessness. This is because the masses would be driven to find their excitement outside of the rules. Many of today’s science fiction movies portray this sort of reality, and it is not nice.[OO]

In contrast, bridging T/F would put our world back on an even footing. Science and technology would remain, but the individual would also matter. There would be a balance between big and small. Factory outlets and corner stores, for instance, would be able to coexist. Individual conscience would provide a counterpart to mass force. Personally speaking, I like this possibility much, much better.

The next MBTI® division to be integrated is either I/E or T/F.

·    If I/E is bridged, then society will become totally inhuman.

·    If T/F is integrated, then the balance between group and individual will be restored.

So, where are we heading? What comes next, T/F or I/E? In order to find out, we need to answer three different questions. First, which is experiencing more blasphemy—T/F, or I/E? Second, which of these two splits is managing to protect its holiness? Third, which of these two is beginning to integrate?

Let us start by looking at T/F. Has this split experienced blasphemy? Yes. During the last few centuries, one emotional icon after another has crumbled and fallen. What one generation used to revere, the next treated with disdain. As each icon faded into oblivion, it was replaced by another, more ‘suitable,’ object of worship. First, there was the Catholic Church. But, it became corrupt, and finally lost its holy position during the Protestant Reformation. Who took the place of the pope? The kings. What followed was the period of the absolute monarchs, in which kings were worshipped as holy. But, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so eventually the people rebelled and dethroned their rulers. Who replaced kings on the pedestals of holiness? The artists—those who glorified their subjective feelings as ‘god.’ Has this worship corrupted the artist? One can answer this by examining how art has regressed during the last two centuries. Pick any measurement you choose. Whatever medium art has used, it has attacked standards and slowly but surely turned excellence into excrement.

Thus, we conclude that the groundwork has been laid for replacing T/F holiness with T/F integration. Has such a transition occurred? Generally speaking, no. Today, the T/F split is re-emerging, stronger than ever. Rules are out, feelings are in. Everyone must have a positive self-image, regardless of the facts. Conscience is for losers. Nothing is wrong, it is a lifestyle—and you had better approve of it. Even those who supposedly teach conscience have generally turned it into a ‘lifestyle,’ called fundamentalism.

The end result of all this has been to turn the subjective into a personal cesspool. And yet, despite its extensive decay, we still regard subjective feelings as ‘holy.’ The ‘artist’ splashes some paint on a canvas and expects us to worship his art. The teenage girl multi-pierces her eyebrows, wears a dog-chain collar with one inch spikes and a chain leash, puts on torn, black net-stockings and then declares that this is ‘art.’[PP] The ‘musician’ struts on stage like a disjointed child, screams angry words in a monotone accompanied by the repetitive hammer of a mind-numbing beat and then expects his so-called art to be worshipped as ‘holy.’

During the last few centuries, the T/F split has been blasphemed.

Today the holiness of this separation is being restored.

So, are individuals using logical thought to integrate T/F? If they are, I certainly haven’t met them—even after writing a book on the subject.

Before we go on, I would like to make two comments in passing. First, by combining partial T/F blasphemy with reinvigorated T/F holiness, we have ended up in a situation that is far worse than our starting point. A few centuries back, most of the objects and experiences which the T/F split protected were at least worthy of honor and respect. But, several hundred years of T/F blasphemy have left these idols tarnished and battered. Today, T/F holiness is returning, but the objects that are being worshipped are far worse. Figuratively speaking, instead of idolizing the paintings and sculptures that adorn the drawing room, we lift up the garbage that is tossed out the back entrance, while pretending that this trash actually belongs in the drawing room.

Second, this book, along with the previous volume, describes the process of personal transformation. Suppose that one—or more—individuals decide to pursue this path of personal change. How would the rest of society respond? They would feel that blasphemy is being committed. Why? Because personal growth threatens the re-emerging holiness of T/F. Thus we conclude that the task of integrating T/F has again become a religious struggle. Even if I were to describe personal transformation solely from the viewpoint of mental programming and object recognition, as I did in the previous volume, others would still consider my approach to be a religious affront. Why? Because I am suggesting that it is possible to bridge a separation which, today, is almost universally regarded as holy.

Let us turn our attention now to I/E. How is it faring? Well, for many years, we have associated the external with man and the internal with God. The Protestant faith, for instance, teaches that a Christian is someone who has ‘asked Jesus to live in his heart,’ and states that the ‘kingdom of God’ is aninvisible realm, reached through internal faith.

This attitude, I suggest, is a naturalcorollary of revealed 'truth.'[QQ] As we know, whenever Perceiver strategy holds on to facts, this Perceiver stability builds an internal image of what could be. This happens both with blind 'faith' and with rational belief. Whenever there is Perceiver stability there will also be internal Mercy images. Thus, we find Augustine, one of the founding fathers of Christendom, describing Christianity as a struggle between two invisible cities—the City of God versus the City of man.

This division between internal and external is also supported by today’s secular world. What makes up the state? People with power, weapons, laws, and authority. And what can these people control? What they can seeexternal behavior. As I mentioned in the first book, approval conscience guides external words and actions, but it has no control over the internal world. The state has no way of controlling our thoughts.

Similarly, while science and technology have transformed the way that we deal with our external environment, the internal world of thought and imagination is still largely an uncharted wilderness. As a president of the United States has recently shown us, the same person who easily guides a massive external empire may have no power over his private habits and obsessions.

So, is this internal vacuum being filled? Yes. But with what? When we look at what the average person is placing into his mind these days, we conclude that serious blasphemy is occurring. Our music is raunchy and our movies are violent. Instead of believing in a ‘God’ of conscience who ‘sees everything we do and think,’ we either have a ‘God’ who ‘gives us unconditional love’ or else we teach that the childish me—which inhales its experiences directly from the external world—is ‘God.’[RR] Thus, we see that the internal world is being blasphemed by external influence.

At present, I/E holiness is being blasphemed, and the I/E separation is being integrated.

Today’s rash of ‘hyperactive’ children—and adults—with short attention spans shows that the internal world is almost devoid of solid content.[SS] We are losing our imagination and lack the skill to build or pursue an internal vision. We want it all, and we want it now, served on a platter by others. Meanwhile, technology makes it increasingly possible for us to view, manipulate and control what used to be hidden, internal, and invisible.

Drugs and Internal Decay

Before we go conclude this section, I should mention one of the major ways in which Western society, and especially the United States, is using external influence to blaspheme and control internal content. I refer to the use of drugs, both illicit and pharmaceutical. When I flood my brain with some chemical, I am literally bathing my internal world in extraneous external input. As it turns out, this chemical intrusion is not a random one. Rather, I suggest that most abused drugs, whether bought from a dealer or prescribed by a doctor, specifically overturn the mental content provided by the simple styles. Let me elaborate.

Exhorter strategy is associated with the neuromodulator Dopamine.

Contributor thought is connected with Serotonin.

Facilitator strategy is related to Noradrenaline.

Our research suggests that the operation of the three composite styles is associated with three brain neuromodulators. Exhorter mode is connected with dopamine, Contributor thought with serotonin, and Facilitator mode with noradrenaline.[TT] Normally, these three styles build upon a foundation provided by mental programming. Exhorter excitement is rooted in Mercy and Teacher emotions, Contributor confidence builds upon Perceiver and Server knowing, and mental integration provides the basis for Facilitator blending.

Most mind-altering drugs operate by artificially changing the level of one or more of these three neuromodulators, apart from mental content.[UU] In other words, they allow a person to control the operation of Exhorter, Contributor and Facilitator strategies without building any supporting mental structure in Perceiver, Server, Mercy or Teacher thought. Thus, they affect the operation of the mind by bypassing its content. Drugs are probably the most direct way of using the external to bypass internal content and to control internal operation. How big a problem is drug abuse? Statistics suggest that over half of all North American crime is drug-related. Some countries get a good part of their foreign exchange from producing and exporting drugs.

Even children are no longer exempt from drug abuse. Today, the ‘hyperactive’ child is generally treated by giving him a drug that supercharges Contributor control. But, what is his underlying problem? Brain scans indicate that frontal lobe activity is below normal in hyperactive individuals. In other words, they lack belief, commitment, identification, and understanding—for these are the four ‘doormen’ which stand guard over the frontal lobes. The external is certainly replacing the internal.

Do drugs inhibit personal transformation? Yes, quadruple yes. A person who craves drugs has no conscience. Nothing matters to him except his next fix. His drug-induced high becomes the defining experience around which major portions of his mind integrate. In fact, it is probably safe to conclude that drug addiction makes personal transformation impossible.

In Conclusion

We have seen that modern technological society has integrated S/N. We began this section by asking whether T/F or I/E would be the next split to be bridged. I suggested that the answer depended upon three different questions. First, which of these two divisions was being blasphemed? Second, which was being integrated? Third, is holiness making a comeback in either of these divisions?

Examining T/F, we saw that for several hundred years, the subjective has been blasphemed, and the objective has been growing at the expense of the subjective. This led us to suspect that T/F is the next division that will be integrated. However, when we examined recent history, we saw that T/F holiness has been making a comeback, and that the split between objective and subjective is becoming increasingly set in stone.

As for I/E, we noticed that the internal world has also experienced significant blasphemy. In addition, we see that technology is increasingly turning that which was hidden into something visible. On the one hand, scientific instruments permit us to look into the world of the invisible. On the other hand, computer generated virtual reality allows us to visualize our thoughts. Similarly, the average person is losing internal content. He is motivated by external goals and objects, and he allows his mind to be held together by the external structure of civilization.

If present trends continue, E will swallow up I and the personal will give way to the corporate.

Thus, we conclude that, if present trends continue, then I/E will be the next MBTI® division to be integrated. And, it will happen in such a way that the external swallows up the internal, and the personal will give way to the corporate. In fact, if we look at Western history, I suggest that the external and corporate have usually led the individual and the personal. We will now expand upon this concept by re-examining the relationship between state and church.

State Defined Holiness

Now that we have looked at some of the mechanics of societal change and holiness, let us step back and examine the big picture. Transformation, I suggest, is driven by two grand opposing forces, one related to ‘state’ and the other to ‘church.’

 On the one hand, there is state-led growth. This is the path of social change, for it takes a group of people to form a state. In addition, building and operating a state requires leaders who can coordinate the efforts of individuals. This organization brings to light the S/N split, as those who work live within Sensing, while those who lead occupy iNtuition. The cooperation required to deal with this S/N division produces an external structure administered through physical force and approval. The result is an I/E split—defined by the presence or absence of state pressure: Those who are in power can only judge what they can see; that which is hidden cannot be punished or rewarded. Similarly, the state imposes itself upon the individual through the use of physical force and cannot control peoples’ minds. Thus, whenever social transformation is being followed, there will be a strong state, and external growth and pressure will predominate.

On the other hand, growth can also be motivated by the church. As I have mentioned before, conscience is the main ‘weapon’ of the church. Conscience operates within the mind of each individual. Therefore, while the state operates externally and socially, the church influences its followers internally and individually. Conscience, by definition, ties together facts and feelings. This combination brings a person face to face with the T/F split, for the childish mind does not like it when facts and feelings come together. As conscience makes itself felt, thought and behavior divide into two different streams, defined by the presence or absence of conscience. This leads naturally to the P/J separation: Wherever there is conscience, Judging rules. Where there is no conscience, Perceiving is in charge.

In conclusion, we see that civilization can be driven by one of two forces. If the state is in the ascendancy, then the external will lead the internal. Physical force, social pressure and organization will predominate. The church, as the junior partner, will take on the appearance of the state. It will become organized, acquire external property, apply social pressure, and resort to physical force.

In contrast, it is also possible for the church to be the dominant partner. In this case, change will be internally driven. Conscience, individuality and personal responsibility will rule. The state will ‘play second fiddle’ to the church and take on a form which emphasizes the rule of law, personal rights, and volunteer activity. Instead of forcing its citizens to obey, it will encourage them to follow the laws of the land.

Most of Western history, I suggest, has followed the path of state predominance. Let us examine this bias and see where it leads, using the example of Western civilization. Since we are looking at Western history, the discussion will obviously emphasize the process by which S/N was integrated.  After that, we will look at a specific time and place in Western society during which growth was largely church-led and see the results of this change in emphasis. Here, the emphasis will be upon T/F.

Let us begin by focusing our attention upon the Roman civilization. Notice the connection between the mental rebirth provoked by the horrors of the Roman civilization and the later birth of science. In order for science to emerge, Mercy holiness had to be replaced by Teacher understanding. In the case of the Romans, both of these steps were motivated by external pressure. How did the Romans degrade S/N holiness? Through the external defining experiences provided by institutions such as the Roman coliseum. Notice especially how this public blasphemy linked Sensing with iNtuition. On the one hand, the ‘actors’ of the coliseum lived—and died—within sensation. Everything centered around physical action, agony, ecstasy, dismemberment, and death. But, these actions were not spontaneous. Rather, all of this physical torment was part of a big performance, in which every scene was carefully choreographed. Thus, this bloody world of Sensing was integrated by iNtuition.

Similarly, I suggest that Roman government introduced the concept of Teacher understanding. The Romans were not great thinkers or innovators, but they were masters of the art of governing. They knew how to take the ‘complexity’ of diverse cultures, regions, and ethnic groups, and mold them into the ‘order’ of a unified empire. In other words, by interacting externally with the universal state built by the Romans, citizens acquired the concept of universal Teacher order. What type of order? One which used the iNtuition of government bureaucracy to integrate the Sensing actions and lives of numerous individuals. How do we know that this concept entered peoples’ minds? Because ever since, Europeans have been trying to recreate the lost external order of the Roman Empire.

Roman S/N holiness was blasphemed by the external pressure of the Roman state.

S/N was integrated externally by Roman organization and Roman civil works.

Thus, what the Greeks and Jews failed to do internally, the Romans accomplished externally. What provided the Perceiver ‘glue’? The police state of the Roman Empire. You see, Perceiver principles of cause and effect can be learned in one of two ways. We discussed this in the first book. On the one hand, Perceiver confidence can be acquired by searching for lasting pleasure—this describes the path of patience. On the other hand, suffering also teaches Perceiver truth—through the pain of long term tragedy. Therefore, the suffering imposed by the Roman Empire, among other things, indirectly taught Perceiver confidence which programmed conscience and birthed the Christian church.[VV]

So, if all of the necessary lessons were taught by the Roman Empire, why then did science only emerge after another millenium? Because it took that long for the Roman Empire to turn into the Roman Church. In terms of the walking analogy, when a person puts the wrong foot forward, then in order to make further progress, he must first regain his balance before he can attempt to make progress with the right foot. Does this mean that the dark ages were a total waste of time? According to the objective scientist, yes. However, while the opportunity for tying S and N together was temporarily lost, the Western Church was born with its novel concept of holiness. And that change made the birth of science possible.

What type of church emerged from the ruins of the Roman Empire? A state-like centrally run organization with powerful leaders and vast property holdings with its headquarters in the Capitol city of the fallen Empire, which emphasized rituals in lofty cathedrals carried out by richly-garbed holy men. Thus, I suggest that the Roman Catholic Church never fully escaped the state’s focus upon externals and actions.[WW] For many years, this Church even acted like a state, using armed force to hold on to a small kingdom in the heart of Italy.

It is interesting to note that birth of science occurred during the period of the Protestant Reformation. For the first time in modern Western history, individual 'believers' successfully questioned the state-like features of the Catholic Church. Until then, every major attempt to escape from Church control had been squelched through the application of physical force. Finally, during the Protestant Reformation, Luther taught that the 'believer' should follow the voice of conscience and that one achieved personal salvation through internal 'belief' acquired through the written word.[XX]

Even this movement, however, was influenced by the shadow of the state. The Protestant Reformation succeeded in large measure because it received the backing of local princes who saw it as a means of achieving greater state power. And, in many cases, the Protestant Church itself used physical force to suppress opposition.

The Protestant Reformation only succeeded in areas that had been outside of the Roman Empire.

Finally, it is interesting to note where the Protestant Reformation was successful. Only those lands which lay outside of the physical borders of the long-dead Roman Empire chose to follow the ‘new path’ of Protestant faith. In contrast, within the old Roman boundaries, citizens chose to continueembracing the state-like Roman Catholic Church. Countries, such as France and Britain, that lay on the fringe of the old Empire vacillated between turning Protestant and remaining Catholic.

Notice the strange balance between state and religion. The Roman Empire grew so large that it replaced the ‘church’ of its day. Christianity emerged as a revulsion against this inhuman monster. Eventually, the Roman beast of state died, and its place was taken by the Western Church. This religious structure itself grew until it transmogrified into the medieval whore of Rome. Science was then birthed as people rebelled from the corruption of the Catholic Church.[YY] And how have science and technology influenced this balance of power? They have reinvigorated the state while causing the church to ‘wither away.’ Today, the Western State is turning into an inhuman monster, just like its predecessor, the Roman Empire.

What a strange way of walking. Almost all the weight of civilization is borne by the leg of the state, while the leg of the church barely has enough strength to move the body forward.

So what caused the demise of the Roman civilization? I suggest that it was excessive force combined with inadequate conscience. But what type of conscience can be produced by a religion of pure Mercy idolatry? As we saw before, Mercy idolatry can build heroes—individuals who are capable of ‘superhuman acts.’ The later Roman Empire lost this ‘conscience,’ and personal heroism vanished, replaced by physical force. Quoting again from Fuller: “With the decay of political vigor went a decline of social and individual morals. The old-time virtues of the Romans had faded. Severity and self-discipline were a thing of the past. Their martial ardor was no more. Their native coarseness and brutality had turned effeminate. Criminal law had become more and more barbarous. The ‘third degree’ was universal in the examination of the accused, and even free men were put to the torture. Burning at the stake was the common method of execution.”

In other words, the Roman Empire, like our modern Western civilization, pursued social change at the expense of personal change. The state—the bastion of force, the source of approval, and the expression of the group—took over the church—the pillar of conscience, the source of mental absolutes, from which the individual grows. The Roman ‘church’ with its Mercy idolatry[ZZ] proved no match for the might of the Roman state. Instead, the Roman emperor literally became regarded as ‘god,’ and those who did not worship the emperor were killed.

We have seen that the shadow of the Roman Empire twisted the form of the Western Church. I suggest that the Roman focus upon the external at the expense of the internal also affected the nature of science when it emerged, a thousand years later. I have suggested that Newton’s general theory heralded the nativity of science. But, what type of theory was it? One which described the physical movements of the external earth and heavens. In other words, it focused upon Sensing rather than iNtuition, and was Extraverted rather than Introverted. Thus, it explained physical force and the external environment—the domain of the Roman state.

Why did science come to birth with this state-like focus? Because, historically speaking, the Western state has played the major role and the Western church has only been the supporting partner. Thus, by the time the Roman Catholic Church became corrupt, enough internal content had been produced to give birth to science, but not enough to swing the overall focus away from the methods of the state.[AAA]

But what other type of general theory could have emerged? A religious one. In fact, Isaac Newton spent much of his later years studying the Bible in an attempt to discover within it a general theory. Why did he fail? I suggest that he approached religion from the wrong perspective. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, he focused upon externals, looking at prophecy—predictions of how the invisible church would in the future become visible. And, he tried to discover secrets of ancient chronology, showing that his research emphasized external sequence.

When science emerged, its general understanding explained the realm of the state.

·    Newton could not decipher Bible doctrine because he did not follow personal transformation.

However, if one wants to decipher religion, one must study the domain of religion—conscience, internal change, and individuality. And what do you discover if you study this combination? Personal transformation—using conscience to build an identity through internal change. Unfortunately, we can tell from Newton’s life that he never experienced this transformation. Biographers tell us that he was internally driven by rage and was constantly fighting for personal status and attacking those who questioned him.

One can see why a book on personal transformation would be so unpopular. It literally goes against the stream of more than two millennia of Western history. Anyone who attempts to follow this path of rational personal change is going to suffer severe culture shock and massive disapproval. In religious terms, he will find himself single-handedly opposing the ‘god’ of Western civilization. And yet, do we really want to go through another dark ages? Why not ‘grow’ the ‘leg’ of the church so that we can ‘walk’ like a normal person, instead of lurching from one personal crisis to another?

The End of Science

Now that we have briefly discussed Western history and its encounter with S/N, let us move forward to the present. In specific, let us look at the two world powers which have shaped the last half of the twentieth century. We will begin with the Soviet Union.

I suggest that communism is a logical outcome of a state-sponsored birth of science. Communism actually recognizes this heritage and claims to follow a scientific understanding of group interaction. Does communism protect the individual? No, it uses the group to apply force to the individual. Does communism respect the internal? No, it says that all progress is achieved by controlling the ‘means of production.’ Thus, it uses physical force to grab control of factories—external property associated with physical action. Again we see the state bias towards Extraverted Sensing and physical force. Does communism accept conscience? No, it states that any method or behavior is acceptable, if it gives supremacy to the dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words, the action of the group always takes precedence over personal facts and rules.

What is the goal of communism? It attempts to stimulate societal growth through the application of scientific principles. In other words, to improve the Sensing of the worker/peasant by guiding him through the iNtuition of the central party. Fundamentally, it believes that a central plan will work—that S action and N planning can be combined.

Communism occurs naturally when social and not personal transformation is followed.

·    It attempts to apply scientific thought externally to the group, while negating Perceiver content.

·    It emerged in the time and place of the first industrial revolution.

Why did communism fail? Because it tried to ‘walk on one leg.’ It attempted to do everything with the state while killing the church—literally. By ignoring the individual, it alienated the very people it needed to reach its goal of ‘workers paradise.’ By focusing upon the external ‘means of production,’ it lost the internal content needed to run these factories effectively. By using the external ‘glue’ of a police state to bridge Sensing and iNtuition, it destroyed the Perceiver facts that would have made a central plan possible. Eventually, all that remained was the external shell of a functioning state. As the East German saying went, “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.” In other words, the average comrade made it look like he was acting.[BBB] No content was left.

Do you see how natural it was for communism to come into being? It emerged in Britain during the industrial revolution—the first society to use science and technology to bridge Sensing with iNtuition. What is its major flaw? It tries to pursue social transformation at the expense of personal transformation. Why was it accepted? Because, ever since Roman times—and possibly before then—the leg of the Western state has always been longer and stronger than the leg of the Western church.

Now let us turn our attention to the United States, the Cold War enemy of the Soviet Union. While Russia turned raw social transformation into state policy, the United States, more than any other modern country, has—to some extent—combined social with personal transformation. It was founded as a ‘republic under God’ based upon a constitution which states that individuals have certain ‘inalienable rights.’ In other words, the secular state recognized its religious source, and it used Perceiver rules to tie together the individual, the state, and the image of ‘God.’

Also, most Americans have traditionally subscribed to the ‘Protestant work ethic.’ In essence, this says that people accept the presence of rules and conscience—this bridges the T/F split—and that they are motivated to perform behavior which stays within these rules—this indicates a P/J integration. Does this combination work? Well, has any country ever been as successful as the United States at creating individual prosperity?

Does this mean that the Americans were a ‘chosen race’? That, I suggest, is a group question which reflects the thinking of the state. Instead, the ‘new world’ was populated mainly by immigrants who chose—as individuals—to leave their existing culture and build a new society.

And what did these self-chosen people find when they arrived? A physical frontier. The homesteader who settled ‘the wild west’ learned very quickly about natural cause and effect. This forced him to learn common sense, priming the secular path to science. In MBTI® terms, a settler either decided to live within the rules of nature or else he died because of nature. Those who survived learned, at least partially, to combine P and J.

Second, there was the American choice of personal 'faith.' Remember that revealed 'truth' is rooted in Mercy significance. This makes the 'believer' emotionally dependent upon his religious leaders, buildings, rituals and icons. Personal faith helps someone to become free of external Mercy props through the choice of using Perceiver confidence to build an internal Mercy image of ‘God’ and faith. In addition, personal faith can only emerge as Perceiver thought defines my person.[CCC] Thus, Perceiver strategy gains the confidence to build an accurate self-image by learning facts about me. In MBTI® language, T and F are brought together.

The United States is one of the few countries to have encouraged personal transformation.

·    A physical frontier taught common sense to the individual.

·    Personal 'faith' encouraged the individual to develop Perceiver confidence.

These two factors, I suggest, are related. The hell-fire-and-brimstone preachers who taught personal 'faith' were largely effective because their audiences knew the dangers of a frontier existence. The one who tames the wilderness is surrounded by a vast natural order which can turn on him and kill him if he makes even a single mistake. How will Mercy thought interpret this mindset? It will conclude that an external God of Natural Order exists who can send me to eternal damnation if I make a single moral mistake. And what protects the frontiersman from possible natural disaster? Total honesty. He must accept the facts of nature regardless of how they make him feel. Therefore, Mercy strategy will know that the only way to avoid subjective disaster is to accept moral 'truth,' regardless of its implications.

So, did the United States fully escapethe Western bias towards the state? No. This is because it still based itself primarily in a reaction against the state. First, the country came into being through a war of independence. How did the American settlers respond when their British masters started to impose on them the structure of the European state? They rebelled and founded a republic based upon democracy and personal freedom. While these goals are compatible with personal transformation, the method used to achieve them was still that of the state—armed force. A Continental Army was organized which used force to take land away from the British enemy.

This juxtaposition of state and individual has led to the curious American paradox of personal gun rights, in which the typical American feels that personal freedom can only be preserved by giving each citizen the right to carry and use a gun. But, how can you protectthe individual by using a weapon which, by definition, destroys the individual? That is like hiring a bull to guard a china shop.

Second, America grew through being challenged by the absence of civilization. How did the typical American citizen acquire internal content? By leaving the comforts of organized society and settling the raw frontier. But, what is a frontier? It is an externalenvironment in which one must act in order to survive. Thus, it too contains the fundamental elements of a state—instead of being governed by a human master, one is ruled by the iron hand of Nature.

America encouraged personal transformation but never fully escaped the bias of the State.

I suggest that this combination has also led to a peculiar bias in the American psyche. When faced with an internal problem, their tendency is to do something:[DDD] Is society crumbling in the inner cities? Build new housing complexes. Is education deficient? Put up more schools, buy computers and hire more teachers. Is there too much crime? Construct more prisons and train more police officers. Do people have psychological problems? Prescribe medication. Is drug addiction getting out of hand? Send in the army. But, this response also is a contradiction. How can an external solution be expected to solve an internal crisis.[EEE]

Even the American Church suffers from this error in thinking. Whenever personal 'faith' has faded, it has typically responded with ‘The Revival Meeting,’ in which a group of people attend an organized environment of ‘religious faith.’ And how does the individual attending such a meeting demonstrate that his conscience is prompting him to take an internal step of personal 'faith'? By performing the physical action of walking down the aisle of the meeting hall—‘hitting the sawdust trail.’[FFF]

Third, the United States protected itself from a state-oriented church by building into its constitution a separation between church and state. The American founding fathers knew what it was like to live in Europe under the control of a state church, and so they declared that the state would not be permitted to support any specific church. Instead, church and state would remain distinct. Has this solution worked? No. Today, America has its own state church. As we have seen, secular education and secular thinking have turned into a form of religion which is given official sanction by the state. In keeping with this official status, other more traditional forms of religious 'belief' are officially suppressed.

But how did America end up with a state-sanctioned religion—the very state[GGG] it was attempting to avoid? Because, the method of separation contradicts the method of the church. As we know, conscience is the primary weapon of the church. Conscience operates by building connections between experiences. But, a separation between church and state is based fundamentally in a split—the opposite of a connection. Therefore, if moral 'truth' has its source in religious experiences, people, objects, and books, then conscience can always be killed by severing the link between religious and secular experiences. Whenever religious 'truth' threatens to comment upon secular life, this voice can be silenced by emphasizing the separation between church and state.

A quarantine of religious 'truth,' though, is itself a moral statement. When repeated enough times, it turns into Perceiver 'truth'—imposed by those who champion secular thought. And, when secularism becomes the official dogma of education, then ‘separation of church and state,’ interpreted now as ‘using the state to ban the church,’ turns into an organized religion with its own Holy Books, clergy, schools and rituals.

It is interesting to note that even the hell-fire-and-brimstone sermons of bygone times exhibit a state bias, because preachers taught that hell was an external place of physical torment. Thus, instead of being drawn into a ‘personal relationship with God’ by the benefits of personal transformation, potential 'believers' were frightened out of hell by the specter of a metaphysical state—and I do mean state.[HHH]

In a similar manner, I suggest that the United States may end up losing the Cold War because of the method that it used to fight the ‘evil empire’ of Communism. For decades, America saw itself as the ‘bastion of democracy,’ the protector of personal freedom standing against the Soviets hordes. To the extent that the Cold War reflected a struggle between personal and social transformation, this view was correct.

However, now that communism has collapsed, the United States has become the sole World Superpower, possessing a military machine that dwarfs anything humanity has ever seen. America now possesses a huge organization devoted solely to the projection of physical force and the destruction of the individual, a mini-world in which social transformation rules supreme. Strangely enough, the fundamental elements of communism are now present within the American Forces: massive organization, central planning, physical force, industrial-strength technology, corporate identity, control of the ‘means of production,’ and heroic self-sacrifice—all under the control of the state.

America defeated the ‘Evil Empire’ of Soviet communism.

America may lose its battle with the ‘Evil Empire’ of the American Military.

And how does this military machine treat the individual outside of its domain? In typical communist fashion, it lies to him and threatens to kill him if he gains a glimpse of its hidden secrets. Thus, knowledge that affects personal survival—precisely the type of Perceiver facts that are needed to achieve personal transformation—is suppressed upon pain of death—the ultimate sign of state dominance. Even within the military, information is quarantined with a ‘need to know’ policy, in which each person is given only the facts that he requires to perform his specific job. This makes it impossible for a military employee to achieve internal integration, for no one is given enough facts to build a complete mental picture. Instead, organization can only be achieved and maintained through external means.

 As long as the American military is subject to a democratically elected congress and answerable to a civilian public, then there is still hope for the individual, both inside and outside the Forces. But, what happens when the military begins to follow its ownagenda without obeying elected leaders and without informing the public? Then, who will protect the world from the ‘evil empire,’ for it lives within the heart of the only remaining World Superpower.

But surely American democracy is strong enough to overcome this Trojan horse of socialism. Isn’t it? No. This is because the two main motivators for personal growth—the physical frontier and personal 'faith'—have largely disappeared. First, the physical frontier is gone, replaced by the civilization of chain stores, medical clinics, and mega-outlets in which every need is met by nameless people. As a result, the average American citizen no longer has to deal with natural cause and effect and no longer thinks in terms of natural cause and effect. This mental shift can be seen in the way that the typical American responds to problems. When he encounters harmful consequences, he usually tries to blame some person for his difficulties, often with the help of his lawyer.

Second, personal faith has also faded away, largely replaced by the blind 'faith' of fundamentalism, the mass entertainment of the mega-church, the slogans of the psychologists and talk show hosts, and the irrational mysticism of the charismatic and the New-Ager. Head and heart have separated and conscience is regarded as a relic of the past.[III]

In general, everywhere we look in North America, we see the individual giving way to the corporate. Democracy has turned into corporate lobbying by special interest groups. Individual convictions have been superceded by public opinion polls. Corner stores are put out of business by massive outlet chains. The whole country seems infected with merger-mania. Even personal entertainment has given way to network television, sports arenas, and blockbuster movies.

So what happens next? Earlier on, I suggested that we are facing a choice of integrating either I/E or T/F. If history repeats itself, then external pressure from the state will again blaspheme the existing holiness—in this case I/E—and then bridge the gap by introducing something new. This ‘new world order,’ I suggest, will exhibit itself as a new general Teacher structure. Why? Because I/E is a left hemisphere split that involves primarily Server and Teacher thought.

What is the identity of this coming external Teacher structure? Well, it will be the ultimate expression of social transformation without personal transformation.[JJJ] Therefore, it will have the following characteristics: First, it will be rooted firmly in the externalworld. Second, it will focus upon general Teacher order. Third, this general system, like a huge machine in which many elements function together, will emphasize the integration of S and N. Fourth, this massive external machine will completely ignore and swallow up personal identity. Finally and most importantly, it will add internal content to thisexternal system. In other words, it will act as if an invisible mental network lies behind all that can be seen. What type of internal system? One that is integrated around the four characteristics mentioned in this paragraph.

The external machine of corporate progress is creating an inhuman image of ‘God.’

·    This ‘God’ is called Nature or Gaia.

Oh, one more thing. It will be alive. Huh? Well, what defines mental life? An internal network that includes Perceiver, Teacher, Server, and Mercy content. The first characteristic from the previous paragraph provides Perceiver facts—from external objects. The second adds the Teacher generality. The third provides Server memories—from the actions carried out by all the various components. And, the fourth provides the Mercy aspect. But what type of Mercy content? A negation of individuality. Thus, the individual becomes part of this ‘lifeform’ by letting go of his personal identity.[KKK] As long as some of these four components are still external, this new structure will not appear alive. Once all four aspects become internalized, though, then it will be ‘born.’ And what type of ‘creature’ will it be? A beast, for it will be alive, but inhuman.

Who is this creature? I suggest that we have just described Gaia. Science often refers to this  ‘goddess’ as ‘Nature.’ However, whatever its current name, it demands that the external environment be worshipped and that the individual surrender his identity to the group.

Well, what is so terrible about that? The problem is that no matter how noble the original aim, whenever individuality is denied, then the individual always ends up suffering horribly. So far, communism is the prime example. It began as a grand experiment to provide wealth for the masses. But before long, it turned into a massive violation of human rights that killed and enslaved millions.[LLL] Similarly, I suggest that if some form of Gaia ever comes to power, theory predicts that the ensuing pain and misery will exceed anything seen so far. Why? Because surrendering my personal identity to a global idol is the ultimate form of building my mind around emotional 'truth.' Thus, it should lead to the ultimate in personal pain and suffering, right?[MMM]

But why would modern man worship, obey, or even acknowledge a ‘goddess’ whose name he doesn’t even know? Because of the way in which an image of ‘God’ forms, together with the nature of the I/E split. I have suggested that an image of ‘God’ emerges whenever a general Teacher theory impinges upon subjective Mercy thought. But what exactly is our modern consumer society? A massive external economy full of Teacher order whose sole purpose is to provide new and improved gadgets to satisfy the subjective passions of consumers. Whether we admit it or not, the external world is filling our minds with the image of Gaia.

And, our high-tech economy is quite fragile. Producing these new toys requires a worldwide network of clean-room high-tech multi-billion-dollar factories. An earthquake or a major fire can send the price of electronic components soaring for months. When such glitches occur, we go to extreme lengths to ensure that the flow of new technology continues unabated. This shows the depth of our emotional attachment to the technology of Gaia.

But, surely we can escape this mindset? No, not when E swallows up I. Then it becomes inconceivable to think of any reality other than the present external environment. Thus, we will all worship and serve Gaia. But why would someone allow his personal identity to be swallowed up by a consumer society? Because of the internal power of an image of ‘God.’ You see, an image of ‘God’ is much more than doctrine from the pages of a Holy Book. Sometimes these two are related, but often they are not, especially today. Instead, an image of ‘God’ is a living worldview. It is the internal voice which I cannot—must not—disobey. Why? Because it carries the whole weight of my mind behind it—and I cannot deny my mind. Thus, if my mental image of ‘God’ tells me to abandon my personal identity, then I willobey, regardless of the consequences. But surely it is possible to resist this pressure, isn’t it? Tell me, how easy is it to avoid the consumer society? It is ubiquitous, all-pervasive. Therefore, any image of God that it produces will be equally universal.

Oh, there is an additional factor. Numerous studies indicate that our natural world is headed for some sort of ecological disaster. We are threatened with overpopulation, food shortages, pollution, new diseases, depletion of mineral resources, destruction of natural habitat, overfishing, loss of biodiversity and global warming. In the not-too-distant future, one or more of these factors will force us to change our way of life. When this happens, then ‘Gaia’ will turn into a real God—a Deity of ecological retribution. Modern man will then be forced to worship and serve Gaia. Our very existence as a human species will depend upon our obedience.

Will the personal hell of Gaia teach Perceiver confidence? Of course. This is shown by the history of communism and fascism. Those who are persecuted by a dictatorship learn very quickly about the value of the individual and the need for individual protection. Unfortunately, recent history also teaches us that it can take years before these lessons are implemented—years filled with trauma and personal pain.

Oh, by the way, here is another scary thought. Both Nazism and communism were artificially cut short. Nazism died in the Second World War, and the example, power, and wealth of the West brought an untimely end to communism. Imagine how long such systems would have lasted if they had managed to achieve worldwide domination? Now, tell me, how much of our planet is influenced by the consumer society? What percentage of our natural world is threatened by ecological disaster?

But didn’t I suggest that an alternative exists? Yes. This book demonstrates that it is possible to introduce a different general Teacher theory, one which is rooted completely in the internal, which goes beyond external objects to mental constructs, beyond external personality to cognitive styles, beyond God to a mental image of ‘God.’ This approach integrates mental splits and provides internal coherence. And, most importantly, this theory shows how to heal the T/F rift amd become an individual.

But, if such an internally based general theory is to overcome Gaia, then it must also explain Gaia. The entire external system must be shown to be a subset and expression of mental programming. As far as I can tell, the theory of mental symmetry is sufficient to perform this task. However, in order for it to succeed, it must pass one final hurdle. Until this point, this solution is only an internal concept, a mental construct. If it is to go beyond I to E, it must become externalized—it must become a counterpart to Gaia. But how? Ah. That is better left unsaid.[NNN]

‘Gaia’ is the mental expression of a unified, global, organized environment.

Only an external expression of total internal wholeness will be able to limit the power of ‘Gaia.’

Of course, all of this may remain an unrealized, internal vision of possibility. But, it is theoreticallypossible, and the alternative is Gaia-hell. Therefore, to quote Sherlock Holmes, when one removes the impossible, then whatever remains must be true, no matter how improbable.

Would mental symmetry have to succeed universally in order to defeat Gaia? No. All that would be needed is the existence of a few visible, stable, protected colonies. That would be sufficient to provide an example to the rest of Gaia-world. By their very presence, these outposts would allow people to conceive mentally of an alternative to Gaia, and thus prevent E from swallowing up I completely.[OOO] By demonstrating individuality, they would pull the status quo in the direction of human-ness, thus preventing Gaia from turning into an inhuman beast.[PPP] And this external light, through the power of conscience, would slowly but surely rebuild the internal world of individual humans. Therefore, even a small society of individuals would be able to limit the coming hell.

But, surely a worldwide econo-politico-military-entertainment industry would swallow up this competition in an instant. Ah. If personal conscience backed up by a universal Teacher theory is so powerful in the internal, imagine the power that it would have if it ever became externalized. After all, that is what it means for I to extend to E: The invisible and internal become visible and external. As recent history has shown, non-violent resistance is a weapon that can be stronger than any atomic bomb.

Oh. One more thing. If a new general theory is developed that integrates T/F, then it would free art and church from their self-deceptive idolatry.[QQQ] Their understanding would shift from a center around me and personal emotions to a focus upon some common ‘light’ of understanding.

The artist, for instance, produces art on the basis of his personal feelings. He may think that he is making statements about the universe, but his artistic expression actually revolves around him and his subjective experiences. Just try to suggest that painting, sculpture, poetry, or music can be analyzed by general Teacher principles of aesthetics or mental function, and you will trigger a violent reaction. The artist bows to no ‘god’ of rational understanding. He is his own ‘god,’ and when you enter his world you bow down to him.

Similarly, Christian religion claims to center around a ‘worship of God,’ but I suggest that it revolves rather around subjective, personal experience.[RRR] The key emphasis of ‘evangelical Christianity,’ for instance, is not ‘knowing God,’ but rather the personal experience of ‘being born again.’ Similarly, the key ritual of Catholic Christendom is the personal experience of the mass, which supposedly ‘re-enacts’ the crucifixion; it assumes far more importance than the original sacrifice which is believed to have been offered by the Son of God. This suggests that the real focus is the ‘earth’ of subjective experience and not the ‘heaven’ of God. In ‘Christian cosmology,’ God revolves around man, and not man around God.[SSS]

The average ‘Christian’ does not really believe that it is possible to transform the me of Mercy identification. Rather, he is convinced that he must always live with his sinful nature and is certain that the core of this ‘evil side’ will never be removed until he reaches ‘heaven.’[TTT] Isn’t it strange that a group which talks so much about ‘being born again spiritually’ doesn’t really think that it is possible for the inner nature to ‘be born again’? This suggests again that the immovable center of ‘Christian cosmology’ is not the realm of the ‘perfect heavens’ but rather the domain of sinful and imperfect ‘earth’—again, a strange 'belief' for a religion which teaches that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and thus, in theory, the most stable Entity in the universe.

Will an understanding of mental symmetry altercurrent culture and religion in such a way as to destroy them? We can answer this question by looking at the path followed by science and technology. As science developed, the me of our physical bodies increasingly made the transition from a base in Mercy feelings to a foundation in general Teacher understanding. In other words, the physical me learned to ‘fly.’[UUU] Did science remain with its head in the clouds of Teacher theory? No, it descended back to the land of Mercy experiences and feelings, on the other side of the ‘cliff,’ in the form oftechnology.[VVV]

While the me of our physical bodies has now arrived at the far side of the threshold of uncertainty, the me of Mercy identification is still stuck in emotional 'facts' and revealed 'truth.' Therefore, if history is any guide, then in the same way that science led to technology, so rational thought within the me of Mercy identification should create a supercharged version of present culture and religion.[WWW]

The time to make this shift is now. Culture and religion are currently being destroyed by present science and technology. Science disowns religion while technology replaces culture with tacky gadgets and infantile entertainment. For our present society to speak of ‘preserving religion and culture’ is like a communist regime talking of ‘preserving the environment.’ Both have done more harm than any previous influence.

Will this new culture and religion contradict the old? Again, if we look at the changes introduced by the industrial revolution, after the ‘flight’ of science returned to solid ground, we find that people still ate food, wore clothes, lived in homes, traveled by coach on roads, attended concerts and enjoyed nature. However, the food that we eat today, the clothes that we wear, the homes in which we live, the cars we drive and the roads upon which we travel, our entertainment, and our vacations are all vastly different from those of individuals who lived before the advent of technology. Frankly, I am rather glad that I do not live in the eighteenth century. Back then, a mother’s chances of surviving a cesarean section were less than one in four.

Capitalism and Big Business

So far, I have painted a rather dismal picture of our society and its probable demise. We have seen that the ‘leg’ of the Western state has always been longer than the ‘leg’ of the church. Therefore, I would like to end this section by looking at a time in Western history during which the two ‘legs’ of church and state have been most equally matched.

At the moment, most of the developed world lives in a veritable paradise. Therefore, it may seem strange for me to associate this glorious present with such an ominous future. However, I suggest that the personal benefits which we are presently experiencing result from the smatterings of personaltransformation which have been added to the general path of societal transformation.

Personal transformation, I have suggested, aims to integrate the T/F split. Initially, this is painful, because facts tend to get in the way of feelings. Mercy strategy likes pleasure and hates pain. Therefore, whenever it encounters a pleasant experience, it tries to identify with it. In contrast, unpleasant situations are dropped like hot potatoes.

Perceiver logic ruins this ‘fun’ by defining concepts such as ownership, identity, guilt, and reasonableness. As far as MBTI® Feeling is concerned, ownership prevents Mercy strategy from enjoying good Mercy experiences, identity stops it from idolizing heroes, guilt forces it to face painful memories, and reasonableness rejects most of Mercy imagination as impossible.

Thus, whenever an individual follows personal transformation, he will begin by thinking that all of his fun has been ruined. Similarly, I suggest that a society which encourages individuals to pursue personal transformation will initially appear puritanical. Conscience will be a powerful force, and individuals will have a deep inner certainty that humans are not meant to have any fun.

Integrating T/F ‘ruins fun’ by stopping the childish identification of the old me.

Bridging P/J leads to goal-oriented behavior, as drive is channeled into useful work.

This oppressive attitude changes when Perceiver facts acquire a sense of time. Instead of being walls that separate and divide Mercy experiences, Perceiver facts now also act as bridges which link one experience to another. Mentally speaking, this change in focus signals the emergence of Contributor thought. Why? Because change requires Server strategy, and it is Contributor mode that links Perceiver facts with Server actions.[XXX]

The end result is goal-oriented behavior—a mental circuit that combines MBTI® Thinking, Feeling, Perceiving and Judging. Feeling uses Mercy emotions to provide the ‘bottom line,’ Thinking adds a ‘map’ composed of Perceiver facts, Perceiving drives the circuit with Exhorter energy, and Judging uses Contributor thought to choose the path taken to reach the goal.[YYY]

Now suppose that many individuals within a certain society manage, at least partially, to integrate T/F and P/J. What emerges, I suggest, is private enterprise. Each person examines his surroundings, forms personal goals, and takes steps to reach these goals. Historically, Britain and the United States have been the strongest promoters of private enterprise. And these two countries are primarily responsible for the personal paradise which most of us now enjoy.[ZZZ] How did the citizens of these two countries learn their lessons? Primarily through the revealed 'truth' of Christianity. Revealed 'truth' programs conscience, which leads to personal transformation.

That brings us to our first major problem. As I have mentioned several times, revealed 'truth' and me cannot co-exist. This is because Perceiver thought can only be mesmerized into 'knowing' what is 'true' if the source of this 'truth' has an emotional status which is much higher than the status of me. In other words, blind 'faith' demands that me be regarded as nothing.

The result is a mental contradiction. On the one hand, revealed 'truth' encourages personal transformation which leads eventually to the goal-oriented behavior of private enterprise. On the other hand, private enterprise is rooted in self-improvement, while revealed 'truth' demands that me remain suppressed and insignificant.

How has private enterprise solved this problem? Generally speaking, it has rebelled from revealed 'truth.'[AAAA] Whenever 'truth' builds sufficient conscience and Perceiver logic to jumpstart Contributor planning, the individual turns his back on the church and its self-denial, and pursues secular wealth.[BBBB] In essence, the children of revealed 'truth' have run away from home to seek their fortunes, and have turned their backs upon house and family.[CCCC]

A society that learns personal transformation through revealed 'truth' will experience rebellion.

·    Individuals can only pursue goal-oriented behavior by rejecting self-denial.

This ‘teenage rebellion’ has had two unfortunate consequences. First, the very individuals who practice and preach private enterprise make it difficult for others to follow in their steps. Why? Because they suppress the mental background that was needed for them to develop their own goal-oriented behavior.[DDDD] Thus, private enterprise has been forced to spread accidentally, emerging only in regions where the local version of culture and revealed 'truth' teaches sufficient Perceiver confidence to kickstart goal-oriented behavior.[EEEE]

In other cultures, the mental vacuum that is generated by a system which denies its foundations has been filled by heresies such as communism. These ‘isms’ promise to deliver the wealth that is produced by private enterprise. But, they deny the Perceiver content that is required to produce, enjoy, or maintain this wealth. Notice the difference between the ‘heresy’ and the ‘real thing.’ The capitalist rebels internally from revealed 'truth.' He succeeds because Perceiver content still lives within his mind as a suppressed multiple. As long as this mental structure wields the power of conscience, then private enterprise can survive. In contrast, the communist rebels externally from facts. He uses force to overthrow the external imposition of Perceiver thought. Because his internal world is still driven by culture and idolatry, he is doomed to fail. As long as his idolatrous mind accepts the external rule of law imposed by those who follow Perceiver thought, then he can participate in the wealth. But, as soon as the peasant or worker revolts from this external structure, then no Perceiver content remains, and even the appearance of private enterprise is lost.[FFFF]

The capitalist rebels internally from revealed 'truth' in order to build external wealth.

The communist rebels externally from imposed rules in order to build external wealth.

By the way, notice that we have another example of partial mental maturity emerging through a rebellion from revealed 'truth.' Modern science was birthed when Western society rebelled from the religious domination of the Catholic church, and pursued secular goals. Now, we see that capitalism is peopled largely by individuals who rebel personally from revealed 'truth,' and who then pursue selfish goals.

The second consequence is that private enterprise itself is unstable. As long as church and revealed 'truth' continue to crank out a steady stream of potential rebels, private enterprise survives. But, as conscience fades from society and from Christianity, the pool of potential converts dries up.[GGGG]

So, what happens when private enterprise fades? First, the P/J split re-emerges. When Perceiving and Judging are connected, then people enjoy their work. Exhorter strategy finds excitement within the plans and decisions provided by Contributor thought. A P/J split, in contrast, leads to a distinction between work and leisure. When working, the individual lives within Judging—he follows rules and makes decisions. But, he doesn’t really enjoy his work, because Exhorter thought is looking for excitement elsewhere. Finally, when work is over, and the paycheck has been received, then Judging gives way to Perceiving and money is spent having fun—this satisfies Exhorter excitement at the expense of Contributor planning.[HHHH]

Thus, I suggest that real private enterprise will emphasize self-employed labor. Individuals will find their own excitement and make their own plans. In contrast, one of the first major signs of decaying private enterprise is the emergence of paid labor and profit-seeking. Whenever a person views his jobprimarily as a way to make money, then this indicates that he lives within a P/J split.[IIII] He himself is no longer practicing private enterprise, but has become parasitical upon the goal-oriented behavior of others.

A second sign of fading private enterprise is a re-appearing T/F division. Facts and feelings begin to unravel, and head becomes separated from heart. Under private enterprise, decisions and goals are guided by feelings of value—Perceiver facts are used to compare the emotional costs and benefits of various options. As T and F re-separate, individuals lose the ability to determine value and become motivated instead by defining experiences and emotional 'truth.'

This mental change has major effects upon the economy, because each emotional situation now defines its own 'truth.' On the consumer side, impulseshopping emerges. Packaging and marketing become extremely important, as each product strives to create the best emotional impression. Long-term quality becomes of secondary concern, because Perceiver thought—the part of the mind that looks for lasting facts—is no longer evaluating desire. Instead, brand names and logos become Mercy absolutes that guide all buying decisions.

On the producer side, robber-baron capitalism becomes dominant. This is because those who are in control have no conscience. When T and F are connected, Perceiver facts are used to compare emotional Mercy experiences. This gives the mind a feeling for value—and builds conscience. As Perceiver confidence is lost, then 'truth' will be determined increasingly by emotional experiences. This affects business in several ways. First, attention turns away from developing a better product or service to defeating the competition. In essence, those who are in charge now view business as a way to gain emotional status and establish pecking order. Second, owners lose the ability to determine value accurately. This is because Perceiver thought has sufficient confidence to compare experiences that have low emotions, but lacks the strength to compare those with high emotional content. Thus, those who are in charge become penny-wise but pound-foolish. This leads to the third repercussion. Such owners will turn their workers into enemies. On the one hand, their lack of conscience allows them to disregard those under them who have no emotional status.[JJJJ] On the other hand, their incomplete sense of value means that they will protect objective items while disregarding their people—who are really their most valuable asset. Why? Because people trigger strong emotions, and Perceiver strategy lacks the confidence to calculate value amidst this emotional ‘noise.’

The end result is that big companies swallows up little ones. If emotional 'truth' is determined by isolated emotional experiences, then all 'facts' and all situations will be evaluated on the basis of a few defining experiences, and all economic 'truth' and experience will become defined by a few big companies. Marketing and advertising become all-powerful as each corporation strives to implant its icons in the minds of consumers. In essence, economy turns into a religion in which consumers worship at the shrines of the mega-corporations.[KKKK] In such an atmosphere, small companies can only survive by filling a niche, or by satisfying the needs of some special-interest group.

A similar mentality appears in investors. Which companies receive the investment funds? Those with the glossiest brochures. Get-rich schemes proliferate and each tries to prove its validity by quoting the opinions of respected authorities.

Here also, the big investor swallows up the little one, mainly through the growth of mutual funds. Under private enterprise, each individual has sufficient Perceiver confidence to make his own decisions about value. As this confidence fades, individuals look to financial experts for advice—'truth' becomes determined by their emotional importance. But, by definition, there are only a few experts. Therefore, financial decision-making is increasingly concentrated in the minds of these few people, and others delegate responsibility to them. Each expert, though, is a finite human with only a limited amount of attention. Therefore, small companies are overlooked. This is because the experts have only so much time, and so they focus upon the big opportunities and ignore the small ones. Eventually, as mutual funds grow, even the smaller stock exchanges lose significance.

That brings us to the third and final consequence of fading private enterprise. Personal transformation, by definition, deals with the individual. In contrast, social transformation applies to the group. Whenever big takes over small, social transformation replaces personal transformation and personal paradise gives way to pre-fascism. At this point, a universal dictatorship is just around the corner. Unfortunately, no one can see the writing on the wall, because they are living increasingly in the T/F split. In order to notice the coming fascism, people would have to use Perceiver logic to evaluate their emotional surroundings, and they have lost this ability. As long as the experts say that everything is fine, and as long as the big companies are friendly to their customers, then, like lemmings about to head over the cliff, they 'know' that nothing can go wrong.

Private enterprise appears when personal transformation is followed.

·    If it fades, P/J will re-emerge and lead to a distinction between work and leisure.

·    Further decay will bring T/F back, making marketing and profiteering all-important.

Does this mean that Perceiver logic disappears? No. Instead, it pulls back to the objective realm of Thinking and creates its own world of synthetic emotion.[LLLL] In specific, I suggest that two major areas of artificial feeling become dominant.

First, development acquires a life of its own. Products are created, not because they meet some emotional need, or because they are valuable, but because they can be made. The engineer thinks something is clever, and so he builds it. This leads to a huge clash between marketing and engineering. On the one hand, marketing ignores facts and uses emotions to mesmerize potential customers. On the other hand, engineering ignores feelings and uses facts to create an artificial world of new-and-improved toys. In the extreme, this creates the idiot-savant world described at the end of the first book. Lurid soap operas, for instance, are beamed by satellite into innocent homes. The engineer builds the network because of the intellectual challenge, and the marketer sells the pulp because he can make a buck. Or even worse, smart bombs are dropped on third-world enemies. The engineer gets a ‘kick’ out of building more effective weapons, and the military-industrial marketer encourages the death and destruction because it makes him rich.

The second artificial emotion generated by the retreat of logic into the objective was discussed earlier when we looked at MBTI® Thinking and the feeling generated by money. When Thinking separates from Feeling, then money acquires an emotional life of its own. Money, a medium of exchange designed to make it easier to compare and acquire objects of value, is divorced from items of value. People begin to feel—deeply—that a bank account actually means something, and speculation turns into a full-time business. Financial whiz-kids with pea-sized hearts and even smaller consciences trade billions at the speed of computers. So much profit, and occasionally loss, is siphoned from the market through their flips and flops that market investment for the average individual becomes little better than playing the casino, because in both cases, the ‘management’ takes its cut and financial progress is driven by semi-random influences. Eventually, these financial games bring instability to entire economies. Now even a small country is not big enough to survive. So much for private enterprise.

But surely people notice this concentration of wealth and power, don’t they? Yes. Unfortunately, they tend to respond in the wrong way. The underlying problem is the demise of personal transformation. Thus, what is needed is conscience and individuality. Solutions must integrate T/F and tie together P/J. Instead, exactly the opposite is usually done.

For instance, suppose that some company focuses upon making money and abuses its workers. How do the workers respond? By forming a union. First, as we shall see in a later volume, a union exalts the group over the individual. Second, it splits Judging and Perceiving. Instead of trying to make work more exciting and fulfilling, it defines each job with a myriad of Judging-like rules—“I’m an electrician. Electricians don’t do plumbing. Union rules, you know”—and imposes its will by going on strike, thus finding Perceiving excitement in shuttingdown the job. Thus, the union becomes part of the problem, and turns into one more big organization that takes the fun out of work.

Another favorite tool for combating economic abuse is government legislation. How do we stop companies from producing and selling goods that lack value? We pass laws—books and books of laws, tons and tons of legislations. Obviously, only large corporations have sufficient resources to follow so many rules. In addition, enforcing these myriads of laws requires legions of government inspectors and bureaucrats. Thus, big business is now accompanied by big brother. Wherever there is forbidden excitement, government steps in and puts up an artificial fence. So much for trying to integrate P/J.

What about the financial inequalities brought about by emotional 'truth'? Well, tax the wealthy and give to the needy. But, who determines who is needy? Big government bureaucracy. And what influences these decisions? Special interest groups, all driven by emotional importance.

Let us conclude. At the beginning of this section we asked how the personal paradise of a consumer society could be associated with the pain and suffering of a fascist state. Now we see that a path actually leads straight from consumer ‘heaven’ to fascist ‘hell.’ In fact, history tells us that fascism often emerges when a country loses its prosperity. In order to restore their wealth, citizens turn to leaders with ‘final solutions,’ who then become fascist dictators.

But, what is the real problem? A ‘crippled’ leg of the church. Whenever a church bases its 'morality' in revealed 'truth,' then personal thought and prosperity can only be achieved by either rebelling from this 'truth' or by denying its existence. This is because revealed 'truth' goes hand in hand with self-denial. And, if personal success can only found apart from the church, then it will most likely occur within the realm of the state. Obviously, this type of personal success cannot last, for it depends upon content from the church, but ignores this source and surrounds itself with influence from the state. And how will people respond when their personal prosperity fades? They will turn to the state for help. But, the state is not responsible for producing this wealth. Instead, it indirectly resulted from the 'morality' of the church. Thus, the ‘cure’ of fascism will end up worse than the ‘disease’ of lost economic prosperity.

What is the real answer? Conscience, individuality, and personal transformation. That way, each individual decides where to invest, conscience guides people in their treatment of each other, and empathy motivates people who are successful to give to those who are less fortunate. In other words, society will only progress if both the ‘leg’ of the church and the ‘leg’ of the state are strong and healthy.

Therefore, let us take another look at personal transformation.

Mental Transformation Revisited

The previous volume introduced the concept of personal transformation. So far, this book has emphasized the need for personal transformation, described the type of life and thinking that emerges when this personal transformation is incomplete, and outlined the social transformation that can occur in the absence of personal change. If personal transformation is so important, then we should probably take another deeper look at the topic.

Let us begin by reviewing what we have discovered so far in these two volumes. First, we looked at childhood development. We learned that all of us begin life with Mercy strategy worshipping idols and Perceiver thought mesmerized. In other words, as children, we viewed adults as ‘gods’ and were unable to think for ourselves. Second, we realized that growing up mentally is not just a process of gradual improvement but that it involves a leap, in which we must let go of one way of thinking and hold on to another. This gap exists because of the threshold of uncertainty that separates the emotional 'facts' of the child from the logical facts of the adult. Third, we discovered that understanding can help us to cross this mental chasm. The positive emotion of a general Teacher theory can enable me to ‘fly’ across the gap that separates 'facts' from facts.[MMMM] Fourth, we took the time to develop a Teacher understanding that could propel us into adulthood. This theory states that “building me upon a foundation of emotional 'facts' leads always to personal pain and suffering.” Finally, we took a look at history and saw that society as well as individuals can experience transformation.

Growing up mentally involves a leap across a mental chasm.

·    This chasm is the threshold of mental uncertainty which separates 'facts' from facts.

As I have emphasized throughout this book, we are dealing today with a situation in which social transformation has progressed much further than personal transformation. The result is that the me of the physical body is in much better shape than the me of Mercy identification. Why? Because our physical body interacts with the external world—which has been transformed by technological progress. In contrast, the emotional me is hidden and personal—and when there is an intact T/F split, then Perceiver truth cannot touch this me.

Our first look at mental transformation emphasized the mechanics of personal change. This time we will focus upon the feelings that are involved. We will see how to make this mental ‘flight’ as fast and smooth as possible, and how to avoid detours or dead-ends. After all, if emotional 'facts' really do lead to personal pain and suffering, then we want to escape them as quickly as we can.

“Growing Wings”

The first stage of mental transformation involves the building of a general Teacher theory. Why do I go through the seeming detour of constructing Teacher understanding? Because the emotional me is sitting at the edge of a precipice and cannot make any further progress on ‘foot.’ The only way forward is by air. This means that any major effort to improve this me, in an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary way, will at this stage be a waste of time. It often does not seem that way. However, I suggest that the individual who takes the time to develop an understanding will progress further, whereas those who struggle on in the world of experiences will find that they eventually reach a dead end.

Education provides an obvious example. For some reason we take growing children, limit their activities, stick them in a room, sit them on chairs, and force them to listen and learn. Why? Because we feel that this detour into understanding will turn them into better adults. Once a teenager enters high school, he is often tempted to drop out and to start working immediately. Whereas quitting school may lead to more money in the short term, it generally condemns the ex-student to a lifetime of menial and unsatisfying labor.[NNNN] In contrast, the student who completes his studies usually ends up with better and more fulfilling possibilities.

If the goal of the first stage is to develop a general Teacher understanding, as our educational systems encourage us to do, then how can this be done as efficiently as possible? Let me suggest some guidelines.

First, I must start to build connections across the MBTI® T/F split. The adult me is held together by a framework of Perceiver logic. Developing this means gaining sufficient Perceiver confidence to handle emotional pressure. Therefore, when emotional situations come along, I look at the facts whileaccepting the emotions. I do not ignore the facts, or suppress my feelings. Rather, I accept both the facts and my feelings at the same time.

For instance, my car may be an old wreck or a brand new Mercedes. It may eat a hole in my wallet or it may be under a comprehensive warranty. None of these feelings changes the fact that it is a car. I may want to drive it over the cliff, or I may sneak out at night to take a peek at it. But, it still remains a car. This example may seem somewhat contrived, but replace the ‘car’ with a person of the opposite sex. The girl or guy sitting in the desk next to me may be dumb, gorgeous, black, strong, famous, white or ugly. He or she is still a person—that is a fact. The feelings that are triggered will vary considerably. However, the fact still remains that we are both humans residing in physical bodies.

Trying to accept a fact simply overwhelms Perceiver confidence with emotional pressure.

Allow feelings to flow, look for what is solid, and accept it as a fact.

It is very important to realize that facts do not negate feelings and feelings do not change facts. In order to learn the facts about a situation, I do not have to remove all strong emotions. I simply have to look for solid connections. The feelings may make this task more difficult, but they do not change its essential nature. Facts are connections, regardless of how I feel. Similarly, one does not try to learn facts. That method uses emotional pressure to mesmerize Perceiver thought. Instead, facts are accepted. They simply are, and exist independent of feeling.

Following this mental strategy will gradually change my mind from splitting along the T/F fault—a separation based in software—to distinguishing between Perceiver facts and Mercy experiences—a division rooted in hardware. T/F is a split between types of information, whereas Perceiver and Mercy is a cooperation between two complementary modes of thought. In other words, initially I will think that I am trying to bridge Thinking and Feeling. Eventually, my overall view of situations will change and I will see that the real division is between facts and experiences and not between logic and feeling.

Notice that this process consists of a myriad of individual choices, just as a suspension bridge contains numerous cables strung across a river. Each time that I choose to combine facts with feelings, another ‘strand’ is sent across the chasm that divides the two. Similarly, each time that I choose to separate Thinking from Feeling, I destroy one of the connections which tie these two together.

The second guideline is that I must believe that I can understand, and I must search for understanding. All the facts in the world will do me no good if Teacher thought does not pull them together into a generalized comprehension. If I say that I cannot understand, then this is a sign that Teacher strategy is refusing to allow ideas to enter my inner world of Teacher thought. It has developed the theory that there is no theory, and Teacher thought can only clutch onto one general theory at a time.[OOOO]

But why would someone avoid Teacher understanding—especially if it feels good? Because, whenever I acquire understanding, then I am increasing the domain of one of my mental ‘rulers.’ Why would I lift up one mental ‘monarch’ if I preferto be governed by anotherinternal ‘lord’? For instance, if I am following the ‘monarch’ of blind obedience, then I will not want to know the reasons for my actions, for that would make me feel responsible. Or, if I am following MBTI® Feeling, then I will not want to gain objective understanding, for that would give emotional weight to logic and make me feel less certain about my Mercy-based pseudo-theories. Similarly, if I practice Teacher idolatry, then the ‘lord’ which I obey will feel threatened if ‘he’ is ever exposed to the light of real Teacher understanding.

Personal transformation is impossible if I assert that no rational understanding exists.

·    I can only become free of Mercy feelings by holding on to Teacher emotion.

Third, my understanding must touch me. That is why I referred to this section as growing ‘wings,’ and not just building them. If the ‘wings’ of a Teacher theory are ever to give lift to the emotional me, then these ideas must apply to the core of this me. This does not mean that we all have to become psychologists. It is not the topic that is so important as the approach. Almost any subject can be studied objectively, with me aloof from my understanding, or else looked at personally, in a way that includes me and my feelings.

Notice that this faces us with somewhat of a contradiction. On the one hand, we need a Teacher understanding, based in logical analysis, that will apply to the most emotional aspects of me—only a theory of this caliber can give lift to me. However, in our look at the requirements for science, we discovered that when the environment is based upon emotional 'facts,' then Perceiver logic can only develop in the most objective areas, where Mercy feelings are weakest. How can we gain understanding in the most emotional region if logical thinking is only possible in areas where feelings are weakest? In other words, how can we ever hope to overcome a split which MBTI®, together with most of the world, says is irreconcilable?[PPPP]

Let me address this dilemma in terms of an analogy. We could compare the mind to an island, and Teacher understanding to an invading force that is trying to take over this island. At the center of the island is a tall mountain on top of which the local king rules from his castle; this corresponds to the emotional core of me. An invading force can only begin by attacking at the coastline. However, victory will come most quickly if the assaulting army makes its way straight up the hill and heads directly for the castle, ignoring the other towns and villages which lie dotted about the island. Similarly, I suggest that mental ‘wings’ will grow most quickly if I bypass the peripheral topics and aim straight for the heavy emotional issues. Yes, the fighting will be fierce, but once the ‘castle’ is taken, then the war has been won and I can ‘mop up’ the rest of the ‘island’ with ease. I can also begin to enjoy life, for I know that the largest conflict is over.

So how can I tell if I am really using Perceiver logic to build a general Teacher theory that touches my personal feelings? Simple. We have already defined what this mental combination produces—an internal image of ‘God.’ Therefore, I suggest that true personal transformation will always be accompanied by a belief in ‘God.’ Why? Because the same mental circuits are involved: personal transformation uses a general Teacher understanding to change me in Mercy thought, but an image of ‘God’ emerges whenever a general Teacher understanding impinges upon me in Mercy thought.[QQQQ]

Personal transformation will build the image of a quiet, rational ‘God.’

·    This ‘God’ accepts me as long as I practice growing, personal honesty.

Does this mean that I will join some organized religion? Maybe. Then again, maybe not. Remember that the type of ‘God’ which emerges is determined by the internal relationship between Teacher and Mercy thought. Therefore, I suggest that pursuing personal transformation will create a very specificimage of ‘God.’ Above all, this ‘God’ will be logical and rational—because I am following a mental process that is based is logic and rational thinking.[RRRR] This ‘God’ does not manipulate me through emotional pressure, because my mental path is not a response to such pressure. But, because I accept my feelings and look for the lasting truth behind those experiences, this ‘God’ also does not suppress strong feelings or deny revealed 'truth.' What this ‘God’ does expect is growing personal honesty. As long as I continue to face the facts and understand them, then this ‘God’ will give me approval. Why? Because that is how I am building my general understanding. Finally, this ‘God’ will emerge very gradually. In fact, for a long while, I probably will not notice ‘His’ presence. However, gradually ‘He’ will grow, emerge from the shadows, and slowly but surely replace my other childish ‘Gods.’[SSSS]

Rejecting a Rational ‘God’

But, suppose that I turn my back on rational thought and choose again to embrace emotional 'truth.' How will my new image of ‘God’ respond?[TTTT] First, ‘He’ will not actively attack me with condemnation. This is because, unlike a ‘God’ of Mercy idolatry or a ‘God’ of revealed 'truth,' my personal rebellion does not threaten the general Teacher theory upon which ‘God’ is based. Instead, ‘God’ will simply hold on to the logical principle that “following emotional 'truth' leads to personal pain and suffering,” predict that me is about to get hurt, and feel smug when me does get into trouble. The more irrational me becomes, the more my new image of ‘God’ will feel good about its general understanding about the nature of childish identity.

Second, ‘God’ will abandon me. This is because an irrational me and a logically based image of ‘God’ find themselves on opposite sides of the Perceiver threshold of uncertainty. And, we know from the first book that facts and 'facts' do not interact. Thus, in place of being condemned by ‘God’ for rebelling, I will find instead that willful irrationalism separates me from my image of ‘God.’

Third, my rebellion will cause me to lose motivation. Remember that an image of ‘God’ is the ultimate motivator. It is the personal worldview that keeps me going. It is the ‘trade wind’ that fills the ‘sails’ of personal action. Therefore, a me that is separated from its image of ‘God’ is like a sailing ship that is becalmed. It may be possible to make some progress using the ‘oars’ of personal effort, but the driving force that pushes a person to persevere will no longer be present.[UUUU]

My response to this combination of passive condemnation and active separation will lead to one of two possible results. If I stop rebelling, submit my identity to Perceiver logic, and allow the childish me to fall apart, then ‘God’ and me will once again find themselves on the same side of the Perceiver threshold of uncertainty. ‘God’ will then accept me and personal growth will resume.

If, however, I continue to reject the ‘God’ of rational thought, another form of stable mental interaction will emerge. In essence, I will know that my actions deserve personal condemnation, but I will lack the ability to do anything about it. This is because it is Server confidence that gives stability to Teacher understanding. Because of my continued Server actions in the direction of rebellion, the condemning aspect of ‘God’ will be well developed in my mind. In contrast, because I do not do actions geared toward personal growth, my image of ‘God’—which is rooted in general Teacher understanding—will not reach into this area, and will in fact feel uncomfortable about extending into this region of thought. Thus, personal transformation will turn into philosophy. I will be able to describe my personal condition accurately, but I will not do anything about it.

It is dangerous to reject personal transformation after an image of ‘God’ has formed.

·    Because the theory explains the childish me, ‘God’ will survive and eat up my mind.

·    This is why most people, after several months of interest, reject mental symmetry.

Is that the end of the story? No. I suggest that another stage is possible, which goes beyond the scope of this book. Do not worry if this explanation does not make sense. I am including it for those who find themselves in this situation and want to escape. Basically, the solution involves exploiting an inherent contradiction in my image of ‘God.’ By definition, a ‘person’ that is rooted in general Teacher understanding wants to be universal and hates to be limited by an opposing general theory. But, a ‘condemning image of God’ that is held together by a restricted set of Server actions is obviously limited. Therefore, if someone who rebels from rational thinking continues to point out the logical contradiction of a limited ‘God’—whenever and wherever he stumbles across it—then this mental prodding will eventually push his image of ‘God’ out of the mental rut of contented condemnation.[VVVV] Once the image of ‘God’ becomes interested in exploring other areas of thought, it then becomes possible to guide the extension of this image by choosing to do specific Server actions. Where does this lead? I leave that question to those who follow this path. However, the important thing is that it leads somewhere, and allows the mind to escape from the prison of philosophy.

One final point. I suggest that the path that we have just described is inherently incompatible with the Teacher idolatry of a Holy Book. This is because revealed 'truth' traps the mind within the very logical contradiction from which rational thinking seeks to emerge. One cannot search for a universal ‘God’ while simultaneously exalting the specific words of a special book. Thus, we conclude that this path is not open to the ‘fundamentalist Christian.’

This leads us to a rather frightening implication. If a ‘Bible-believing Christian’ pursues personal transformation to the extent of building a rational image of ‘God’ and then rejects this image of ‘Deity’ and again embraces irrational thought, he is in an irrecoverable situation. All that remains for him is the knowledge that he will face personal judgment. Why is he irredeemable? Because the solution requires letting go of the concept of a Holy Book—something that an idolatrous mind is incapable of doing.[WWWW]

Of course, these mental effects can only occur if logical thinking is followed long enough to build a general understanding and create a new image of ‘God.’ If a childish image of ‘God’ already rules over this aspect of thought, then this existing ‘God’ of idolatry or blind 'faith' will feel threatened by the growth of rational Perceiver thought and will respond by condemning me. This is because a ‘God’ who is rooted in emotional 'truth' does think in terms of personal importance, and therefore will respond to personal threats by attacking the messenger.

It is this effect, I suggest, which scares most people away from the theory of mental symmetry. They may not know consciously what is happening, but under the surface, deep within their person, studying this material creates a new image of ‘God.’[XXXX] First, this new internal image will contradict their existing worldview. They will feel therefore, at a very deep level, that this research is fundamentally flawed. Their gut response will be that the approach of mental symmetry is wrong—and this conclusion will be backed up by their existing image of ‘God.’ Second, this new theory will impose feelings of guilt. They will feel condemned for behavior and attitudes that they previously felt were totally acceptable. In our experience, the typical response is for readers to find this material very interesting for several months, and then to reject it suddenly, in order to ‘kill’ the new image of ‘God’ which begins to emerge.

But what if there is no real God? Mentally speaking, this makes no difference. Tell me, what type of internal master would you like to follow? A childish one rooted in idols and revered people who expects you to kowtow to their standards and worship their status and who imprisons you in personal pain and suffering, or a logical, rational ‘God’ who speaks quietly to you, teaches you, and encourages you to think and act for yourself.

Or, we can always follow the crowd as it experiences social transformation and end up being personally annihilated by Gaia. You see, there may be no real God, but Gaia is coming to life, and this divine beast has the power to make our personal lives very miserable. Mentally speaking, the only way to replace one image of ‘God’ is with another mental image of ‘God.’ And since personal transformation is the only antidote to social transformation, this means that only the ‘God’ of personal transformation can save us from the coming hell of Gaia.[YYYY]

The Real Issues

Let us return now to the core issues of personal transformation. Suppose that I really want to make a frontal attack on the ‘castle’ of deep emotional feelings and change the me of Mercy identification as quickly as I can. Is there some area of personal existence on which I can focus in order to bypass secondary issues and fight the main battle?

Let us see if logic can give us an answer.[ZZZZ] First, I need some arena with strong personal feelings in which emotional 'facts' and logical facts can fight it out. If I gain the ability to think logically in this area, then I will have occupied some portion of the ‘castle’ at the center of the ‘island.’ Victory here will give Perceiver strategy sufficient confidence to handle the rest of the me of Mercy identification. Second, I would like this issue to involve the physical body. That way, the common sense that has been gained by the me of the physical body can be applied to the situation and help Perceiver thought to approach the topic rationally.

Are there any really emotional issues that touch the me of Mercy identification deeply while relating also to our physical bodies? I suggest that there are two of them, one centered around positive Mercy emotion and the other around negative Mercy feelings. In order to identify these two issues, we need only turn on the television set. I refer, of course, to the two topics of sex and violence. Sex is a positive experience involving my body, whereas violence is a negative one that also affects me physically. It is interesting that both of these issues emerge during the teenage years, just about the time that I finish the struggle of growing up and developing the me of my physical body. On the one hand, puberty strikes, while on the other hand, I begin to leave the physical shelter of my home and start to experience firsthand the dangers of the ‘big bad world.’ It is also interesting that these same two topics seem to crop up again and again in our present society, which itself is going through a form of teenage crisis.

There are two main issues which affect the emotional me while being based in the physical me.

·    Violence threatens my physical body with painful feelings.

·    Sex gives pleasant experiences to my physical body.

Why is it that when it comes to sex and violence, rational thinking tends to leave us completely? Because, most of us have not used Teacher understanding to make our way up the hill to the controlling castle of me but have been content rather to remain in the emotional ‘lowlands’ near the coast. Therefore, it is no wonder that the childish me of emotional irrationalism continues to leer at us from its ‘castle’ and bombard us with ‘arrows’ and ‘spears’ of primitive biological responses. This situation is consistent with our worldview. Because we all ‘believe’ that the T/F split cannot be bridged, we 'know' that the coastal regions must be civilized and that the ‘castle’ must remain primitive.[AAAAA]

Does this mean that we can approach these topics directly and expect totally rational thinking to emerge immediately? Of course not. It takes time to grow Perceiver confidence, just as it takes time for invaders to work their way from the coast up to the castle. One must start with the objective and move towards the subjective.

But, social transformation has improved the me of our physical bodies in incredible ways. With so much common sense at our disposal, we are already equipped with massive weapons, and hold a major beachhead.[BBBBB] Therefore, surely we can stop ‘beating around the bush’ and begin to address the real issues. After all, do we have any choice? In many schools today, students think about little except violence and sex.

So, how can one approach either sex or violence in such a way that Perceiver confidence may be gained? That is a good question; one which we will be examining in a few pages. However, within this issue lies another one. If Perceiver strategy can gain confidence from the pressure of either good or bad emotion, does it not make more sense to transform me by contending with good feelings rather than changing me by fighting with bad feelings? Why choose the ‘school of suffering’ if the ‘school of patience’ can teach us exactly the same lessons—in a far nicer way?

If suffering and patience can both teach the same lessons, why not choose the school of patience?

Why? Because the ‘school of patience’ has certain entrance requirements, and those who fail to meet these conditions are ‘transferred’ to the ‘school of suffering.’ Therefore, let us see how patience works and how it can be applied to the topic of sex—the ultimate physical pleasure.


If we have completed the first stage of mental transformation successfully, then the result will be a rational Teacher understanding that describes me, combined with the mental vision of a new me. In other words, we will have constructed a beautiful house next door on the other side of the threshold of uncertainty, but we will still be living in a shack on this side. The new building is finished, but now we have to move from the old location to the new.[CCCCC]

What this move really means is a transfer of identity—a change in me. I literally feel that what used to be me is no longer me; I was like that, but now I am like this. Unfortunately, we are lazy creatures, and naturally choose the easiest path. Therefore, unless we have to change inside, we probably will not,especially if this change affects the core of me. In other words, as long as two possible me’s exist, Mercy thought will choose to stick with the one that is old and familiar. Therefore, the only way to guarantee that identity moves is to tear down the shack that contains the old me. If the old me is destroyed, then identity will be evicted, pack its bags, and change houses. I suggested in the previous volume that this transfer can be achieved either through patience or through suffering. Let us look now at the option of patience.

What is patience? I suggest that it has three requirements: First, there must exist some good experience or object that I desire. Second, this good experience must not belong to me. Third, it must be possible for me to attain this goal. Patience is not needed when I am ignorant of the possibilities. Patience also is not necessary when I can immediately get what I want. Rather, patience grows when I do not immediately receive what I desire. Of course, if the object of desire ever becomes totally unreachable, then patience will snap.

The history of revolution illustrates the need for patience. People do not usually revolt when conditions are terrible, even if they see others living in comfort and luxury. Instead, the real danger of revolt occurs when life begins to get better, because people now realize that their situation could improve. This is when patience is required, and it is also when revolution is most likely. The French Revolution, for instance, occurred in the midst of governmental reform, as did the 1917 Russian Bolshevik Revolution. In both cases, the governing monarch gave power to an elected parliament. After the parliament began to rule, people then rebelled because they lacked the patience to wait for positive results. Notice also that in both Russia and France, a deficiency in patience forced the people to learn their lessons through suffering. In France, the revolution led to the guillotine, whereas in Russia, Lenin and Stalin came to power and instituted prison labor.

But what does patience have to do with rational understanding? I suggest that gaining Perceiver confidence in areas of good Mercy emotion will automatically cause the growth of patience. First, remember that Perceiver belief builds connections between Mercy experiences. Therefore, when I pull facts into my internal world of Perceiver thought, I am also relinking memories within my Mercy inner world of emotional experiences. As these Perceiver connections grow, Mercy strategy begins to see how things could be: “If we took this and put it together with that and arranged it in a certain way, then…WOW, wouldn’t that be incredible!” This provides the first requirement for patience—the possibility of something good.

There are three requirements for patience:

1.  There must be a good experience or object that I desire.

2.  This ‘object of desire’ must not belong to me.

3.  It must be possible for me to obtain what I desire.

Notice that this mental effect only works when Perceiver strategy thinks about good Mercy experiences. Build solid connections between horrible events and all I end up with is an internal vision of the distilled essence of terror. I may get rich writing horror stories, but Mercy thought definitely will not be attracted to what I have produced. And it is this attraction that forces Mercy identity to shift from the old to the new me.[DDDDD]

Second, we know that Perceiver facts divide Mercy experiences into different categories: “This is a car, that is a fish. A fish is not a car.” It is this mental separation that creates the pressure in patience. The very Perceiver beliefs which give Mercy thought an internal picture of how good things could be, also tell Mercy strategy that there is a separation between me and my internal vision. For instance, the more I learn about cars, the more I figure out exactly what type of car want and the more I realize the gap between my car andthe car of my dreams.

Third, as long as my Perceiver facts are based in common sense and logic, then my goal will always be reachable. If I allow my imagination to run off on flights of fancy, then there is no way to realize these internal visions—except through the ‘magic’ of movie and computer special effects. However, if I work with facts that are reasonable, then I am always reconnecting existing Mercy experiences in ways that are Perceiver possible. For instance, suppose that I am playing with Lego blocks. As long as I stick with existing blocks and attach them together in ways that fit, then, if I have enough bricks, I should be able to take any internal image of a Lego structure and transform it into reality.[EEEEE]

Perceiver logic leads naturally to patience:

1.  Perceiver facts relink emotional Mercy experiences to create images of ‘what could be.’

2.  These internal images do not exist externally because they combine many experiences.

3.  These internal visions can be realized externally, because they are built with Perceiver logic.

So how long should the mental agony of patience continue? Until I am no longer attracted to the old me. And how will I know when this point has been reached? By my response to choice. If I encounter a situation in which I am forced to choose between either satisfying the old me or hoping to realize the new me, and if I choose the possibility of a new me over the certainty of fulfilling the old me, then I know that patience has lasted long enough.

What happens if I reach my goal too soon and get what I want too quickly?[FFFFF] If the period of patience does not last long enough, then part of my identity will still reside with the old me. In other words, the castle at the center of the island will be damaged, but because the major battle has not yet been won, it will remain under the control of its original inhabitants,

Let us examine this transition away from the old me from another angle. Earlier on, I mentioned that there are five ‘whammies’ which prevent Mercy strategy from letting go of its idols. In case you forgot, these ‘whammies’ are: losing the object, experiencing Mercy pain, falling apart in Mercy strategy, doubting Perceiver 'truth,' and having Teacher understanding attacked. What happens when I use Perceiver logic to build an internal vision of better possibilities? Let us see how it affects these five obstacles.

First, with patience, I am not losing an object, but rather gaining a better one. As with an old computer that is being replaced, the original may be obsolete, but it is still there. This changes the nature of the first ‘whammy.’ Second, Mercy strategy is only experiencing relativepain. I feel bad about my present situation, not because it is terrible, but rather because I want something that is better. The emotional pressure is still there, but it is provided by a ‘carrot’ and not a ‘stick.’

Third, as a byproduct of doing all of this mental reassembling, Perceiver thought ends up creating a new emotional absolute in Mercy strategy. Before, what I wanted more than anything was some external object or experience. However, what really attracts my feelings now is the internal image that I have formulated by taking the best of everything and putting it together. Therefore, the emotional core of my Mercy strategy becomes partially disconnected from the external world, and thus also from its idols. Again, the mind is drawn away from idolatry, and not pushed.

Fourth, I have a new set of Perceiver facts, which have grown in confidence through the effort of combining and recombining all of these emotional Mercy experiences. Fifth, this foundation of Perceiver confidence leads to a new and better Teacher understanding, because the new is an improvement upon the old, and not just a negation of it. Teacher thought looks at the relationship between the old and the new and notices an order that ties this complexity together. And, because existing Teacher order is never destroyed, there is no Teacher pain. Instead, the new keeps developing and unfolding, producing good Teacher feelings. Again, we have a carrot instead of a stick.

Patience automatically deals with the five ‘whammies.’

1.  Instead of losing what I have, I gain something better.

2.  I am being pulled by an emotional ‘carrot’ instead of pushed by a ‘stick.’

3.  Mercy strategy lets go of external idols in order to integrate around internal Mercy images.

4.  Perceiver strategy builds confidence in a new set of facts.

5.  Identity moves into its new ‘home’ instead of being forced out of the old.

Even the transfer of Mercy identity is driven by positive forces. As Perceiver facts connect Mercy experiences, Mercy strategy compares the emotional significance of its idols with the growing emotional status of the new internal image of possibility. As patience continues, Mercy thought will eventually conclude that the idols look ‘trashy’ in comparison with the new and it will junk them in favor of the internal vision. In other words, Mercy thought will conclude that the Mercy pain of losing the idol is less than the Mercy pain of losing the internal picture of what could be. Compare this transition with the path of suffering, where the change in Mercy identity is usually accompanied by total despair and a deep pit of black depression—otherwise known as ‘reaching the end of your rope.’

Since all five of the ‘whammies’ have now been removed by patience, once the old me decides to go toward the new house, it will find to its delight that the chasm which once blocked progress forward is now irrelevant, because it can ‘fly.’ It did not realize that the agony of longing for the goal was actually the pain associated with growing a set of ‘wings.’[GGGGG]

What happened to all of the idols? They were not destroyed or blasphemed. Rather, they were belittled. This is the sort of reaction that comes naturally when we look at old computers, or cheap plastic trinkets. We used to drool over the power of these machines and we honestly thought that those gaudy ornaments looked neat. But now, they seem like nothing. Their attraction is gone. They have become out-of-date, cheap, weak, and trashy. This is what patience does to idols. It makes them look dumb.

In fact, I suggest that the only permanent way of removing an idol is to belittle it.[HHHHH] If I attempt to destroy it, it turns from an idol into a ‘demon,’ just as powerful, but now influencing my mind from under the surface.

We have looked at the failure that accompanies philosophy. Unfortunately, all of us, to some extent, are philosophers. No matter how much we attempt to think logically, irrationalism generally manages to creep in. ‘Flying,’ I suggest, is a good way to uncover philosophy. Wherever I practice philosophy, my old me will become glued to the surface and find itself unable to move. If this happens, and it probably will, then I suggest that this immobility will let me know where I am following emotional 'truth' rather than logical facts. By using patience to expand my vision of possibility in this area, I can become emotionally ‘unstuck’ and make further progress. The emotional attractiveness of the internal goal will give me the motivation to change, and the effort of freeing myself will build the necessary Perceiver and Server confidence.[IIIII]

But why must I use Perceiver strategy to build an internal object of desire? Why can’t I long for something that I can see with my eyes? Because I want to replace idolatry with rational thought, and not just with a new set of idols. If I lust after some existing object, then the strong emotions associated with this Mercy experience will continue to re-hypnotize Perceiver thought with emotional 'facts.' Seeing the goal attacks Perceiver confidence whereas building patience requires Perceiver confidence. If I go after something that I can see, then I will find that I have no patience. It is only when I cannot see my goal that patience has a chance to grow. This is because when the goal is in my head, then visualizing the goal requires Perceiver confidence, and this same Perceiver confidence gives me the ability to have patience.[JJJJJ]

Notice that the individual Mercy experiences always come from the external world. I never block myself off from external reality. The Perceiver confidence comes from taking these experiences and putting them together in a better way. It is this novel connection which must remain unseen, and not the experiences themselves.

Sex—An Example of Patience

As an illustration of patience, I would like to look at the subject of sex. Strange, do I sense hackles being raised as I mention this word? If so, then with my usual tact I will put on my boots and plunge into the muck of passion. Let us see if we can use logical thought to apply what we know about patience to this rather touchy topic.

First of all, we do have an object of desire, namely a person of the opposite sex. Second, we have an object of desire: It feels good to spend time together. The more time and the closer together, the better it feels. Third, this goal is definitely within reach. Male and female bodies fit together quite easily. Therefore, for all of these reasons, we conclude that there is a possibility for patience.[KKKKK]

What happens if I decide to abandon patience and hop into bed with the nearest available partner? Rather than arguing morality, let me suggest four mental results which are certain. First, this action will support emotional 'truth.' I saw the person, the emotions associated with the experience mesmerized my Perceiver observer and defined a new set of Perceiver 'facts,' and I supported this idolatry with the defining experience of a sexual encounter. This will strengthen the childish me of Mercy identification.

Second, this action will attack Perceiver logic. My sensory gratification was not oriented around lasting connections between Mercy experiences—the basis for Perceiver logic, but rather focused upon the strong emotions of a single event—the root of emotional 'facts.' Therefore, I will weakenthe adult me of Mercy identification.

Third, because sex is so emotional, my decision in the area of sex will have repercussions upon the rest of my thinking. On the one hand, if Perceiver strategy has sufficient confidence to handle this area, then it will probably survive almost anything else. On the other hand, if emotional 'truth' conquers here, then it will probably win in other areas as well.

But what is so bad about programming my mind with emotional 'facts'? What is wrong with a little fun? Remember those endless, dreary pages in which we showed ad-nauseum that following emotional 'truth' leads always to personal pain and suffering? That’s the problem with having a little fun—it is followed by a lot of pain and suffering. Haven’t we repeated the phrase “Pain hurts, suffering is unpleasant” sufficient times?

Fourth, we have just passed up an ideal opportunity for transforming the emotional me via the path of patience. Of course, we can always follow the route of suffering, but do we really want to? Repeat after me… Hmmm.[LLLLL]

Learning patience through sexual attraction is a balancing act.

·    There must be enough interaction for me to know what I am missing.

·    There must be enough restriction for me to continue missing it.

Let us suppose that I decide to take advantage of this opportunity. How can I learn patience from sex? Let us start by looking at what will not teach patience. First, keeping guys and girls apart will not attain this goal. In order to have patience, I must know what I am missing. On the other hand, there must be some form of limitation, or else I cannot learn patience. How much interaction should there be? Enough to force Perceiver confidence to grow, but not so much that Perceiver strategy is overwhelmed or patience defeated.

Second, in order for patience to lead to a new me, it must be accompanied by logical understanding. Therefore, the subject of sex and personal relationship must be discussed in an open and rational manner. In other words, the message of “just say no” is not sufficient. Notice that I said rational and not objective. An objective discussion of physical techniques and birth control is inadequate because it deals only with the me of the physical body while ignoring the emotional me. Therefore, I suggest that the only understanding that will suffice is one that uses Perceiver logic[MMMMM] and Teacher order to analyze the me of Mercy identification.

But what about ‘being unseen’? As far as we know, nobody has yet worked out a method of becoming an invisible person. How can I follow a mental image if all I see is real people? Ah. Remember that there are two me’s. It may bepossible to see the me of the physical body. This is because it is ultimately held together by the physical structure of my body. However, the me of Mercy identification cannot be seen, because its structure is provided by an internal network of Perceiver and Server confidence. It is only as I spend time with someone—doing things with this person in different situations under emotional stress—that I gradually form a mental image about the person behind the body.

Therefore, if my goal is to transform the me of Mercy identification, then I suggest that sexual attraction provides a perfect opportunity for learning through patience. This is because sex is primarily an emotional interaction between individuals. The me of the physical body may provide the equipment that is needed to perform the act of sex, but it is the me of Mercy identification which makes this act special. If I want to interact emotionally with another person, then, logically speaking, I must first define my emotional mealong with the emotional me of my partner. And that is a mental process which takes both time and effort, and which can only be achieved through personal transformation.

Now, suppose that I see an attractive body. My childish reaction is to go for an immediate physical connection—to worship the idol. This sort of response, however, mesmerizes the emotionalme with an isolated experience created by the structure of the physical me. Thus, the very thing—my physical body—that should teach me common sense is being used instead to destroy common sense.

In contrast, suppose that I decide not to ‘hop into bed’ and choose instead to follow the option of patience. First of all, I will immediately notice that I am following a path of patience. This is because my physical body will inform my mind of the pleasure that is being missed. But, it is this very longing that attracts the attention of the emotional me, leading to the second effect. By spending time with the ‘attractive body,’ I—along with the person inhabiting that body—can use our physical bodies to build structure into the me of Mercy identification. Each time I go somewhere with the ‘attractive’ person, we both add Perceiver content to the me of Mercy identification. Each time I do something with that person, the emotional me acquires Server content.

But why must the ‘attractive body’ be involved? Because, it is the emotional overtones—provided by sexual attraction—which ensure that the emotional me is paying attention to the structure inherent in physical objects and physical movement. Without this emotional attraction, the emotional me will ignore what is being done by the physical body and find its excitement elsewhere—in some form of wishful thinking.

Sex becomes special when there is an emotional interaction between two individuals.

·    This only occurs if my mind defines both my emotional me and the emotional me of my partner.

This path, I suggest, will only work if two requirements are met. First, the emotional me can only learn common sense from sexual attraction if interactionwith my object of attraction is possible. Therefore, being infatuated with some movie star or famous athlete, for instance, will not teach common sense or bring sanity to the me of Mercy identification. This is because, as far as Perceiver and Server thought is concerned, our physical existence has nothing in common. As a result, any so-called relationship cannot progress beyond idol-worship. Therefore, it must be possible for me to interact with my object of attraction, and that person must be willing to interact with me. It is this interaction which builds the Perceiver and Server structure that can be used to hold together our emotional me’s.

Second, having sex before our emotional me’s are properly defined will shortcircuit the process of personal transformation. This is because the me of Mercy identification will identify with the emotional experience of sex,[NNNNN] and this defining event will overwhelm the Perceiver and Server confidence that was gained through personal interaction. Similarly, when there is sex, then it must occur within a framework of long term stability, in which the two of us continue to be together and do things together. In other words, the two of us should sign a marriage contract. How long should this contract last? As long as we depend upon the integrity of our physical bodies for our personal existence.[OOOOO]

This process of looking beyond the external body happens wheneverwe get to know a person. However, what we are looking at here is the difference between automatic thought and the internal world. Automatic Perceiver and Mercy strategies are automatically filled with facts and experiences about people. But, when I am emotionally or physically attracted to another individual, then the inner world of Perceiver belief and Mercy identification gets involved. If the goal is to achieve personal transformation through personal interaction, then this interaction must affect the Mercy and Perceiver internal worlds. Only when Perceiver strategy gains sufficient confidence to work with emotional Mercy experiences can an internal image of identity form.

Sexual attraction uses the structure of the physical body to give form to the emotional me.

·    Without sexual attraction, the emotional me will ignore the facts of physical matter.

·    Without sexual commitment, the emotional me will forget the facts of physical matter.

Finally, if Perceiver thought is to succeed in using logic to reprogram the me of Mercy identification, it will need a lot of help from common sense related to the me of my physical body. Therefore, I suggest that sheathing our bodies from head to toe in shapeless fabric, as is done is some countries, definitely is not going to help thought. Instead, it will result in a total lack of common sense and an overload of fantasy and wishful thinking in the area of the physical body—precisely the effect that we are trying to avoid. Common sense can only be gained by interacting with each other as physical bodies and not just as talking heads. How much interaction? Enough to teach common sense, not so much that the original goal of sexual patience is lost.

Hmmm. That was a heavy one. Is everyone still with me, or did we lose some of the party back in the caves of passion? If this material strikes you as strange, then I suggest that you go over it again and ask yourself whether it makes sense. I have done my best to stick with logic while dealing with the emotional issues.

“Ummm. I have a question. Haven’t we already tried most of this stuff and found that it doesn’t work?” I suggest that this is precisely our problem. We have tried most of this stuff. Within the realm of objective professional relationships between the sexes, these principles are generally applied. As a result, we can usually interact as sane humans—in public. However, I suggest that we have not tried all of this stuff. When Mercy feelings are added, then we tend to ‘lose our heads,’ throw away rational thinking, and allow ourselves to be mesmerized by the feelings of the moment. In other words, maybe the real problem is that this stuff does work and we would prefer some other alternative.

Most of what we have ‘learned’ about the topic of sex in the past has suffered from a T/F split. Either we are taught a set of objective facts about sex—the approach of Thinking—or else we are presented a list of moral 'rules' based in the emotional significance of some set of experts—the attitude of Feeling. But, sex is an emotional encounter between two physical bodies. Thus, by definition, it combines Thinking with Feeling. Therefore, sexual education must include both Thinking and Feeling, and these two can only be combined through personal transformation.

Moving further, I suggest that every system of revealed 'truth'—regardless of its content—will always have problems dealing with the issue of sex. This is because the 'knowing' of emotional 'truth' can only survive as long as the emotional importance of the source of 'truth' remains much greater than the emotional significance of me. But, sex is a strongly emotional and pleasurable activity which involves the emotional me. Therefore, sex, by its very nature, will erode revealed 'truth.' And, because sex is an interaction between two physical bodies, this mental corrosion will be backed up by the cold, hard facts of physical matter. Thus, 'belief' will ultimately be replaced by facts.[PPPPP]

Revealed 'truth' will always have problems handling the topic of sex.

·    The personal pleasure of sex contradicts the self-denial implicit in revealed 'truth.'

·    The structure implicit in physical matter corrodes the 'facts' of emotional 'truth.'

Therefore, we conclude revealed 'truth' will only survive if 'believers' put stricts walls around sexual discussion and activity and reject those who choose to pursue sexual ‘freedom.’ If blatant sexual behavior or open discussion comes into direct contact with revealed 'truth,' then one or the other will always suffer. The only way to remove this mental restriction, I suggest, is to graduate from revealed 'truth' to a belief in logical principles of cause and effect.

History shows us that countless ethical schemes and innumerable clergy have floundered upon the issue of sexuality. In response, the laymen have often blamed religious leaders for their ‘immorality.’ However, I suggest that the real fault lies with the inherent weakness of revealed 'truth.' It can only function, for a limited while, as a mental scaffolding. It is an intellectual crutch that allows us to build a more permanent structure of thought. Those who attempt to hold on to it will find that it self-destructs.

I suggest that Western society, on the whole, has not learned about the fundamental incompatibility between revealed 'truth' and sexuality. Instead, we swing between 'rules' and freedom. 'Rules' restrict our sexuality, fill us with guilt and limit our pleasure. Freedom, in contrast, destroys 'rules' and removes our ability to enjoy sex.[QQQQQ] Thus the only time that we can really appreciate sex is during the limited period when we are rebelling from the 'rules.' Otherwise we lack either the mental ability or the internal freedom to derive substantial pleasure from the act. In MBTI® terms, our sex suffers from a P/J split. Either the feelings from our body cannot live within the restrictions provided by our rules, or else the feelings in our mind try to run away from the restrictions of our physical bodies.

For instance, in the 1950s, sexual behavior in the United States was highly regulated by the revealed 'truth' of ‘Christian morality.’ Then came the sexual revolution of the 60s and the 70s. As long as some form of personal identity and morality remained intact, everyone had fun. But by the 80s and the 90s nobody knew who they were or what was solid. Thus, the capacity to enjoy sex was lost and freedom turned into chaos and violence. Now, we are passing one law after another in order to regulate sexual desire and its expression, trying to replace the old 'rules' with the revealed 'truth' of government. Ultimately, we have simply exchanged one master for another.

So why not allow complete sexual freedom and forget about moral restrictions? Because of the nature of sex. The act itself is rather basic, as simple as going to the bathroom. Even animals can copulate. This is because anyone who survives puberty possesses a physical me that is both able and eager to have sex with another physical body. Making the act pleasurable, though, requires extensive intimate interaction between the emotional me of one individual and the emotional me of another. But, we learned in the previous book that the emotional me and internal life are constructed out of the bricks of conscience and morality. Therefore, without moral guidance, sex becomes empty—the ultimate emotional shortcut. Unfortunately, we live in a society in which the me of the physical body is far more advanced than the emotional me. Thus, we are increasingly ableto have sex, but decreasingly able to enjoy it.

What is the mental effect of pursuing sexual ‘freedom’? Well, whenever I ‘sleep’ with someone, I am filling my me of Mercy identification with emotional experiences. If my sexual partner walks out on me, then those emotional memories become detached and can no longer be mentally integrated. Why? Because they are associated with a specific physical body which is no longer related to me. In the same way that Perceiver thought knows that a chair is not the same as a sofa, so Perceiver strategy will know that the physical body of Jill differs from the physical body of Jane.

Sex with multiple partners uses the structure of the physical body to tear apart the emotional me.

·    Sexual experiences become mentally associated with many physical bodies.

But how is personal transformation achieved? By using common sense as a basis for helping Perceiver logic to tie together subjective Mercy memories. Therefore, if I have more than one sexual partner, then common sense makes it impossible for me to integrate sexual memories—and these are the most emotional Mercy experiences.[RRRRR] Why? Because the very part of my mind, Perceiver thought, which is supposed to be helping my emotional me stay in one piece is instead tearing it apart into incompatible fragments. And, when personal transformation becomes impossible, then fascism is inevitable. Thus, I suggest that the sexual revolution of the 60s paved the way for our coming dictatorship. When society rejected traditional rules of sexual morality, it closed the door on personal transformation.

Let us explore this topic further by looking briefly at the relationship between sex, personal transformation, and social transformation. First, does sex belong to personal or to societal transformation? Well, sex existed long before social transformation produced science and technology. In addition, Western social structure generally tries to sweep sex under the rug and pretend that it doesn’t exist. Thus, we conclude that sex does not play a major role in social transformation. In contrast, sex is a highly emotional interaction between individuals, in which identity is shared. And what is it that deals with people, feelings, and identity? Personal transformation.

If sex and personal transformation are related, then the first step in approaching sex successfully is to integrate Thinking and Feeling.[SSSSS] In fact, I suggest that approaching sex with a T/F split will prevent logic and feeling from coming together. Each time I am attracted to a person, the strong emotions will cause me to abandon rational thinking and to embrace irrational feeling. Emotions will redefine my absolutes and I will focus completely upon the ecstasy of the moment. Facts and long-term results will be ignored, until my moment of sensory gratification is over and the level of emotional intensity drops back to normal.[TTTTT]

The school of sexual patience is sufficient to teach complete personal transformation.

·    It bridges T/F by combining personal feeling with the facts of physical matter.

·    It combines P/J by expressing sexual drive through the container of a physical body.

·    It integrates S/N by combining physical interaction with intellectual companionship.

·    It bridges I/E by being both external and internal.

Suppose, though, that I do integrate T and F. Then, as I mentioned before, my goal will be long-term gratificationWhy? Because Mercy strategy demands experiences that feel good, while Perceiver strategy insists equally upon experiences that are repeatable. Hence, a long-term relationship.

Once I have entered into a lasting sexual relationship, it then becomes possible to deal with the P/J separation. What exactly is this? A split between rules and excitement. ‘Judging’ wants restrictions, decisions and stability, whereas ‘Perceiving’ prefers freedom, spontaneity and excitement. How will I know if my sex suffers from a P/J split? I will find ‘normal’ sex boring and find my sexual excitement outside of Perceiver rules. For instance, while having sex with my partner, I may fantasize that he or she is someone else. Or, I may try to add spice to my sex life by challenging the rules of ‘accepted behavior,’ doing it in ‘unacceptable’ places or in ‘forbidden’ ways. As far as my mind is concerned, sexual rules and sexual excitement cannot be combined. However, if P and J are integrated, then I will find my sexual excitement within the Perceiver bounds of a long-term relationship. My partner will continue to ‘turn me on.’

So, is this the ultimate in sex? No. This is because of the strange nature of sex. It may fall within the domain of personal transformation but it also insists upon a mental integration between I and E, because it combines internal mental ecstasy with external physical interaction. Thus, by its very nature, sex brings I/E together. This has two major implications. First, sex can only become totally satisfying to the extent that my mind reaches total integration. This is because sex involves both personal transformation and the I/E split. Because I/E is secondary to S/N, and personal change, by definition, addresses T/F and P/J, personal transformation can only tackle the I/E division after dealing successfully with all three other MBTI® splits. Second, if real sex demands complete mental maturity, this also means that a search for sexual satisfaction is sufficient motivation to drive me towards the goal of complete mental maturity, and to teach me the necessary patience.

Thus, to discover the full potential of sex, we need to look at what happens to sex once the mind goes beyond integrating T/F and P/J and begins to deal with S/N and I/E. How does sex interact with the S/N division? Well, if S and N are split, then physical interaction—which belongs to the world of Sensing, will be distinct from intellectual relationship—which is part of the realm of iNtuition. For instance, if I interact mentally with my partners at the office and then come home and interact physically with my spouse, this indicates an S/N division. On the other hand, as S and N come together, then intellectual interaction with my long-term partner will turn into ‘foreplay’ and the act itself will acquire overtones which go far beyond mere physical sensation.

That brings us to the final split of I versus E. How will I know if this split is resolved? My internal interactions with others will not differ from my external relationships. Externally, I do not share intimacy with everyone, but have levels of relationship. Sexual intercourse is reserved for my long-term partner. If internal matches external, then I will have the same pattern of internal intimacy. I will not open up my mind to the latest scheme or project and allow it to have ‘mental sex’ with me. I will not ‘get married’ mentally to a company, church, country, or organization. Instead, my external sexual partner will also be my closest internal partner, the only one with whom I share all of my closest intimacies. Ultimately, I will find any other sort of arrangement inconceivable. Theory predicts that this produces the ultimate in sexual satisfaction.

But who could ever survive such a limiting relationship? Ah, you are assuming that E extends towards I, that all internal interaction has to fit within the confines of a single external physical relationship. But, what if the internal expanded to include the external? Who knows what new external dimensions of sex would emerge…

Now that we have opened up several cans of worms, let us take our attention away from this hot topic for a few pages and move from patience to suffering. Not that suffering is any less emotional. But, at least we can stir up some other feelings for a while.

Personal Transformation through Suffering

The process of patience is internally driven: Perceiver confidence is used to create a mental image of how things could be. Perceiver facts build an internal separation in Mercy strategy between me and my goal. Common sense related to the physical body is used as a mental reference for guiding Perceiver thought. Idols are also thrown away mentally, as the internal vision makes them look cheap by comparison. Finally, the path to the new me is made possible by the building of an internal Teacher understanding.[UUUUU] About the only external aspect to this process is the test at the end which demonstrates that an internal shift has been made.

Suffering, in contrast, is propelled almost entirely by influences from the external world. Instead of being drawn towards the new me, I am kicked out of the old. And my idols are not belittled. Rather, they are smashed to pieces right in front of my eyes. If this sounds like a painful process, it is. So, now that we have this point settled, let us look at the details.

Patience is driven internally. Suffering propels a person from the outside.

We have seen that there are two ways of defining me: either with emotional 'facts' or with logical facts. These two types of Perceiver information correspond to two ways of transforming me: On the one hand, the path of patience is led by Perceiver confidence. The vision of the new me stretches back and ‘lifts up’ the old me. In contrast, the method of suffering operates within the world of emotional 'truth'; the old me stretches forward in order to reach the new me.[VVVVV]

This helps to explain why the path of suffering involves—suffering. If we are trying to move from an old me rooted in emotional 'facts' to a new me based in Perceiver logic, then it makes sense that a method of travel that uses Perceiver logic would be more pleasant than one that tries to hold on to emotional 'facts.' To quote the immortal words of the interfering parent: “You will come whether you like it or not. You can decide whether you want to cooperate or whether I have to drag you kicking and screaming. Obviously, you are going to have a lot less misery if you come along with me willingly.”

From our discussion of patience, we know which elements are required to transform me. Let us see if we can use logic to figure out how these factors might be provided in the absence of Perceiver logic. Notice the apparent paradox. We are using logic to figure out a path that avoids logic. Why can we do this? Because mental growth is guided by the structure of the mind. It does not matter whether the person or society experiencing it knows these principles or not. They still apply.

In practical terms this means that the person who experiences suffering can only understand his situation after he has gone through it. Looking back, he is able to see a logical progression. While suffering, though, he cannot see a logical reason for his predicament, because he lacks the Perceiver confidence to apply logical thinking. In contrast, the individual who learns through patience does understand what he is going through while it is happening—though he may only comprehend it one step at a time. Because his method uses logic, he can think logically.

We know that it takes emotional tension to transform me. Mercy strategy feels shy about venturing into the threshold of uncertainty, and it is unwilling to do so unless tempted by a sufficiently large carrot or threatened with a big enough stick. The way to create this tension internally is through Perceiver confidence, because Perceiver facts separate one Mercy experience from another. Without this Perceiver belief, the only way to build the required emotional tension is to create a separation in the external world and then to use external pressure to force Mercy thought out into uncertainty. As a Negro spiritual might put it: “Dem Children of Israel ain’t gonna step into dat Red Sea unless the chariots of Egypt comes chasin’ after them.”[WWWWW]

How can this emotional tension be achieved in the absence of Perceiver confidence and logic? First, the external world must create a separation between me and what is not me. This means that the outside environment imposes something upon me that it does not impose upon the rest of the world. This will create a difference between my experiences and the experiences of others.

In suffering, the external world creates a separation between me and not me.

·    That which is me must be worse than that which is not.

Second, whatever is not me must be better than that which is me. This will put emotional pressure on Mercy thought to abandon the old me. Unless my personal experiences are in some way unpleasant, I will not want to leave them. Similarly, unless others are in a better situation, I will not know that things could be different. Therefore, I must experience some sort of personal ‘nasty’ from the external world—something that I cannot ignore. How awful must it be? Bad enough to get my attention and hold it. Unless this disaster forces me to admit that I am in an awful predicament, it will not be enough.

The ‘nicest’ way to generate this emotional pressure is to live beside a neighbor, or a neighboring country, that has more than I do. This leads to relative suffering, which we will examine later. Unfortunately, there are two emotional responses that often conspire to remove this opportunity.

First, there is the Mercy feeling of jealousy. When another individual receives something good, the temptation is for me to use Mercy identification to idolize his good experiences and to pretend that they belong to me. I can do this mentally by allowing Mercy thought to focus upon his possessions or attributes, or I can respond physically by stealing what he owns. Either of these responses will attack Perceiver confidence and remove the internal Mercy pressure that drives personal transformation. Mental jealousy, I suggest, motivates most modern ‘entertainment.’ Television allows me to escape my dreary existence and to pretend that I am living a better life. Communist revolution externalizes and legitimizes jealousy; it sees the physical possessions of others and grabs them by force.

Second, there is the Mercy emotion of envy. Jealousy wants to bring me up to the level of the other person. Envy, in contrast, attempts to bring the other individual down to my level. Jealousy steals my neighbor’s possessions. Envy burns down his house. Why this negative response? Because, envy removes the source of the guilt. The success of my neighbor demonstrates that a better path is possible. This makes me feel guilty about my present way of functioning. If I destroy his success, then I can deny the possibility that something better exists. Jealousy makes it difficult to learn through relative suffering. Envy makes it impossible.

Jealousy brings me up to my neighbor, envy brings him down to me.

When relative suffering fails to motivate change, then growth can only be achieved through imposed suffering. Anything less will either be ignored or rejected. What is the type of imposed suffering that is most difficult to ignore? Violence done against my physical body. This is why I referred to sex andviolence when I introduced the two paths of patience and suffering. Physical pain cannot be ignored. Physical disability limits me wherever I go. And, disaster that affects my physical body involves the me of my physical body, the part of my mind in which common sense and Perceiver logic to some extent reside. This common sense will tell me repeatedly that I have experienced a tragedy.[XXXXX]

We see these various elements, for instance, in the history of communist Russia.[YYYYY] First, there was the pressure of relative suffering, produced by economic development during the nineteenth century. This was removed by the 1917 revolution, in which jealousymotivated the leaders to abolish private property. Then, in the early 1920s, individuals were given some economic freedom. A few years of modest success provoked a backlash of envy, in which anyone who had a few more cows than his neighbor was either persecuted or killed. The concentration camps of Stalin, which imposed physical suffering upon the bodies of millions of Russians, provided the next level of pressure. This agony, combined with the trauma of the Second World War, finally proved sufficient to trigger a change in the mentality of the Russian peasant.[ZZZZZ]

We have looked at two requirements—the external world must create a separation between me and not me, and what is not me must be better than what is me. Moving on to the third factor, emotional pressure for personal transformation requires a knowledge that life canbe better. But, what if I lack the Perceiver confidence to build internal images of how life couldbe? I must then learn about these possibilities by having them enter from the external world directly into Mercy thought. In other words, I must first experience something good so that I know how things couldbe, and then have it taken away from me.[AAAAAA] Remember, we are looking at a situation in which Perceiver confidence is deficient, and therefore there is no way of internally and theoretically convincing me that my situation could improve. It can only be convinced externally, through the senses.

Notice the relationship between suffering, patience, personal, and social transformation. Patience is motivated internally. It pursues personal transformation until the internal becomes externalized. In other words, it begins with T/F, goes through P/J and S/N, and arrives eventually at I/E, moving from the internal to the external.

Suffering, in contrast, is externally driven. It indirectly promotes personal transformation by dragging the mind through the steps of personal transformation. First, the person who suffers is faced with unpleasant facts. This forces T/F together. Second, he must live with this unpleasantness. Somehow, he has to find the Perceiving energy to continue within the Judging of his predicament. Third, the trauma changes his way of life. He can no longer continue with his present Sensing actions, but must use the iNtuition of understanding to adjust the way that he interacts with the physical world. Finally, after going through these steps, the sufferer realizes that he has changed inside. He is no longer the same person that he was, but he has come to terms with his problems. No longer can he even conceive of living as he did before.

By the way, guess what happens in a fascist dictatorship. Thousands, even millions, of people are enrolled in the school of suffering. The regime uses force to impose its 'truth' upon individuals, puts prison walls around those who dare to question its version of 'truth,' and then turns their physical lives upside-down. Then, when social transformation goes amok, the resulting imposed suffering pushes countless individuals through personal transformation, causing the ‘back’ leg of personal change to catch up with the ‘front’ one of corporate improvement. This makes further progress possible—once the regime falls apart. Why? Because no one can change until the brutes who are in control step out of the way, and no one believes that change is possible until the fall of the empire provides a demonstration.

One further thing. So far, most of history has been driven by personal suffering. That is what happens when the ‘leg’ of societal transformation leads the way. How can we escape our ‘world of suffering’? By pursuing personal transformation to the extent that it begins to take the lead over social change.

What is the biggest factor that stops us from following this path? Our mental image of ‘God.’ Notice the logic. An image of ‘God’ forms as general Teacher understanding imposes itself upon subjective Mercy thought. In an atmosphere of social transformation, what does it take to get the attention of me? Personal suffering. Is this a general Teacher principle? Yes. Hence, an image forms of a ‘God who imposes suffering upon people.’ In addition, whenever there is external growth without internal development, then people find it difficult internally to conceive of any system that differs from their external world. The result is cosmic fatalism: ‘God makes us suffer and there is nothing that we can do about it.’ Finally, if I can blame my image of ‘God’ for my personal suffering, then I am able to deflect any feelings of guilt that might force me to change. The end result is a society that blames ‘God’ for its suffering, locks itself into a world full of suffering, and makes any other sort of ‘God’ impossible.[BBBBBB]

When emotional 'truth' rules, then people eventually 'believe' in a ‘God’ of suffering.

However, if people pursue personal transformation, then to the extent that their internal rebuilding constructs a new mental image of ‘God,’ they will eventually be able to escape the vicious cycle of historical suffering. How? By changing the ultimate bias away from ‘external over internal’ to ‘internal over external.’ As they succeed, then the ‘God of suffering’ will become history.[CCCCCC]

But, anyone who accepts the external world knows that this is physically impossible. Exactly. That is the logic of a mind which exalts Sensing over iNtuition and the external over the internal. In contrast, the one who really desires personal transformation must pursue iNtuition that goes beyond Sensing and an internal which transforms the external.

So what separates personal transformation from wishful thinking? The T/F and P/J splits. The wishful thinker rejects logic and refuses to allow facts to limit his imagination. Personal transformation, in contrast, roots itself in common sense and finds its excitement within the rules. It is this mental foundation which separates insanity from genius.[DDDDDD]

The Cul de Sac of Denial

Speaking of wishful thinking, I suggest that denial is the first trap that prevents an individual from learning through suffering. This is because denial separates facts from feelings. The emotions of the painful situation are so intense that the facts cannot be accepted but must be denied.

In other words, denial reinforces the T/F split. But, we know that personal transformation begins by integrating T and F. Therefore, we can conclude that denial and personal transformation are mutually incompatible. Let us look at some of the various forms of denial, beginning with the most obvious.

Denial reinforces the T/F split.

Suppose that I experience some external trauma. The temptation is for me to block it off mentally and pretend that it did not happen. In so doing, I am denying Perceiver facts that apply to me. In the extreme, such denial leads to multiple personalities. Though all inhabiting the same physical body, each personality denies that it is related to the other personalities. One personality may actually believe that it can get rid of another personality by killing the physical body, not realizing that it too will be destroyed.[EEEEEE] Why is denial practiced? Because the Mercy emotions associated with the me of Mercy identification—which personal transformation rebuilds—are so strong that they overwhelm Perceiver facts connected with the me of the physical body. Therefore, a major aspect of treating multiple personalities involves getting the various personalities to acknowledge each other’s existence and to cooperate with one other.

Multiple personalities are an extreme case of denial. The child who is abused is usually so young that she, or he, has no option except denial.[FFFFFF] Why? Because the me of the physical body has not yet developed sufficiently. It lacks the common sense to keep the mind integrated, and thus the me of Mercy identification is able to impose the ultimate version of denial upon the mind. As a result, there is suffering, but it does not lead to personal transformation.[GGGGGG]

Denial can also involve the internal world of feeling. If my mind contains a network of unwanted emotionally charged memories, the tendency is for me to ‘move on’ by suppressing these feelings and pretending that they do not exist. This is what sometimes happens in teenage rebellion. The teenager feels emotionally stifled. He feels under constant emotional attack from his parents. And so, he blocks off all memories of his childhood and pretends that his parents no longer exist. In the extreme, he runs away from home and breaks off all communication.[HHHHHH] This sort of denial, I suggest, short-circuits personal transformation. The teenager may learn how to cope in the adult world, but unless and until he faces his parents and acknowledges his childhood, he cannot truly grow up inside.[IIIIII]

Our research suggests that most Facilitator philosophy begins with what we call ‘the grand divorce’—a denial of emotional thought. The philosopher blocks off the emotional memories of his childhood and starts his thinking with a ‘clean slate.’ Given such a foundation, it is impossible for philosophy to lead to personal transformation.[JJJJJJ]

Let us look now at two further forms of denial, both related to addiction. They are basically mirror-images of one another. First, there is external addiction. I may be addicted to my car, my house or my job. Or, I may be an alcoholic, a drug user, or possibly addicted to violence.

I suggest that externally-based addiction and denial are inextricably linked. Let me explain. We know that emotional 'truth' leads always to personal pain and suffering. Therefore, we can predict thataddiction to some external object or influence will eventually bring sorrow to me, because it builds my mind around the emotional 'truth' of an addicting experience. Along with this inevitable pain will come denial. Why? Because the mindset of emotional 'truth' produced by addiction will prevent Perceiver thought from using logic to form a rational self-image about those experiences. In other words, addiction leads to pain for Mercy thought which fills Perceiver thought with emotional 'truth.' Mercy strategy responds to the pain by mentally suppressing these experiences. Perceiver strategy, mesmerized and unable to think for itself, then 'knows' that the bad experiences are not a part of me. The alcoholic, for instance, refuses to admit that he is addicted to liquor, and the drug addict pretends that he has control over his habit.[KKKKKK]

We can uncover other aspects of external addiction by looking at the extreme example of the drug addict. The only thing that matters to the addict is getting his next fix. Every other desire or love takes second place. The result is a complete destruction of conscience. The addict is willing to lie, cheat, steal, betray others, sell his body, and even kill in order to get his dose of chemical joy.[LLLLLL] In other words, his external Mercy fixation attacks all related internal Perceiver rules and restrictions. Thus, drug addiction leads inexorably to crime and violence. In fact, studies suggest that at least half of North American crime is drug-related.

This subculture of lawlessness and physical brutality, however, is parasitic upon an industry that accepts rules and avoids excessive violence. Narcotic plants must be grown, tended, and harvested. The drugs must be extracted, packaged, shipped and distributed to the end user. None of this would happen if drug producers cheated and killed one another indiscriminately. Therefore, drugs must be produced by individuals who are not drug addicts.[MMMMMM] In addition, the drug addict must come up with money to support his habit. He does this either by making money himself, or by stealing from those who do. In both cases, a legitimate economy is required, sustained by rules of conscience that place limits upon violence.

Let us turn now to the mental addict. Instead of taking external drugs to feel good, I suggest that he achieves ecstasy through the use of internal ‘drugs.’ Huh? Well, an external drug bypasses mental content and chemically induces Exhorter excitement and Contributor confidence.[NNNNNN] Similarly, I suggest that a mentaldrug also bypasses mental content and artificially produces excitement and confidence. What is ‘mental drug addiction?’ Buddhism and its kin. After all, we know that Buddhism achieves its mental ecstasy by sidestepping mental content.

Buddhism and Denial

But, is a Buddhist really nothing more than a mental drug addict? Well, let us see if the parallels hold.[OOOOOO] First, drug addiction crowds out all other activities. In a similar way, the full-time Buddhist gives up all competing internal motivations. He becomes a monk, driven by his internal ‘fixes.’ Second, the drug addict destroys his conscience. No internal Perceiver rules stand in the way of his getting ‘high.’ Likewise, we have seen that Buddhism achieves ‘satori’ by rejecting all Perceiver facts that describe the external world.

Addiction to some external item leads to external violence along with a mindset of denial.

Buddhism’s addiction to mental ecstasy pursues internal violence and denies external reality.

For the drug addict, addiction leads to an external culture of extreme violence. Similarly, I suggest that the Buddhist achieves his mental ecstasy through internal violence. External violence uses Server action to tear down external Perceiver restrictions and destroy Perceiver objects. Thus, by symmetry,mental violence uses Server sequences to attack internal Perceiver rules and to demolish mental Perceiver structures.

Such mental violence is graphically illustrated by the approach of Zen Buddhism. In order to achieve the ecstasy of ‘satori,’ the aspiring Zen adherent purposely meditates upon ideas which Perceiver reasonableness finds impossible, such as ‘the sound of one hand clapping.’ Another common Zen koan is the question: “How do you get a goose into a bottle if the mouth of the bottle is too narrow for the goose?” The Zen answer is: “There, it’s in!” In other words, the mind is forced to jump from one Mercy state (goose outside of bottle) to another Mercy state (goose inside of bottle) by following a Server sequence (goose going inside of bottle) which Perceiver thought knows is impossible (goose is too big to fit through the neck of the bottle). That, by definition, is mental violence, the precise analog to physical violence.[PPPPPP]

A similar violence is demonstrated by the actions of Zen. The Zen archer, for instance, identifies with his arrows. He is the arrow as it flies through the air. Thus, the path of the arrow programs his mind with a Server sequence. But, Perceiver thought knows that a man is not an arrow. Hence, the mental violence—he rapes his mind by using Server actions which violate Perceiver rules.[QQQQQQ]

There is another parallel between drug addiction and Buddhist meditation. While the drug addict himself is lawless and violent, his addiction depends upon a drug producing system that is less lawless and less violent. Similarly, we have seen that Buddhism is mentally parasitic upon a culture that respects Mercy status and preserves Perceiver distinctions. This culture, with its Perceiver facts and Mercy individuality, provides the complexity which makes the ‘general’ theory of Buddhism feel good.

Drug addiction and Buddhism, I suggest, are also motivated by symmetrical factors. Often, a person drinks or takes drugs in order to forget internal pain. Inside, he is suffering, either from hurt or from guilt. In contrast, Buddhism is largely motivated by external suffering. The Buddha taught his path as a way of escaping the world of suffering.

Drug addiction tries to escape internal pain.

·    It is physically parasitic upon an economy based in solid internal rules.

Buddhism tries to escape external suffering.

·    It is mentally parasitic upon a culture based in solid external facts.

I suggest that this explains why drug addiction is so prevalent in the United States. America is the world center for revealed 'truth.' This has several implications. First, the resulting rule of law allows a strong economy with sufficient resources and stability to support an underground drug trade. Second, revealed 'truth' builds conscience which creates feelings of guilt in those who rebel from 'truth,' giving them a reason to take drugs. Third, revealed 'truth' replaces culture.[RRRRRR] Therefore no childish sensitivity remains to protect Mercy strategy from being hurt. Thus, rebellion causes guilt and leads to foolish behavior which produces hurt and triggers more guilt. Finally, it is very difficult in America to graduate from revealed 'truth.' Generally speaking, Americans either embrace or else rebel from blind 'faith.' They seem incapable of truly basing faith in rational principles of moral cause and effect. Put these factors together, and you find an atmosphere that is ripe for drug abuse and other addictions.

We can also understand why Buddhism is centered in Asia. Just as revealed 'truth' is most prevalent in America, so culture is most deep-rooted and widespread in Asia. On the one hand, Asian culture stretches back thousands of years, and imposes this cultural past upon the present by having the living worship their dead ancestors. On the other hand, Asia is so crowded with people that it is almost impossible to be alone. These factors produce the following results: First, culture has sufficient stability to support an underground meditative mindset. Second, the population density ensures that those who rebel from culture will experience significant disapproval. Third, culture replaces natural law. The average Asian cannot withdraw from society and retreat into nature, because even nature is groomed by Asian society. Finally, it is very difficult for an Asian to graduate from his culture. He can rebel from it, but he finds it almost impossible to digest it and to become an individual.

Thus, Buddhism is attractive as a way to escape the prison of culture. Buddha enshrined this in his Four Noble Truths: First, the problem is suffering. Second, suffering is caused by emotional attachment. Third, suffering can be escaped through denial. Fourth, denial leads to a new way of ‘living.’[SSSSSS]

So, how does one cure a drug addict? The process is not simple. With physical addiction, the first step is for a person to accept that he is an addict.[TTTTTT] In other words, he must allow Perceiver thought to form conclusions about Mercy me. This suggests that the Buddhist also needs to recognize that he is a ‘drug addict.’ But, Buddhism calls itself a religion. It claims to teach about ‘God’ and ‘morality.’

What exactly is the difference between a religion and an addiction? Is religion really an ‘opiate’? Let me address this question by introducing a concept which will be expanded in the next book. The answer, I suggest, lies in the distinction between specific and general, between individual and universal. An addiction makes a ‘god’ out of specific experiences. It tries to squeeze all of life into the few moments of some artificially induced high. In contrast, religion looks for a universal which can tie together all individual experiences. It accepts that the individual is only a small part of the universal. Remember, an image of ‘god’ emerges whenever general Teacher understanding impinges upon personal Mercy experiences.

Using this logic, we conclude that Buddhism is an addiction and not a religion. Why? Because it claims that the universal is contained within the specific. Like the drug addict, it tries to squeeze all of existence into the tiny package of a mental trance. But, the infinite is not the same as the finite. They aredifferent. In order to mentally equate these two, one must destroy Perceiver and Server thought, just as drug addiction ruins Perceiver rules and Server skills.

Addiction attempts to jam all of existence into a single subjective experience.

·    The mind jumps from specific to universal, suppressing Perceiver and Server content.

Religion looks for a universal which can tie together all subjective experiences.

·    The mind uses Perceiver facts and Server sequences to tie together separate memories.

Incarnation says that the essential elements of the universal can be expressed by a finite person.

·    The mind looks for Server and Perceiver similarities between finite people and universal theory.

Does this mean that the infinite and the finite can never be reconciled? No. As I mentioned before, Christianity teaches the concept of the incarnation. This states that the essence of the infinite can be expressed in finite form. Not as a single formless experience, but rather in the form and substance of a living, breathing, intelligent person—an individual with Perceiver knowledge and Server skills. Incarnation states that all of the essential Server sequences and Perceiver connections of the infinite can be packaged within the finite form of a human being.

Buddhism says that the finite is the infinite. Incarnation asserts that the finite is a fractal subset of the infinite.[UUUUUU] Buddhism ties Teacher generality and Mercy personality together by going directly from Mercy to Teacher feelings, suppressing any interfering Perceiver and Server content. Incarnation uses Perceiver facts and Server sequences to tie me and my world together, and then uses the same Perceiver facts and Server sequences to give stability to a general Teacher understanding.[VVVVVV]

So, what does all of this have to do with our original topic of denial? Everything. By using denial to achieve an illusory emotional high, a person is really closing the door on lasting ecstasy. Why? Because he denies the content that is required to support lasting pleasure. Or don’t you remember our discussion about sex? Lasting, satisfying pleasure and mental wholeness really are related.

Why do people practice denial? Because they are confusing Perceiver facts with Mercy experiences. Suppose that something horrible happens to me and that this trauma becomes a defining experience which programs Perceiver thought with 'facts.' If Mercy strategy blocks off this painful memory, then all related 'facts' will also become suppressed. The result is denial. After all, what is a person doing when he suppresses a Mercy memory? He is preventing that memory from linking to other memories. And what is a link? A Perceiver fact. But, for the childish mind, denial is a natural response. After all, if the world is hurting me so much, then why not step away from the pain?

We can now see the reasoning behind Buddhism. The Buddha observed life around him and realized that his culture was full of emotionally based 'truth' that was leading to personal pain and suffering. In his analysis of the problem, the Buddha was correct.[WWWWWW] But, what solution did the Buddha prescribe? Denial. We can use our understanding of the mind to work out the implications of Buddha’s choice. First, he expanded denial into avoidance, deciding that if personal pain comes from emotionally based 'truth,' then one should avoid defining experiences. Then, he noticed that censoring these strong feelings undercut the Perceiver 'facts' which are defined by these experiences. This led him to realize that his Perceiver absolutes were mental illusions created through emotional mesmerism, which brought him to the conclusion that all Perceiver facts were mental illusions formed through emotional involvement in the world of experiences. By removing so many Perceiver facts in the realm of the subjective, the Buddha then made it possible for Teacher thought to discover the theory of ‘oneness,’ giving birth to Buddhism.

Buddha saw that some 'facts' are defined by Mercy feelings and concluded that all are.

 I suggest, however, that there are two fundamental flaws in this chain of reasoning. First, the Buddha assumed that if some Perceiver 'facts' are defined by Mercy feelings, then all Perceiver facts result from emotional intrusion. But, common sense is also a source of Perceiver truth, and this truth is rooted in Perceiver repetition, and not in Mercy emotions. Why didn’t the Buddha accept the logic taught by common sense? Because of the Mercy idolatry that ruled his age. How can someone use Perceiver logic when the Greek philosophers who systematized logical thought weren’t born yet? But, surely one can learn Perceiver logic from common sense. Not if so-called ‘common sense’ is packaged in the wrong way. Remember that Buddhism was first developed in an age ruled by S/N holiness. Back then, ‘common sense’ was viewed as a set of Server recipes applied the external world of Sensing, held together by theexternal Perceiver map of objects and their physical relationship to one other: “If in this situation, act in such a way.” Thus, it lacked the Perceiver integration that would permit logic to be added to the Buddhist musings of iNtuition.

The end result is that Buddhism both assumes and denies the existence of the physical world. Explicitly, it writes it off as an illusion. Implicitly, it uses the existence of a solid external world to give complexity to the Teacher ‘order’ of the theory of ‘Oneness.’ But, you can’t have it both ways. The physical world cannot simultaneously exist and not-exist. The mind which asserts such a fundamental contradiction condemns itself to major suffering. Why? Because it demands a mental prison of solid matter, and then pretends that the prison does not exist. But who wants to be in a prison? Either get rid of the bars, or else recognize that they exist and take the effort to reshape them into something more comfortable. Don’t deny that they are there, and then complain when you bump into them.

Second, I suggest that the ‘solution’ of denial confuses emotional involvement with emotional attachment. Notice the difference between these two. When I am involved in something, my emotions are affected—Mercy thought is operating. However, when I become attached to something, then I have formed a connection between me and something else—and this is the realm of Perceiver thinking. When Perceiver 'facts' are defined by emotional experiences, then it is easy to confuse involvement with attachment. This is because the same emotional experience determines both Mercy feelings and Perceiver'beliefs.'

This mixing of Perceiver and Mercy thought, I suggest, provokes both Buddhism and addiction. Buddha noticed that the external world gave pain to Mercy thought. Therefore, he taught people to deny external Perceiver logic: “The world and its distinctions are just an illusion.” He thus confused involvement with attachment. He avoided externally induced feeling by denying facts about the external world.

But, suppose that Perceiver strategy gains the confidence to learn facts about external pain. These facts can then be used to rearrange external Mercy experiences.[XXXXXX] Then, instead of denying external suffering, one can remove it. That is the premise behind modern civilization. Such change, however, is impossible when cultural experiences define 'truth,' because 'facts' and 'beliefs' are then inseparably linked to their cultural sources. One must either accept the external 'facts' of culture along with their Mercy absolutes, or else reject these 'facts' in order to escape the suffering. Therefore, as long as Asian culture remains ‘inscrutable,’ Perceiver thought will never be able to analyze it and rearrange it in order to remove the suffering.

A similar predicament exists in America. Here, revealed 'truth' and ‘Christian fundamentalism’ are generally accepted as one and the same thing. It is assumed that holding on to 'truth' means revering the Bible as a Holy Book. Thus, the American who 'believes' in the Bible has absolutes and a conscience. The one who rejects conscience and absolutes also rejects the Bible.[YYYYYY]

Because Americanmorality is based in revealed 'truth', it assumes that all morality is.

As with Buddhism, I suggest that a chain of reasoning lies behind American rebellion and substance abuse. First, people see that revealed 'truth' leads to self-denial. Then, they notice that this 'truth' is rooted in Mercy-based religious icons. Therefore, they decide that the solution lies in belittling the religious idols. Next, they see that tearing down religious idols also causes religious 'truth' and moral 'rules' to crumble. They conclude, therefore, that all morality is relative and that personal freedom can always be found by rejecting religiosity and morality. Finally, if there are no moral rules, then why not seek personal pleasure through any and all external means.[ZZZZZZ] Hence, substance abuse.

Here too there are fundamental flaws in reasoning. First, morality cannot be simultaneously good and bad. And yet, that is what we find in America. Explicitly, American relativity denies religious 'morality.' Implicitly, it assumes that it will always be around to regulate behavior and keep society civilized. But, don’t demand rules, and then keep complaining when you bump into them. If you want a system of morality, then for heaven—and earth’s—sake, use your brains to work out a good set of rules.

The second flaw is assuming that if some moral 'rules' are rooted in emotional importance, then this means that all moral rules are based in emotional importance. When the fundamentalist Christian 'believer' who practices Teacher idolatry insists that all 'truth' comes from the Bible,[AAAAAAA] then 'rules' and 'conscience' become inseparably linked to their religious sources. The one who adheres to this thinking must either accept 'truth' along with its religious connotations, or else reject revealed 'truth' in order to escape religion. Is personal transformation possible in such a moral environment? To a certain extent, yes. We will address this issue in the next book, when we look at the process of pseudo-transformation and compare it with personal transformation.

Suppose, however, that Perceiver strategy gains sufficient confidence to separate truth and belief from its emotional source. Perceiver facts can then be used to reassemble the internal Mercy world. Instead of covering, avoiding, or denying guilt, one can remove it.

Let us move on. We have seen that the pain associated with suffering leads naturally to denial. As a result, personal loss leaves Mercy strategy numb, and unable to feel. It is tempting to remain in this state of emotional withdrawal and to turn away from the world of personal feelings.[BBBBBBB] In contrast, it requires courage to allow oneself to become vulnerable again. If suffering is pervasive, then the mind can become convinced that involvement leads inevitably to suffering. On the one side, the strong emotions connected with each particular experience of suffering re-mesmerize the me of Mercy identification into 'believing' that emotional involvement and emotional pain always go together. On the other side, the repeated episodes of suffering convince the me of my physical body that there is a logical connection between physical involvement and physical discomfort. Eventually, one can enter into the mindset of the paranoid schizophrenic, who concludes that he is unlovable and that everyone is out to get him.

In general, I suggest that every person who learns from suffering will be in denial for at least part of the time. This is because he is in a double-bind situation. On the one hand, the suffering student in the school of life welcomes an opportunity for suffering, because he knows that responding to it correctly will teach him valuable lessons. On the other hand, suffering still hurts. This leads to a ‘damned if I do and damned if I don’t’ sort of life.[CCCCCCC] Me is terrified of emotional involvement, because this leads inevitably to suffering. But, me is also scared of not being involved, because suffering teaches lessons which protect me from painful emotional consequences. Therefore, in order to avoid pain, the emotional me must hurt—no pain, no gain.

This mental contradiction is illustrated by Western society’s attitude towards war. On the one hand, we praise the benefits of the military: It promotes industrial growth, drives research, builds personal character, forces people to cooperate, and provokes superhuman efforts. In other words, it teaches lessons through personal suffering. On the other hand, we acknowledge that ‘war is hell.’ Therefore, we are motivated by the possibility of armed conflict, but we also hope that it never occurs—we are ‘damned if we do and damned if we don’t.’

Unlike suffering, which places the ‘student’ in a double-bind situation, patience is a process that can be seen through to completion. This is because with patience, the only Mercy ‘hurt’ is the postponement of pleasure and not the infliction of pain. Therefore, Mercy strategy is not faced by the constant dread of some future nasty event. Also, Mercy thought does not have to live with memories of disaster, because under patience, idols are not smashed, but rather belittled.

Finally, with patience, there is no need to learn a new method when me finally does get close to the end of transformation, because patience is a school of growth that continues to operate in maturity. The method itself is part of the new me. Mental maturity through suffering, in contrast, is somewhat like liberating a country through guerrilla warfare. The ‘freedom fighter’ can never really win his battle, because if he ever defeats his foe, then he loses his personal identity, because he only knows how to fight and shoot. In addition, the core of his Mercy feeling is centered around opposition to the regime. Therefore, he must live within war and he must have an enemy. Using religious imagery, he must have a ‘devil’ to fight and a ‘hell’ to save people from. In contrast, patience ignores the ‘devil’ and leads people towards ‘heaven.’

Earlier on, I suggested that Buddhism follows an internalized version of drug addiction. Similarly, I suggest that there is an internal version of the suffering student. In the same way that the student of suffering approaches external pain with an attitude of semi-denial, so, I suggest, the philosopher/hedonist deals with internal pain. Normally, he pursues physical pleasure. However, he has discovered that physical sensation, by itself, is very shallow. Therefore, he occasionally turns his attention away from his five senses and enters the internal world of moral cause-and-effect. He knows that this thinking will trigger feelings of hurt, guilt and inadequacy. But, he has learned that these episodes of soul-searching recharge his emotional sensitivity and allow him, once again, to enjoy physical sensation. He too is in a predicament. He must think, but he dares not do so.

The philosopher/hedonist also uses an inadequate method. He assumes that internal suffering is inevitable. But what is the source of his mental pain? Ultimately, internal conflict and fragmentation. Therefore, as long as he pursues fragmented hedonism, it is impossible for his mind to achieve lastingintegration.[DDDDDDD] On the other hand, if he sought lasting external pleasure, then this would also produce lasting internal structure—which would remove his mental pain.

Buddhism is an internalized form of drug addiction.

The philosopher/hedonist is an internal analog to the suffering student.

·    The suffering student accepts occasional external suffering in order to grow internally.

·    The hedonist accepts occasional internal pain in order to appreciate external sensation.

Before we go on, let us tie together the various forms of denial and semi-denial. The addict runs away from conscience and his behavior destroys conscience. His addiction, however, is parasitic upon an economy that operates according to conscience. Thus, he denies what he assumes—an internal relationship between Thinking and Feeling.

Similarly, the Buddhist runs away from physical matter and his thinking destroys logical facts about external reality. But, his mental addiction depends upon a culture that accepts external objects. He also denies what he assumes—an external relationship between Thinking and Feeling.

The semi-denial of the suffering student is also based in assumptions. Deep down, he knows that Thinking and Feeling go together internally. It is this knowledge that forces him to embrace external difficulties. What is behind this response? A mental image of a ‘God’ of the external world that combines general Teacher understanding with personal Mercy pain.

Similarly, the philosophizing hedonist has learned that he must use both Thinking and Feeling to deal with external experiences—raw hedonism is not enough; he must also analyze the facts of his hedonism. What drives this response? His mental image of ‘God.’ His philosophizing has created a general Teacher understanding rooted in his internal personal Mercy pain. The end result is a ‘God’ in the image of his childish me. Thus, both the suffering 'believer' and the hedonist/philosopher are trapped by their images of ‘God.’ The suffering 'believer' follows a ‘God’ of external personal pain, whereas the hedonist/philosopher worships a ‘God’ of internal personal pain.[EEEEEEE]

Notice also that both the addict and the suffering student assume that Thinking and Feeling are combined internally. It interesting to find that both addiction and ‘building character through hardship’ are prevalent in America, the bastion of revealed 'truth.' Addiction occurs when individuals attempt to deny this 'truth,' and learning through suffering is present when the 'truth' is accepted. But why suffering? Why not patience? Because revealed 'truth' can only be preserved if me remains emotionally insignificant and does not experience excessive personal pleasure.

Similarly, both Buddhism and philosophical hedonism assume that Thinking and Feeling belong together externally. Typically, this stability is provided by a fixed, unchanging culture, like that of Asia. Buddhism results when individuals attempt to deny culture, and philosophical hedonism grows when a person embraces culture. But why philosophy? Why not true understanding? Because, culture juxtaposes institutions and edifices which cannot be mentally reconciled. Externally, these Mercy experiences can be organized by assigning each to its own physical location. Internally, though, no single Teachertheory exists that can bridge these contradictory and colliding systems of information.

The Dead End of Bitterness

jordanstamp2.JPGBefore we continue, let us remind ourselves of the big picture. Our overall topic is personal transformation, which begins by integrating T/F and then moves on to tackle P/J. But, we are dealing with an environment in which social transformation is more advanced than personal transformation. Thus, most personal transformation must occur indirectly, as a response to the physical problems imposed upon an immature me of Mercy identification. This leads to growth through suffering.

Obviously, external pressure will only provoke personal growth if an individual allows Thinking and Feeling to interact. The person who responds to suffering with denial, in contrast, insists that facts will not ever touch his feelings. We have seen that denial comes in several forms. It is possible to deny the facts of a specific situation or memory. It is also possible to institutionalize denial into a religious or cultural system.

Let us look now at the way in which externally imposed personal change can be aborted by preserving a P/J distinction. I suggest that this option describes the dead end of bitterness.

What exactly is bitterness? Well, unlike denial, it does accept the facts. It acknowledges that me has been mortally wounded. In fact, it rehashes this over and over again: “He really hurt me. He did it to me. They are trying to destroy us.”

Notice the focus of attention. The person who is bitter is not trying to change the facts. Instead, he is attempting not to accept ownership for his problems. He may be blaming others, dwelling on his bad luck, reminiscing about lost pleasure, or fantasizing about revenge. He is not trying to improve his presentsituation. In other words, he accepts the facts, but he insists that me did not cause these facts and that me can do nothing to alter the facts. Such an attitude describes the essence of the P/J division.[FFFFFFF]

Let me illustrate the difference between integrating and separating P/J with an example from recent history. During the Second World War, millions of Jews were either killed or displaced. This blow of suffering prompted the founding of a Jewish state in Israel. First, Jewish people accepted the facts. They realized that they could never return to the situation of being a homeless Diaspora. Second, they devoted their energies toward building a new homeland for themselves. Thus, they found their Perceiving excitement within the Judging imposed upon them by their neighbors.

Bitterness accepts painful facts but does not believe that they can be changed.

·    Bitterness creates a P/J separation because it refuses to live within the situation.

When the Jewish state was established, a number of Palestinians who were living in Israel became refugees. How did they respond to the suffering in which they found themselves? First, most of them refused to recognize the state of Israel. Thus, they lived in denial. Then, in addition, they practiced bitterness, blaming Israel for their loss, fantasizing about driving Jews into the sea, and teaching their children about the villages in which they used to live. How can one know for certain that the Palestinians were bitter? Because, for decades they continued to live in refugee camps. Bitterness, by definition, refuses to find excitement in the present situation. The Palestinians demonstrated their bitterness by refusing to turn their camps into towns. Meanwhile, millions of Jews who had lost their dwellings focused their energies upon building new homes.

Why does suffering lead so often to bitterness? We can understand this by examining the nature of suffering. Personal change through suffering is like using dynamite as a tool for constructing a building. The mental ‘dynamite’ of personal trauma rips out the old in order to make way for the new. However, if the ‘blast’ is too large, then the foundation for thought will be destroyed and no mental building can be constructed, new or old. On the other hand, if the explosion is too small, then the idols of the old remain intact and no essential change can occur.

In other words, if the blow of suffering is too weak, the result may be denial. A crisis that is too severe, though, can lead to bitterness. Thus, only a moderate amount of pain will promote personal growth.

If culture is too strong, then people will deny suffering and continue living as before.

If mental structure is too weak, then suffering will provoke bitterness and not promote change.

I suggest that the size and position of this ‘window of opportunity’ is determined by the strength of culture and by the level of Server and Perceiver confidence. If culture is strong, then it is easy to ignore suffering and pretend that nothing has changed. Thus, for instance, I suggest that the Jewish people only abandoned the subculture of the European ghetto and the lifestyle of a Diaspora because they experienced the extreme suffering of a holocaust. History shows that their strong culture allowed them to deny all lesser suffering.[GGGGGGG]

And why did the Jews, as a people, survive the holocaust without being overcome by bitterness? Because their study of the Torah developed Perceiver confidence, and their culture taught them Server skills. This Perceiver and Server content allowed them to respond to a high level of suffering without falling into bitterness.  The confidence, first of all, gave them the ability to maneuver through the pressure. The content, secondly, built inner images of possibility on to which their emotions could cling—“Ha Shanah ha Ba’ah B’yrushalayim.”[HHHHHHH]

Has Judaism avoided all bitterness? No. As long as Judaism tries to avoid another holocaust by remembering the last one, then I suggest that bitterness is present. Remember, the only way to kill either an ‘idol’ or a ‘demon’ is to belittle it. By remembering the holocaust, Jews preserve its emotional power and make its return possible—either as a holocaust perpetrated upon the Jews, or as a holocaust perpetrated by the Jews. Mental theory suggests that another holocaust can only be avoided by identifying the underlying factors which causedthis suffering, and by replacing these negative elements with positive ones.

Now that we have introduced the topic of bitterness with an illustration, let us examine the issue in more detail. Initially, the me of Mercy identification is held together by emotional 'facts' and defining experiences. Then, some painful experience shatters this structure. The goal of personal transformation is to rebuild it using Perceiver logic and confidence. If some Mercy experiences are already tied together by Perceiver facts, then that mental structure can be used as a bridgehead and expanded into a new emotional me. Patience builds a new identity by extending this bridgehead. Thus, the method of transformation itself follows Perceiver logic and is therefore part of the new me. In contrast, suffering stimulates personal growth by ‘blowing up’ the obstacles which stand in the way of a new me. In other words, themethod of suffering belongs to the old me because it tries to reprogram my mind with the help of strong emotional experiences from the external world.

Suppose that my world suddenly turns on me and that I lose something to which I am emotionally attached. Maybe some major business opportunity or promotion passes me by, I lose my job or my car is stolen, my society experiences major upheaval, a close friend dies, I get sick or am physically injured, or some other personal tragedy strikes.

This mental ‘stick of dynamite’ will affect me in two ways. First, because it is a real event that occurs in the external world, it will touch the me of my physical body. If I am a member of our modern Western world, I will try to use common sense to deal with the situation. I may visit the doctor who might prescribe medicine or perhaps operate. I may see a psychologist or visit a minister. In some way, I will follow logical steps in an attempt to resolve my dilemma.

However, not only did I experience a realevent, but I was also hit with a major emotional trauma. One of my idols was destroyed; some external object or experience which provided an emotional foundation for Perceiver 'truth' was torn away. Therefore, the me of Mercy identification will also be affected. And here, Perceiver logic definitely does not rule.

The question is, which of these two responses will prevail? If the me of my physical body is sufficiently solid, then common sense will eventually win, and my external ‘crutch’ will be replaced by internal stability. This will happen in two stages. First, the external tragedy will cause the me of Mercy identification to fall apart, because it will alter the memory within my internal Mercy world which defines the 'facts' that help to hold my childish me together. Second, this situation will cause the me of my physical body to extend into the realm of personal feelings, because I am using common sense to hold my mind together when everything else is falling apart.[IIIIIII]

For instance, suppose that my mother or father dies. At first, all I can feel is grief as the me of Mercy identification experiences external separation from the person who was such a large part of my personal identity. Eventually, though, this grief will work its way through and I will begin to live again. This is a sign that my external source of stability has been replaced by an internal structure. Common sense from the me of my physical body has expanded to fill the void left by the me of Mercy identification. Part of the me of Mercy identification has made its way across the threshold of uncertainty and now resides on the side of adult logic.[JJJJJJJ] Why is the external world approached with common sense? Because this is taught through social transformation. Why is the me of Mercy identification irrational? Because personal transformation lags social transformation.[KKKKKKK]

Bitterness replaces childish idols with the trauma of a painful experience.

This trauma becomes a defining experience which gives integration to my mind.

·    It integrates my mind; therefore I cannot let go of it.

·    It is an idolthat defines 'truth;' therefore I cannot change it.

However, it is also possible for the old me of Mercy identification to win this battle. In this case, one idol will be replaced by another. Unfortunately, the second idol will be worsethan the first—much worse. Initially, I was attached to some object, event or person. Now, the trauma of losing my idol becomes my defining experience. My mind will integrate emotionally around the experience of loss, and this painful experience will become the new source of my emotional 'facts.' The result is bitterness. All related experiences will be interpreted in the light of my personal tragedy. In other words, rather than clearing away the rubble of the old me, the dynamite blast of trauma replaces this mental ‘ice’ with the void of an explosion ‘frozen in time.’ Before, Perceiver thought was mesmerized by good memories. Now, Perceiver strategy is hypnotized by an image of destruction.

This type of mindset grows into the twisted fruit that is hate, revenge, and family feuds. A diet of this emotional poison can cause centuries of animosity and extensive warfare between ethnic groups. Building me upon a foundation of emotional 'truth'leads to personal suffering. However, building me upon a foundation of emotional 'facts' rooted in hurtful experiencesmakes pain and suffering a focal point of my culture and forces everything to be interpreted in terms of my pain. When these 'facts' turn into religion, then ‘God’ is replaced by the ‘devil’ and evil is called good. Unfortunately, history—and television—is full of examples that illustrate this warped type of Thinking and Feeling. Whereas a rational response to hurt helps common sense to grow, the path of bitterness in contrast usually leads to a decrease in common sense, and causes individuals to become more and more irrational. In the extreme, society consists of people whose entire being revolves around feelings such as blame, hate, revenge, bitterness, and pain. In this type of world, the only colors that exist are shades of black.[LLLLLLL]

It is very difficult for a society to escape a mindset that centers around the focal point of suffering, because people feel disoriented when they are not suffering. They give approval to each other when they are hurting, and respond with envy to those who do succeed.[MMMMMMM] In contrast, it is very easy for this negative thinking to continue. First, our physical frailty makes it is easy for one person to inflict suffering upon another. Second, we all enter life worshipping idols and 'believing' emotional 'truth'—and we have seen that this leads automatically to pain and suffering. Third, acknowledging even the possibility of a better life creates feelings of guilt that attack Perceiver confidence. Finally, Mercy feelings of bitterness and envy submerge Perceiver thought and make logical thinking very difficult. This is the deep, dark hole from which countries like Russia are struggling to emerge. Suffering forms part of the very psyche of the Russian people. Rooting this out is not a simple task.

There are also mental factors that perpetuate a system of suffering and bitterness. Most importantly, bitterness extends the old me into an area normally governed by the new me. A childish me is ruled by emotional 'truth'—which is defined by static experiences. Most idols don’t do anything, they just sit there. This is because raw Mercy experiences do not contain a sense of time. Therefore, removing an idol usually shakes up the old emotional me sufficiently to begin the process of personal transformation. Bitterness, however, makes change a subset of static idolatry. How? Through the development ofFacilitator thought. In order to understand this concept, we will have to skip ahead to a later book and look briefly at Facilitator processing.

An Overview of Facilitator Thought

Facilitator strategy, I suggest, is responsible for mental blending and averaging. This function is essential for human thought, because it allows a mind with limited memories to handle an unpredictable world: Whenever a person encounters something new, Mercy thought is reminded of similar situations and Perceiver strategy associates to related facts. Facilitator strategy then averages between these triggered memories in order to find the best fit for that particular situation.

Facilitator strategy is responsible for mental blending and averaging.

It is this blending, for instance, which gives Perceiver thought its sense of reasonableness. Suppose that someone tells me a new fact about dolphins. This will remind Perceiver strategy of memories related to swimming mammals. Facilitator thought will then compare these retrieved memories with the new fact and measure their relative closeness: “This memory is quite relevant, that one is only barely related.” A similar sort of measuring occurs when we search for an item on the Internet. We type in a word or phrase, and the computer returns a list of related web pages, along with a percentage showing how closely it relates to the search topic.[NNNNNNN] In the mind, this feeling for relevance is generated by Facilitator thought.

I suggest that Perceiver strategy forms its sense of reasonableness by adding Perceiver confidence to Facilitator relevance. This is a three step process: First, given a new fact, Perceiver thought knows which memories are related. Second, Facilitator strategy notices the memories which have been chosen by Perceiver associativity and figures out the relative significance of each related memory. Third, Perceiver thought works out reasonableness by adding its label of confidence—the certainty with which a fact is known—to Facilitator calculations of revelance. Adding Perceiver confidence to Facilitator relevance gives Perceiver strategy its sense of reasonableness.

Perceiver and Facilitator thought cooperate to give Perceiver strategy its sense of reasonableness.

·    Whenever a fact enters Perceiver thought, it reminds Perceiver strategy of related facts.

·    Facilitator thought then decides how relevant each related fact is to the fact being considered.

·    Perceiver strategy then determines the confidence with which each related fact is known.

·    Reasonableness is Facilitator relevance combined with Perceiver confidence.

We can clarify this mental interaction through the use of a numerical example.[OOOOOOO] Suppose that a new fact reminds Perceiver strategy of memory A and memory B. Now suppose that Facilitator thought decides that the new fact is 60% like A and 30% like B. Finally, suppose that Perceiver strategy knows that A is right with 80% certainty and that B is wrong with 50% certainty. Perceiver thought will then decide that the new fact is correct with 33% certainty. (60% x 80% - 30% x 50%). Of course, the mind does not actually use numbers to make these calculations. Instead, these percentages are mentally sensed as hunches and gut feelings. However, I suggest that this does describe the process by which Perceiver reasonableness is calculated.

The problem arises when Facilitator blending becomes the dominant mental strategy. Why? Because blending, by definition, suffers from several limitations. First, averaging is only accurate when one is dealing with intermediate situations. In other words, it is good at interpolation but lousy at extrapolation. For instance, suppose that an item which only cost $2 ten years ago now sells for $12. Averaging will suggest that five years ago, its price was probably $7.[PPPPPPP] This estimate is probably fairly accurate, because the desired answer lies between known facts. The problem arises when we try to extrapolate—to extend beyond the known information. For instance, if present trends continue, we would guess that the price next year would be $13. This makes some sense. But, will the item really cost $32 in another twenty years? By then, some competitor will probably have come up with a cheaper alternative. Our estimate will then be totally inaccurate. Moving the other way, if ten years ago the price was $2, then 12 years ago, it should have been free. Similarly, 15 years previously, the producer would have paid the consumer $3 for each item. That definitely does not make sense.

But this is exactly how the mind views the world when Facilitator strategy is dominant. People are convinced that present trends will continue and that everything, past or future, is simply a variation of the present. In the ultimate, I suggest that this leads to the Eastern concept of karma. In essence, karma suggests that the self-image of a person is determined by averaging all of the facts and experiences associated with that person. Like a balance scale, all his ‘good’ deeds pile up on one side and all of his ‘bad’ ones stack up on the other. If the ‘bad’ outweighs the ‘good,’ then he is an ‘evil’ person.[QQQQQQQ]

Facilitator averaging is good for interpolation, but rotten at extrapolation.

·    When Facilator strategy is dominant, then averaging is used to determine everything.

·    All ‘gullies’ are mentally ‘filled in’ and all ‘rough edges’ are smoothed away.

Normally, this is an accurate assessment of human character. Unfortunately, averaging has a basic weakness, the flip side of its strength. Mixing and blending allow me to generate any intermediate value simply by taking a little more of one item and a little less of another. For instance, suppose that my back yard contains a tree and a shed. I can refer to any place in the yard by indicating its relationship to these two reference points. “It’s right near the tree across from the shed. No, a little closer to the shed. Now, just a little further from the tree. There!” But, what if a creek runs through my yard? Then, my tree and shed reference system will refer to locations that are, in practice, inaccessible. “Go a little closer to the shed. Oops. Sorry. I didn’t mean for you to fall into the stream.”

But this is exactly what happens when Facilitator blending occupies center stage. All streams, gullies, ditches, ridges, and fences get defined away because mixing finds them inconceivable—and mixing is in charge. However, personal transformation is not a gradual process. Rather, it crosses a huge gulf which bisects human development.[RRRRRRR] Therefore, whenever Facilitator blending takes control, then any sort of transformationis rejected. Why? Because Facilitator thought is convinced that everything evolves.[SSSSSSS]

Unfortunately, the problem is even worse. Not only is Facilitator mixing used to define all locations within the ‘yard,’ but it is also used to define every place within the entire universe. If that sounds like an exaggeration, then look at karma. As far as we know, no one who teaches karma has ever managed to defeat death or return from the grave. Thus, the ‘backyard’ of human life is surrounded by impassable divides known as birth and death. Yet, despite this, karma insists that its averaging extends beyond the grave. People are reincarnated, it says, and self-image continues to evolve slowly from one reincarnation to the next. If Facilitator mixing can manage to ignore the ultimate personal chasm of death in so blatant a manner, then one can be certain that all lesser ditches are also being disregarded.

Now imagine living under such a set of rules. No rapid changes are possible. All evolution is gradual. If you have a character flaw, then it is the result of thousands of years of wrong choices, and fundamental personal improvement will probably take another few thousand years. How do you think your mind is going to react? In particular, how will Exhorter thought, the part of your mind which provides mental drive, respond? Obviously, Exhorter mode will do its best to find excitement elsewhere. In other words, there will be a major P/J split. Thus, we are back at the main elements of bitterness—an unchangeable situation combined with a focus of attention away from me.

When Facilitator thought is supreme, blending will be applied to entire universe.

·    Even the ‘ditches’ of personal life and death will be ‘filled in.’

Karma applies universal Facilitator blending to the subjective world of people and their feelings.

Evolution applies universal Facilitator blending to the objective world of physical matter.

Speaking of evolution, I suggest that the same logic applies to the Theory of Evolution. According to this dogma, all life emerged through gradual, evolutionary change. Our research indicates that Charles Darwin, the modern promoter of evolution, was a Facilitator person. Facilitator thought operates by blending and adjusting. Therefore, the Facilitator person finds it natural to accept that all living species could be ‘blended’ together through the continuum of evolutionary progress, and Facilitator thinking points to minor evolutionary changes as proof that major change also occurred through the process of evolution. In terms of our backyard illustration, evolutionary thinking narrows down its ‘field’ of research to some set of species, notices that the differences between these can explained through variation and random mutation, and then insists that this same method of blending and averaging can be applied to the entire universe for all time. It would be difficult to find a more extreme example of extrapolation.[TTTTTTT]

However, the Facilitator person seldom recognizes that Facilitator blending always occurs within a framework of Perceiver and Server stability.[UUUUUUU] As the history of philosophy shows, whenever Facilitator thought loses its mental frame of reference, Facilitator persons are driven to find a set of solid facts and sequences that can guide them in their blending and remove their feelings of confusion and uncertainty.

Therefore, if living creatures really did form a continuum of gradually evolving forms—if in addition to cats and dogs, there were cogs, and dats, and datty cogs, and catty dogs, and so on, to the point where the words ‘cat’ and ‘dog’ themselves were meaningless[VVVVVVV]—Facilitator thought would feel driven to organize this chaos of life into distinct categories. Facilitator persons, the world over, would stand up and insist that evolution is a lie and would impose this 'belief' upon the general population, just as philosophers today are attempting to impose their systems of thought upon a world which lacks moral certainty. Thus, we conclude that the Theory of Evolution can only be accepted as true if it is totally false, and that if it were true, it would be rejected categorically as false.

Without a solid structure of Perceiver facts and Server sequences, Facilitator thought cannot operate.

·    If evolution were true, Facilitators would feel confused and insist that it was false.

How can one know that this is the case? Because, before Darwin the Evolutionist came another Facilitator person—Linnaeus the Classifier. When Western ships began traveling around the world, they brought back scores of new living organisms. Linnaeus responded to this living chaos by building a system of nomenclature by which all plants and animals could be ordered and categorized—a system still in use today. It was this structure that then made it possible for Darwin to handle the concept of evolution.

So, what makes Facilitator thought so dominant today? I suggest that Facilitator mixing becomes pre-eminent whenever Thinking and Feeling begin to talk to each other, while Perceiving and Judging remain separated. Let me explain. Facilitator mixing needs both solid references points and items to blend. Measuring the yard, for instance, requires a tree and a shed which do not move. If they did move, then all of the measurements would become meaningless. These fixed reference points must then be surrounded by a myriad of variable experiences asking to be measured, blended and mixed.

Facilitator thought becomes dominant whenever T/F is bridged while P/J remains separate.

Now, what provides mental stability? Solid Perceiver facts. And what fills these facts with adjustable situations? Mercy memories. Thus, I suggest that Facilitator mixing only becomes possible if many variable Mercy experiences are tied together by a few fixed Perceiver facts. By now, we know that this combination requires cooperation between Perceiver and Mercy thought. We also know that this can only be completely achieved when personal transformation unites Thinking with Feeling.[WWWWWWW] Before we analyze this further, let us step forward briefly to the next stage.

As soon as P and J begin to communicate, then I suggest that Contributor strategy will emerge. Why? Because Contributor thinking combines Exhorter drive—the essence of Perceiving—with Contributor choices—the fundamental aspect of Judging. If the mind is like a steam engine, then Perceiving and its Exhorter excitement are the steam, whereas Judging with its Contributor decisions is like the boiler which traps this steam and channels the energy to do useful work. The Contributor person is naturally goal-oriented. He uses mental energy to get places.[XXXXXXX]

We can now begin to understand the ‘window of opportunity’ associated with learning from suffering. Personal transformation is a mental journey. One must travel from the old me to the new me. But, Contributor thought is the part of mind which performs goal-oriented behavior—it gets me from here to there. And, the diagram of mental symmetry tells us that Contributor strategy is built upon a foundation of Perceiver and Server content. That is why suffering only leads to personal transformation if there is a sufficient level of Perceiver and Server confidence. This is the content which enables Contributor thought, which propels a person from one place to another. If Contributor strategy cannot emerge, however, then I suggest that the P/J split survives, Exhorter ‘steam’ is dissipated from the boiler, Facilitator mixing takes precedence, bitterness emerges, and culture triumphs. We will now examine in more detail how and why this occurs.

Local Optimization

Let us see what happens when Mercy feelings get added to Facilitator mixing. I suggest that this combination leads to a type of mental processing known as local optimization; Facilitator thought looks at the various components of a situation and adjusts their relative balance in order to produce the best overall feelings.[YYYYYYY] This continual fine-tuning is an instinctive part of Facilitator personality. For instance, suppose that the Facilitator person is describing a disagreement he had with someone else. He will naturally emphasize any aspect that makes him look better and downplay details that make him look bad. The facts will not be altered, but their relative importance will be adjusted. Whether he is playing golf, cooking a meal, selling himself, or managing a project, the Facilitator is always making the best of the existing situation.

Facilitator mixing mixed with Mercy feelings leads to local optimization.

·    When emotions define 'truth,' then local optimization becomes karma.

Local optimization cannot reach a goal that is around the corner.

·    Therefore, local optimization, by definition, is opposed to personal transformation.

But, what if mental maturity can only be reached by going over a hill, experiencing temporary pain, or falling apart? Then, under local optimization, personal transformation will never be achieved. Why? Because whenever a person begins to experience the pressure that provokes transformation, Facilitator improvement will make the best of the existing situation by removing or minimizing the emotional pressure. Instead of following the goal of personal transformation, Facilitator-dominated processing will pursue a good self-image. Using our steam engine analogy, this is like releasing the pressure in the tank whenever some steam has been generated. Obviously, the locomotive won’t go anywhere, especially if the destination lies over a hill.

Facilitator-guided local optimization devotes its greatest attention towards removing feelings of guilt. This is because guilt is a frontal attack on my person. It says that me has failed. What does Facilitator mixing do whenever guilt strikes? It averages it away. It tones down the offending voices. It emphasizes positive aspects. But, personal transformation demands that the old me must be completely torn down. Such internal demolition will naturally be accompanied by massive feelings of personal inadequacy. Local optimization, however, dissipates the pressure of this steam and thus aborts personal transformation.

Facilitator-controlled local optimization has another fatal flaw. By itself, it can neither become ‘alive,’ nor stay ‘alive.’ This is because Facilitator blending requires a combination of solid Perceiver facts and adjustable Mercy experiences. Both of these requirements, however, are filtered out by Facilitator processing. First, a mental strategy which operates in terms of averages and grays will reject the very concept of black-and-white facts. But it is these facts which provide the stability that is required for averaging. Second, a way of thinking which thinks in terms of compromise will gradually eliminate diversity. But, without a variety of Mercy experiences, Facilitator optimization has no raw material.

How then does Facilitator develop and exist? Through outside interference.[ZZZZZZZ] This can be provided internally through the growth of independent Perceiver thought. Perceiver strategy demands absolutes—facts which are solid and which apply to many different Mercy experiences and situations. This Perceiver thought provides the essential ingredients required for the existence of Facilitator averaging.[AAAAAAAA] But, what happens if Facilitator thought demands control of the mind and censors all ‘outside interference’? Obviously, internally generated Facilitator processing will not develop.

The other option is for this ‘outside interference’ to come from the external world. Suppose that a person or society is ruled by culture. This means that peoples’ 'truth' is defined by emotional experiences and societal leaders. Such a society, by itself, does not contain sufficient diversity to enable Facilitator thought. While the defining experiences do mesmerize people into accepting certain 'beliefs' as solid, the Mercy experiences are so predictable that there is no need for Facilitator blending.

But, suppose that these people come into contact with novel experiences or different cultures. Now there is both Perceiver stability and Mercy diversity—as long as cultural absolutes are not threatened.[BBBBBBBB] And therein lies the problem. Facilitator blending will begin to encourage change and experimentation, because this gives Facilitator mixing something to do. However, if this experimentation threatens local culture, then ‘icy hands’ of tradition will reach out to stifle change. If society ever becomes totally rigid, then Facilitator mixing will die.

Facilitator thought can only become ‘alive’ through outside interference.

·    This may occur when solid facts and sequences are imposed upon the mind of the Facilitator.

·    This may happen when cultural differences are imposed upon environment of the Facilitator.

This places Facilitator strategy ‘between a rock and a hard place.’ It will cope with this pressure through local optimization—always making the best of the existing situation. If the lack of change is stifling Facilitator thought, then the answer is to produce change, any change, simply for the sake of change. However, if change threatens to overturn the status quo, then another response will emerge. Why? Because of the vulnerability of emotional 'truth.' Remember that any experience with sufficient emotional intensity has the ability to redefine 'truth.' Therefore, if change becomes too exciting or too pervasive, then the 'beliefs' of society will begin to crumble and Facilitator thought will lose its Perceiver stability. As usual, Facilitator thought will respond to this sense of confusion by making the best of the existing situation. How? By suppressing the novelty.

Facilitator thought deals with cultural conflict by avoiding two extremes.

·    If there is no diversity, then Facilitator thought itself will cease to operate.

·    If there is too much diversity, then Facilitator strategy will feel confused.

·    When the Facilitator becomes confused, he may respond by becoming a philosopher.

Let us summarize. Facilitator optimization requires a combination of Perceiver stability and Mercy variability. If Perceiver thought gains sufficient confidence to operate within emotional Mercy experiences, as happens in personal transformation, then this combination will automatically be present. In contrast, when emotional 'truth' rules, then Facilitator mixing can only function if society is filled with many sources of 'truth' which oppose each other and which cling stubbornly to their own versions of 'truth.' It is this juxtaposition of contradictions which provides the status quo that Facilitator thought maintains.[CCCCCCCC] Notice the inherent contradiction. On the one hand, Facilitator thought protects the status quo in order to maintain Perceiver stability. On the other hand, Facilitator mixing demands that the status quo contain a diversity of competing voices and opinions.

Thus, I suggest that wheneverFacilitator thought is based upon emotional 'truth,' there will alwaysbe limited change. Fundamental alterations will remain taboo. One sees this, for instance, in most bureaucracies. There is endless experimentation and variation, but very little progress.[DDDDDDDD]Chinese civilization provides a national example of bureaucratic cultural preservation. For about two millenia, China led the world in developing new inventions. Why? Because there was strong culture combined with Facilitator experimentation.[EEEEEEEE] None of these developments, though, was permitted to alter societal structure. As a result, other countries experienced the benefits of Chinese innovation.[FFFFFFFF]

Karma and Suffering

But what does this have to do with the path of suffering? Well, remember that emotional 'truth' leads always to personal pain and suffering. Therefore, if a society roots itself in emotional 'truth,' then individuals will hurt, and if Facilitator thought protects the status quo, then personal suffering willcontinue. Why? Because Facilitator mode is in charge, and its local optimization prevents mental development from continuing further.

In Eastern circles, this inescapable prison of Facilitator-governed suffering is called karma. So far, we have seen that karma insists that all personal change is ever and eternally gradual. Now, we see that karma uses local optimization to get rid of any and all major disturbances. In other words, if you hurt someone else, then karma asserts that sometime, eventually, you also will be hurt. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Why? Because that is how Facilitator mixing responds to fundamental change, and Facilitator thought is in charge.

The ‘wheel of suffering:’

1.  Emotional 'truth' leads always to personal pain and suffering, along with cultural conflict.

2.  Facilitator optimization preserves this status quo and blocks personal transformation.

3.  This ensures that emotional 'truth' survives, and that pain and suffering continue.

Is there no escape from the wheel of suffering? Is the rule of karma total? Not at all. When Facilitator thought rules culture, then one can always escape karma through the denial of Buddhism. The reason for this is quite interesting. Whenever Facilitator mode repeats a certain strategy, Perceiver thought notes this repetition and after enough cycles eventually decides that it is dealing with a universal fact.[GGGGGGGG] Now, suppose that Facilitator strategy responds to cultural threats by using the Facilitator ‘volume control’ to turn off the offending ‘voice.’[HHHHHHHH] Perceiver thought will eventually conclude that the answer to suffering is denial. Why? Because this is how Facilitator thought always responds when faced with unpleasant situations.[IIIIIIII] Thus, some Facilitator person will suddenly get the bright idea, as did Buddha, that one can escape Facilitator-induced karma by using Facilitator-led censorship—a form of denial. And what will the Facilitator deny? All of existence. Why? Because subconscious Perceiver thought really 'knows' that denial is universally valid. And what will motivate this denial? All the Exhorter excitement that is being frustrated by Facilitator censorship. But why will this escapism deny Perceiver logic? Because Facilitator thought emerged in a climate of emotional 'truth'—which opposes logical reasoning, and the Facilitator follows local optimization.

But why does Buddhist escapism reject all Perceiver thought? Because the Facilitator ‘thinker,’ as usual, is making the best of the existing situation. Suppose that the Facilitator mystic discovers the general Teacher theory of ‘Oneness.’[JJJJJJJJ] This ‘understanding’ will make Teacher strategy feel good. Unfortunately, Perceiver thought wrecks this theory by insisting that one object or experience is not the same as another. How will the censoring Facilitator respond to this theoretical unpleasantness? By shutting down the offending voice.[KKKKKKKK] The result is all that Perceiver logic will be suppressed, because all Perceiver logic threatens the theory that ‘all is one.’ But how does the Facilitator know that censorship is the correct response? Because, subconscious Perceiver thought has reached this conclusion by observing Facilitator choices.[LLLLLLLL]

How the Facilitator person ‘escapes’ the ‘wheel of suffering’ by discovering Buddhism:

1.  Facilitator blending removes sharp edges, fills in gaps, and smoothes rough surfaces.

2.  Subconscious Teacher thought sees this smoothness and develops a theory of ‘Oneness.’

3.  Facilitator optimization protects Teacher emotion by suppressing offending facts.

wordtohtml\Book_212.jpgIn addition, I suggest that such a Facilitator person becomes mentally predisposed towards discovering the theory of ‘Oneness’? Why? Because it summarizes the approach of someone who uses Facilitator censorship to preserve the status quo. Whenever a sharp edge appears, Facilitator blending smooths it over, softens strong opinions, and silences radicals. Mentally speaking, this causes thought to ‘run together,’ like the paint of an impressionistic landscape. It is as if all solid objects have melted and now flow into one other. Thus, the Facilitator who suppresses disturbing voices actually turns into a shapeless ‘Oneness’ that imposes its bland worldview upon all dissenting voices. Subconscious Teacher strategy in the Facilitator person sees how everything blends together and concludes that ‘all is one,’ for in the mind of such a Facilitator, it is one.

Now, let us add some major suffering to the equation. How much suffering? Enough to replace the idols of culture with the frozen explosions of trauma. The result, I have suggested, is bitterness. It happens to be very compatible with Facilitator-dominated cultural preservation. At its very core, bitterness is convinced that fundamental personal change is impossible. Therefore it does not see pain as a way to kick-start change, but rather it suppresses feelings of guilt and failure and longs for a return to the status quo. And, because it lives within a mindset of approval, in which people rule and are the ultimate sources and causes of everything, it compensates for its hurt by blaming others.

Bitterness, though, does manage to harness Exhorter excitement. Suffering is exciting. Pain may hurt, but it is an extreme feeling from which Exhorter strategy can derive energy. And where do you think this mental force will be directed? Towards restoring the status quo. How? Through approval. In some way, my emotional status with respect to others must be restored. Why? Because approval views all pain in personal terms. Someone is always responsible.

This emotional ‘restoration,’ I suggest, may be directed towards either envy or jealousy. Remember that envy brings my neighbor down to my level, whereas jealousy attempts to raise me to the level of my competitors. In other words, envy burns and destroys, whereas jealousy ‘keeps up with the Joneses.’

Now we have the potent, destructive mixture described earlier on in this section. First, the mind is emotionally integrated around experiences of pain. Should these begin to fade, then Facilitator mode will sense the impending mental disintegration and respond by emphasizing hurtful experiences and memories. But, if the pain ever gets too severe, then Mercy strategy will begin to scream and Facilitator mixing will respond to this crisis by turning down the level of suffering, thus removing any pressure for fundamental change.

Active bitterness finds Excitement in assisting the process of karma.

Second, Facilitator-defined karma is now being driven by Exhorter energy. Whenever suffering creates some imbalance, people are driven by feelings of envy or jealousy and take steps to restore the equilibrium of culture. And what defines equilibrium? Approval. Therefore, ‘saving’ and ‘losing’ face acquires extreme importance, as we see in Asia. The one who is humiliated in front of others may nurse a grudge for years—or centuries—before he ‘helps’ karma by wreaking revenge upon his humiliators.[MMMMMMMM]

Third, suffering is now being actively perpetrated. Before, people were experiencing random events of suffering. Now, individuals are deliberately acting in ways that are harmful. Obviously, each episode of violence will only succeed in locking people more strongly into an endless cycle of suffering.

Suffering and Contributor Thought

Unfortunately, there is an additional factor. So far, we have assumed that Facilitator mode is in charge. But, suppose that some individual is treated so badly by others that he has no hope of finding approval. Perceiver strategy in his mind will then conclude that he is different from normal people. The result will be a strange form of self-image. Normally, self-image develops as Perceiver thought gains the confidence to distinguish between one emotional experience and another. As we saw in the first volume, this is a natural byproduct of personal transformation. In fact, I have suggested that an accurate self-image is only possible to the extent that a person has experienced personal transformation.

But, here we have a self-image developing out of individualized disapproval. Because everyone singles this person out for mistreatment, he acquires an identity composed of shame.[NNNNNNNN] It is a form of pseudo-transformation—based solely in the Mercy defining experiences of disapproval.

Now, suppose that this social outcast develops Server skills that allow him to survive and avoid persecution. The combination of Perceiver ‘self-image’ and Server content will give birth to Contributorthinking. And what will provide the emotional fuel for the Exhorter energy that drives his Contributor plans? His strong desire to avoid the consequences of disapproval.

We now have goal-oriented behavior—sort of. The social outcast is motivated to escape his misery, and he has both the identity and the skills to break out of Facilitator control and go beyond the restrictions of his culture. But, his mindset is severely limited.

Suffering can develop Contributor thought in isolated individuals:

1.  If society labels a person as different, he will develop a sort of self-image.

2.  If society mistreats this individual, he will be motivated to escape his predicament.

3.  If he succeeds, he will become the feared leader who manipulates others with extreme plans.

The fundamental flaw is that Perceiver strategy in his mind is still mesmerized by approval. The only difference between him and his fellows is that he stands outside of this system of approval. Therefore, all of his Contributor plans will involve manipulating approval. Unfortunately for his tormentors, he lacks the social qualms that normally guide behavior. The average person is wary of acting in ways that violate approval. But, the outcast has already learned to cope with the worst that society can dole out. Therefore, his plans will go beyond the acceptable bounds of society.

There is more. What type of approval defines the ‘self-image’ of the outcast? Disapproval. His very identity is based in ‘knowing’ that he will always be rejected by others. In other words, his mind falls apart if he does not experience disapproval. Thus, not only is he willing to pursue plans that are socially unacceptable, but his very ability to follow goal-oriented behavior demands that he implement plans that make him hated and feared by others. Emotionally speaking, he longs for the approval of society, and his mind is integrated around the 'truths' of his society. But, his personal identitydemands that he experience disapproval.

It is quite common for such an individual to gain power in society, because he has the Perceiver identity, the Exhorter drive, and the Contributor plans. As a leader, he implements ‘final solutions’—plans which normal people find unthinkable. They are ‘solutions’ in that they ensure his personal survival. They are ‘final’ because he must go far enough to provoke disapproval. In power, he is the hated one who stands apart from others. He literally finds his energy and excitement in being respected and feared by those who are trying to kill him. The result, history suggests, is an evil, malicious, murderous tyrant—a Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein type of dictator.[OOOOOOOO] Usually, he is a Contributor person, but not always. Invariably, he is cruel. This is because the ‘poison’ that he was fed as a child has become his identity. He is poison in person.

I suggest that a society that is rooted in idolatry will generate such leaders. This is because those who worship idols always reject and mistreat those who are different. The result will be a pool of potential dictators who will fight among themselves for the recognition of society. Chances are that one of these tormented monsters will claw his way to the top and become king of the jungle. His subjects will then expect him to act important and to mistreat others. Why? Because such behavior is consistent with idol worship. Every ‘god’ of idolatry begins with specific Mercy experiences and objects and puffs them up into cosmic significance. He then protects his ‘god’-ness by killing those who expose or threaten his inflated pomposity. This religion of brutality breeds more potential dictators, perpetuating the process.

Bitterness and ‘God’

Obviously, such an individual, and the associated system of society, belong under the heading of ‘bitterness.’ But, where is the bitterness in culture and Buddhism? There may be denial, escapism and irrationalism, but bitterness? Yes. However, I suggest that it is not man which is the object of this bitterness, but rather God. The Buddhist meditator is supremely bitter at his image of ‘God’ and does everything in his power to ‘get even with God.’

Let me explain. Remember that an image of ‘God’ develops whenever a general Teacher understanding impinges upon subjective Mercy identity. What type of ‘God’ image will be developed by a society that follows Facilitator-led cultural preservation? A ‘God’ of Karma. This ‘God’ imposes utterly inescapable conscience upon his ‘followers.’ ‘He’ preserves the status quo at all costs, and ‘He’ locks people into a world of suffering.

Karma and Buddhism demonstrate bitterness against ‘God.’

·    Karma acknowledges universal order but states that it is unchangeable.

·    Buddhism refuses to live within karma, but finds its excitement elsewhere.

How does the Facilitator Buddhist philosopher respond to this ‘God’-imposed prison? By setting up a rival image of ‘God’—one created now in the image of Facilitator thought. This new ‘God’ of ‘Oneness’ kills all conscience, dismisses all status quo as illusion, and judges the world of suffering as incurably evil. Talk about revenge. Somehow, the ‘God’ of ‘Oneness’ must coexist with his nemesis, the ‘God’ of Karma. Why? Because Facilitator mode needs both,[PPPPPPPP] and Facilitator thought is in charge.[QQQQQQQQ]

On that note, we will conclude this section. We have covered a lot of ground. Therefore, let us summarize before we continue. First, there is the connection between the MBTI® splits and mental development. As soon as Thinking and Feeling begin to be bridged, then Facilitator thought emerges.[RRRRRRRR] Similarly, integrating P/J will develop Contributor strategy and lead to goal-oriented behavior. Facilitator thought makes the best of an existing situation; Contributor mode goes beyond the status quo to something new. T/F can be integrated permanently by pursuing personal transformation or else it can be temporarily connected by combining fixed culture with novel experiences.[SSSSSSSS] Likewise, P/J can be permanently bridged by finding excitement within logical thought, or else P/J can achieve temporary coexistence by living within disapproval and struggling to achieve or maintain approval—as described in the preceding section.[TTTTTTTT]

Second, we have the relationship between culture, suffering, and change. If culture is dominant, then Mercy importance will rule unchecked. If such a society encounters other cultures and new experiences, then Facilitator mode will emerge as a dominant force. This leads to the rule of karma, and Facilitators will escape this societal prison by ‘discovering’ Buddhism. If suffering ever becomes the dominant experience, then a further shift will occur. Instead of finding their excitement in escapism, people will be motivated by feelings of envy and jealousy to enforce karma by inflicting pain upon one other. The overall system of society, however, will still be held together by Facilitator mixing, which will avoid the two ‘extremes’ of excessive violence and total peace. This milieu of warfare can give birth to Contributor thought and the rule of dictators.

Finally, we have the relationship between suffering and the window of growth. If a society that is rooted in emotional 'truth' experiences no suffering, then it cannot grow. Only pain can dislodge it from its childish idolatry. The level of suffering that an approval-based society can tolerate is determined by the strength of Facilitator thought. If Facilitator-mixing is dominant, then high levels of suffering will be absorbed and any frustration will be deflected into the already present escapism of Buddhist thought. The society itself can only be transformed if the level of suffering exceeds the censoring capabilities of Facilitator thought. The response will then be determined by the level of Perceiver and Server confidence. If this is insufficient, then bitterness and dictatorship will again emerge. However, if people possess enough Perceiver logic and Server skills, then Contributor thought, based upon common sense, will develop and propel society out of cultural preservation and into rational growth.

By the way, notice that we have just described the requirements for societal transformation. And, I suggest that we have also explained why societal transformation developed in Western Civilization. In all other cases, bitterness, culture, or Buddhism stifled growth.

Thus, we conclude that suffering may both trigger societaltransformation and lead to substantial personal transformation—if it is embraced with the proper attitude. However, I suggest that it is impossiblefor suffering to complete the process of transforming the emotional me, because the method itselfis based upon hurt. Obviously, the method of suffering will always involve suffering. Since rational thought helps us to remove causes of suffering, at some point the benefits of growth prompted by suffering will be sufficient to remove the suffering that motivated the growth. Progress will then grind to a halt, killed by ‘the good life.’[UUUUUUUU] In other words, successful societal transformation, for a time, will stifle any personal transformation motivated by suffering.

We see this illustrated by the recent history of North America. Today’s prosperity is largely a result of the character acquired by those who suffered through the Great Depression and the Second World War. As that generation passes away, wishful thinking and get-rich-quick schemes are replacing thrift and hard work. The Great Depression, in its turn, was caused by a generation of investors who built an entire market upon illusion and paper wealth. Thus, prosperity and maturity alternate, one following the other.

In contrast to this path of suffering, patience can change me totally, because the method itself is positive. Suffering may motivate an individual to learn and grow, but I suggest that there eventually comes a point at which further personal progress can only be made by abandoning the method and making a transition to the path of patience. Until then, ‘God’ requires a ‘devil’ who will ‘zap’ people and force them to learn, and there will always be a need for evil in the world. However, once the method of suffering has been replacedby themethod of patience, then ‘God’ can dispense with the ‘devil’ and teach people ‘Himself,’ and good can finally triumph over evil.[VVVVVVVV]

Tolerance and Fairness Explained

Near the beginning of the book, we looked at tolerance and fairness. I suggested that these concepts emerge when revealed 'truth' manages, in some way, to prolong its existence, without either fading into Mercy idolatry or else graduating to logical thought. When there is such an intermediate state, then I suggest that Facilitator thought becomes dominant within society.

On the one hand, Facilitator strategy is enabled. Remember that fairness demands that each individual person receive Mercy experiences that are Perceiver similar. If one person gets a ‘slice of pie,’ then everyone should have a slice—the same size made with the same ingredients. Thus, we have fixed Perceiver facts combined with variable Mercy experiences, because a few solid Perceiver rules are being applied to many individuals. This combination enables Facilitator thought. If revealed 'truth' were to degrade into pure Mercy idolatry, then Facilitator strategy would no longer be able to function. But, as long as the concept of the rule of law remains, then Facilitator thought can continue to operate.

On the other hand, Contributor thought is disabled. This is because people are the fundamental units of fairness. What type of people? Tolerant people, who 'believe' that each individual is his own source of 'truth': I have my 'faith' and you have your 'beliefs.' You have no right to shove your 'faith' at me, and I will not impose my 'beliefs' on you. Instead, your 'beliefs' are good for you, and mine are good for me. Live and let live.

The end result is a society full of philosophers, which deifies the ‘diversity’ of the status quo. Any attempt to introduce major change will threaten the 'beliefs' of some person. Obviously, Contributor thought cannot operate in such an environment, because Contributor strategy produces change and any change that is introduced will threaten the philosophy of some person. Whenever Contributor thought attempts to implement some plan, this will disrupt the ‘lifestyle’ of a certain segment of the population. These individuals will realize that they share a common emotional bond, they will gather together to form a ‘special interest group,’ which will attempt to preserve its particular aspect of the status quo. Thus, the only minor improvements will be permitted, and Facilitator thought with its local optimization, will become the dominant mental strategy. If people were to graduate from revealed 'truth,' then Contributor strategy could operate. But, we are looking at a situation in which revealed 'truth' continues to exist.

Notice that this mindset can operate with both the individual and the group. Each person defines his own 'truth'—which is respected through the practice of tolerance. However, people with similar Mercy experiences define a group—which is protected through the application of national tolerance.

I suggest that Canada provides a good example of tolerance operating at the national level, and illustrates the way in which Facilitator strategy attempts to maintain the status quo. In Canada, Quebec has its own version of 'truth,' to which it stubbornly clings. It is represented, both at the provincial and national level, by a party which only supports proposals that are good for the Quebecois people and their French language and culture, and whose goal is to separate from the rest of Canada. However, as part of the existing Canadian status quo, this behavior is tolerated as ‘normal.’ In contrast, Western Canada is represented by a new party which threatens to overturn the status quo. Therefore, it is condemned by central Canada as a party of dangerous extremists and radicals, even though its views and its actions are far less radical than the cultural cleansing practiced in Quebec.

This example illustrates one major way in which tolerance breeds intolerance. Suppose that some aspect of a society emphasizes emotional 'truth.' This group will use its emotional status to impose its own version of Perceiver 'truth' upon others, thus attacking Perceiver rules which apply to all segments of society. For instance, for decades Quebec has refused to submit to the constitution of Canada—a document outlining Perceiver laws that apply to all individuals—and has demanded to be recognized as a distinct society—a group with its own set of emotional 'truth.' Now suppose that some individuals notice this discrepancy and insist that Perceiver rules should apply equally to all individuals—the approach which the Alliance Party has taken in Canada. Obviously, this viewpoint will not be part of the status quo, because in this area the status quo is determined by the emotional 'truth' of the ‘distinct society.’ Therefore, Perceiver logic will be rejected because it violates the status quo, and emotional 'facts' will be accepted because they are part of the status quo. As far as Perceiver thought is concerned, the ‘distinct society’ has turned into a group of barbarians that are parasitic upon the rest of society for its rule of law. If this segment of society gains control of society as a whole, then tolerance will be replaced by arrogance. Unfortunately, a minority which follows its own version of emotional 'truth' will always attempt to impose its 'truth' on others. Thus, the reins of power will inevitably be taken over by special interest groups, while those who oppose these groups in the name of Perceiver law will be rejected by tolerance as radicals and extremists.

But why does tolerence regard each person as his own source of 'truth'? Why don’t people share a common set of revealed 'truths'? Because the content of revelation has faded while the mindset remains intact. As objective science grows and discover more facts, this causes people to doubt the 'truths' that were revealed to them. This is because facts and 'facts' are separated by a threshold of uncertainty. When one grows, the other fades. In the end, all that remains is the core concept of revealed 'truth.' And what is this core concept? Teacher idolatry. In the objective, people share a set of common facts and sequences—provided to them by science and technology. In the subjective, each individual uses words to build his own Teacher philosophy, with its own 'beliefs.'

This demise of common revealed 'truth' becomes much quicker when a society consists of different groups who already hold to different 'truths.' Thus, for instance, the existence of a French Quebec within an English Canada has done much to hasten the fall of Christian 'truth' in Canada—both for Quebec and for the rest of Canada.

Notice the contrast between the tolerance and the local optimization described in the previous sections. In both cases, Facilitator thought is the dominant strategy. However, Facilitator thinking expresses itself in different ways because society has a different background. The Facilitator optimization we described earlier occurs when there is an interaction between societies which practice Mercy idolatry. In contrast, tolerance emerges when objective science corrodes revealed 'truth'—which is based in Teacher idolatry.

So what happens when each person is his own source of 'truth' and when this ‘truth’ is expressed verbally to others? Deception and wishful thinking become commonplace. This is because finite and infinite are being jammed together in two different ways. First, how can you and I both have our own individual set of 'beliefs'? A Perceiver belief is, by definition, universal. It describes a solid fact which applies to many people and many situations. But, tolerance insists that each individual has his own set of universal beliefs. Anyone who suggests that the same Perceiver belief might apply to many people is forcibly reminded that the only moral absolute is moral relativism. Thus, Perceiver thought knows that it is impossible to know, while pretending that it does know.

The second contradiction involves Teacher thought. What is the essence of Teacher idolatry? Words. And what produces words? The human mouth. Therefore, when Teacher idolatry is reduced to fundamentals, then my words define my Teacher understanding. Instead of ‘I think, therefore I am,’ we have ‘I discuss, therefore I comprehend.’ But words are specific vibrations of the air caused by the flapping of my lips and the wagging of my tongue, whereas understanding is a general Teacher structure that ties together many different specific Teacher elements.

These two contradictions will, I suggest, be ‘resolved’ in one of two different ways. First, it is possible to embrace the ‘solution’ of Buddhism. Let me explain. The tolerant thinker is building ‘universal’ Teacher understanding upon a foundation of personal Mercy feelings. Whenever these two elements combine, the result is an image of ‘God.’ But what type of ‘God’? A ‘God’ in my own image. And what defines this ‘God’? My private, personal feelings. Therefore, when tolerance encounters the Buddhist statement that ‘God is within you and, in fact, you are God,’ then it will think that it has discovered a great gem of wisdom. In addition, tolerance will realize that the Buddhist assertions that ‘all physical matter is illusion’ and ‘a cow is the same as a cat is the same as you’ allow it to ‘explain’ the Perceiver contradiction of insisting that my ‘universal’ beliefs apply only to me. If all Perceiver facts are illusions, then there is no contradiction. Instead, all is one. And tolerance, having turned into Buddhism, will luxuriate in the Teacher ecstasy of contemplating the infinite.

Second, it is also possible to ‘resolve’ the two contradictions of tolerance by flipping modes. This is a concept which the next book will discuss in great length, therefore we will now only touch upon the subject. What, mentally speaking, is a human body? It is an object that occupies a finite Mercy location which is capable of performing specific Server actions. That brings us to the next question. What is the opposite of a human body? If we were to apply the ‘mirror’ of mental symmetry to the human form, what would we ‘see’? By symmetry, the mirror-image of the human body would be a ‘container’ that ‘occupies’ a specific Teacher ‘location’ and is capable of ‘performing’ specific Perceiver ‘actions.’[WWWWWWWW] Such an anti-body may or may not exist, but it does reconcile the contradiction inherent in tolerance, because the tolerant mindset ‘occupies’ a personal set of specific Teacher words and ‘performs’ its own version of Perceiver 'truth.'

This type of mindset describes the ‘professional,’ which we have already discussed. A professional is described by a specific Teacher label—lawyer, engineer, fireman, doctor—and, within his area of expertise, he is regarded as a source of Perceiver truth.

So what is wrong with professionalism, and flipping modes? Nothing, as long as personal identity and Perceiver truth are respected. But, we have seen that tolerance is very intolerant of individuals and that it destroys Perceiver truth. Thus tolerance ends up replacing injustice with inhumanity.

Similarly, if we look at the first ‘solution,’ I suggest that the Buddhist doctrine of ‘Oneness’ also has its place. Does God live ‘within my mind’? Yes, this book has talked extensively about a person’s internal image of ‘God.’ Is this image of ‘God’ a reflection of me? To a certain extent, yes. My image of ‘God’ is determined by the structure of my mind, which is the accumulated result of years of personal decision. Can ‘moving beyond’ revealed 'truth' build a healthy image of ‘God’? Yes. We have seen that while revealed 'truth' can teach the mind about personal transformation, following personal transformation requires letting go of the Teacher idolatry inherent in revealed 'truth.'

What distinguishes Buddhism from personal transformation? The absence or presence of a Contributor incarnation rooted in Perceiver logic and Server sequence. Buddhism goes directly from me to ‘God.’ Personal transformation bridges finite Mercy with infinite Teacher by building a mental structure composed of Perceiver facts and Server sequences. In essence, each individual builds, within his mind, a Contributor incarnation that is both ‘God’ and man.

Thus we are back to our familiar conclusion. By flipping modes, society is turning inhuman. And, inhumanity, by definition, brings suffering to humans. By embracing Buddhism, we imprison ourselves within this status quo. Like the East, we in the tolerant West will also be forced to ‘escape the wheel of suffering’ by turning our backs upon personal desire and physical matter. However, it is also possible for society to head in a different direction. The groundwork has been laid.

Why Suffer?

We have compared the path of suffering with the path of patience. But, can we really control what happens to us? Choosing to avoid suffering sounds good, but most of the time we do not choose to suffer. Rather, it just happens. Why talk about a choice when we really do not have any choice? While it is true that most individual episodes of suffering are beyond our control, to a substantial degree it is possible to remove suffering from the environment. For instance, I cannot stop a drunk driver from smashing his vehicle and maiming innocent people, or prevent a maniac from entering a restaurant and shooting others at random. However, if one could change the way in which people think in general, then we would no longer have a problem with drunk drivers or crazed gun owners. Therefore, while we do not choose to suffer, much of the time we do choose to create an environment of suffering. And if you do not believe that civilized people would actually choose an environment of suffering, then turn on American television, or watch Asian action movies.[XXXXXXXX]

We cannot control suffering, but we can change our environment to minimize its effects.

“But wait. All this talk about manipulating people through suffering sounds like a Nazi ‘final solution.’ I do not want Big Brother to control my destiny through suffering.”[YYYYYYYY] I suggest that this feeling arises because we are using logic to analyze a method which violates logic. Whenever we take a combination of rational and irrational thinking and mix in physical pain, the result tends to be frightening. However, I am not promoting suffering. Rather, I am suggesting that suffering is the default method that kicks in when patience is not being followed and childish idolatry is allowed to rule unchecked. If we want to grow through patience, then our progress must be driven by logic and understanding. Therefore, we must use rational thinking to analyze our situation, and in particular, use rational thought to dissect the method of suffering. In other words, our analysis is motivated by a desire to remove ourselves from the path of suffering being followed by Western Civilization.[ZZZZZZZZ]

“OK. We will use logic, even to analyze the responses of people that deny logic. But what about experiences over which we really have no control, such as disease, natural disaster, and so on?” Let me answer this question with a comparison. If we look back at history, it is amazing how much physicalsuffering, disease, and disaster have either been eliminated or minimized by the growth and application of scientific thought. Today, most of us in the Western World actually expect to make it through life reasonably free of pain, sickness, and poverty. If transforming the me of our physical bodies has produced such an amazing effect, is it not reasonable that extending this transformation to the me of Mercy identification should have similar results?

“But how do you know that transforming the me of Mercy identification will lead to a better world?” I suggest that this type of question indicates a lack of Perceiver confidence. Remember that the only way to reach complete transformation is through the path of patience, in which Perceiver confidence builds an internal image of how the world could be. The goal must be something that does not yet exist. Therefore, if I demand to see the end before I get there, then I am condemning myself to the path of suffering.

This does not mean that I have to make a ‘leap of blind faith.’ The path of patience has worked once already in the objective—the realm of common sense and the me of my physical body. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that it will have similar effects in the subjective.

“If suffering is so horrible, then why do we not all follow the method of patience?” That is a question which I have asked myself for years. One would think that there would be a great demand for some method of mental development that minimizes emotional trauma. And yet, my repeated experience is that the vast majority of individuals are unable to conceive of an emotionally pain-free existence. We may hate to suffer and may complain endlessly about our troubles. But, if anyone suggests that suffering can really, truly be avoided, then we feel threatened. Of course, many of us try to run away from suffering, but that ‘solution’ falls into the categories of denial, rebellion, and bitterness. Underneath, we 'know' that all humans are somehow meant to suffer. If you don’t believe me, then try embracing the path of patience. See how long you last, and how much opposition you will face.

I suggest that this assumption of suffering is a byproduct of postponing personal transformation. We have allowed emotional 'truth' to reign for so long in the subjective that we have turned into philosophers and have constructed an image of ‘God’ based upon human pain and frailty.

Western society with its objective/subjective split also practices cosmic bitterness.

·    The subjective is ruled by emotional 'truth' which leads to a ‘God’ of suffering.

·    Opposed to this ‘God’ is the objective pleasures provided by a consumer society.

Instead of following patience, we accept suffering as inevitable while attempting to avoid it.

This mindset has been reinforced by social transformation. Technology makes it possible for us to inflict greater pain upon one another. Social upheavals have exalted groups, and stepped on the individual. The modern social net allows us to force others to pay for our suffering. Finally, when an image of ‘God’ is centered upon the general Teacher theory of personal suffering, then we can always ‘blame God’ for our problems.

Relative Suffering

That leaves us in a quandary. On the one hand, those of us who want to transform the emotional me through the path of patience have to contend with a hostile worldview. As a group, we have no choice but to follow the path of suffering. So, do we go out and buy a set of whips? That would only turn us into masochists and build our minds further around feelings of pain and hurt.[AAAAAAAAA] How then can we choose to learn if society makes it so difficult for individuals to follow the method of patience? Do we wait for lightning to strike? As a matter of fact, that is exactly how most people are initiated into the school of personal growth. They live life normally until, wham, some disaster strikes.

I suggest that there is a third way of learning, an intermediate path that adds elements of patience to the road of suffering. This method is a way to voluntarily enter the school of suffering, and yet avoid much of the personal pain of imposed suffering. I refer to this middle road as relative suffering.

Personal transformation requires a gulf between where I am and where I want to be: Patience builds an internalimage of something which is better than my surroundings, whereas suffering imposes an external experience of something that is worse. Relative suffering creates this separation by taking my physical body from some place that is better to some place that is worse. For instance, suppose that I grow up in the ‘first world’ and go to live somewhere in the ‘third world.’ By moving my physical body from, say, Europe to Africa, I create a gap between the way that I am living now and the way in which I used to live. This drop in my standard of living can create sufficient mental pressure to push the me of Mercy identification through at least partial transformation.

Notice how relative suffering combines aspects of both suffering and patience. Like suffering, my external, physical environment imposes hardship upon the emotional me. But, unlike suffering, I am choosing my emotional pain, and can also choose to remove the pain by returning my physical body to its former location. This voluntary aspect makes relative suffering more like patience. In addition, my emotional pain is not the result of some great tragedy in which I hope to return to ‘normal’ life. Instead, like patience, my emotional discomfort isnormal life for those who are around me, and my hope is to enjoy something better than ‘normal.’

Teenagers are often encouraged by our society to enter the path of relative suffering: Young people are drafted into the army,[BBBBBBBBB] motivated to volunteer for groups such as the peace corps, or perhaps enlisted by religious organizations into temporary missionary duty. Delinquent youth may be sent into the mountains for several weeks in order to develop new patterns of behavior, and of course there is always the well-known institution of the summer camp.

Relative suffering can also be experienced by those who grow up in poorer regions. If they visit a rich country or society, then this will give them a picture of how much better life could be. When they return to their homeland, they will experience a drop in personal comfort. Actually, with today’s world of mass media and mass markets, the poor man does not even need to travel to a richer country. Instead, he can visit other lands mentally through television and receive objects from richer societies through trade. Watching Western affluence on television will turn the bliss that was ignorance into relative suffering.[CCCCCCCCC] As for those of us who live in the West, we have commercials—specifically designed to inform us of what we do not have.

In relative suffering, I choose to place my body in an environment with inferior experiences.

·    This will promote personal growth ifI focus upon improving my surroundings.

Unfortunately, the modern split between objective and subjective often negates the message taught by relative suffering. Remember that the goal of relative suffering is to replace emotional 'truth' with logical facts. This change will only occur if facts are seen as desirable and emotional 'truth' consideredundesirable. The peasant from the third world who comes to the big city and sees all the wonders of modern technology will be attracted to the results of logical thought. However, suppose that this same peasant visits the metropolis and senses a lack of community values or else is exploited by some unscrupulous businessman. In this case, he will probably decide to hold on to his culture and despise rational thought—thus throwing out the baby with the bath water. The result of this cross-cultural encounter will be a strengthening of the old me, and not a building of the new. Many revolutions have begun in this way.[DDDDDDDDD]

I suggest that there are two reasons why this negative response will be a common scenario. First, we know that facts and 'facts' cannot coexist. Therefore, when a person moves to the city and works with rational facts, his cultural foundation of 'facts' and 'rules' will crumble. As a result, he will also tend to become amoral. This will be especially true of the professionally trained ex-peasant. And whom will the villager tend to meet when he goes out to ‘see the world’? Lawless people from his own culture who are waiting to prey on him—they are familiar with technology, they know how to communicate with the peasant, and they are now free of cultural restrictions which would prevent them from using the one factor to take advantage of the other. In many third-world countries, these ‘lawless locals’ form the core of official government and are a significant fraction of the wealthier classes.

Second, the poor peasant does not know how to use logical thought. Thus, when he has an emotional experience that links corruption and decadence with technology, his Perceiver observer will be mesmerized into 'believing' the 'fact' that these two always belong together. If enough peasants are mistreated, they may head for the hills and start a communist insurrection.

We saw that the path of patience has three requirements: I must know that something better is possible, that goal must not be me, and I must know that it is possible for this goal to become me. So far, relative suffering has only met the first requirement: I now know that something better is possible. However, if personal transformation is to be experienced, then the other two factors must also be present. And, just as the first requirement must be accompanied by Perceiver logic, so these last two requirements must also be combined with rational Perceiver facts.

First, the goal must not be me. This means that I must live within relative suffering. If I simply visit some place in the third world, I may be culturally enriched, but I will not change. Similarly, if I move to a poor place and live within an island of comfort, there will also be no personal growth. Relative suffering works only if I live within the local society.

While I am in these poor surroundings, I must hold on to Perceiver logic. For example, there is no point in seeking ‘brownie points’ with the local population by living in a grass hut or risking illness by eating unsanitary food.[EEEEEEEEE] This type of attitude violates common sense related to the me of my physical body, and exalts the emotional 'facts' of the local culture. In effect, it replaces one old me with another. For mental transformation, I must combine cultural integration with common sense.

Second, a connection must be maintained between where I am and where I want to be. Therefore, if I move to an impoverished region and ignore my past, then I will only succeed in suppressing my old me and not in transforming it. Similarly, if I respond to the poverty of my new location by tearing down the old and replacing it with the new, then I am suppressing the old me of the local population. Instead, the new must always be produced as much as possible by rearranging the Mercy elements of the old.

For instance, suppose that I attempt to improve the lot of some third-world tribe by bringing in mechanized farm implements, large factories, and modern conveniences. This will probably alienate the very people I am trying to help, and they will eventually respond by rejecting all of my ‘improvements.’ Why? Because I did not transform the old but rather suppressed it. On the other hand, if I make their old plows more efficient, and introduce simple machines and basic health reforms, my efforts will probably have a more lasting effect—and may eventually lead to bigger projects.

Relative suffering promotes personal growth when improvements are personal and gradual.

If relative suffering is to succeed in changing people, then the act of transformation itself must be based upon Perceiver logic and confidence. This is the major downfall of revolution. It uses physical force to destroy the Perceiver 'laws' and 'facts' of the old regime, and thus merely replaces the original set of Mercy defining experiences with a new set of idols and emotional 'facts.' The common person is not given more freedom. He has just exchanged one set of masters for another. Similarly, I suggest that reforms that are imposed from the top or brought in from the outside will also have a poor success rate, because they use emotional significance to impose a new set of 'facts' upon the average person.

If we look at history, it appears that the only reforms which really last are those that somehow lead individuals to greater Perceiver confidence. This means teaching basic values such as honesty, integrity, and the rule of law, and coming up with practical solutions rooted solidly in common sense. Unfortunately, governments often shun these personal, small-scale improvements. They are internal and gradual, and they lack the status or importance that feeds feelings of approval.[FFFFFFFFF]

This leads us to a paradox. We are exploring the possibility of choosing to transform me through suffering. However, we know that suffering itself is a method rooted in defining experiences that belong to the old me. Therefore, if I impose suffering on either myself or others, even through the path of relative suffering, I am actually identifying with a method that is part of the old me. This path will inevitably build up the old me even as I am attempting to replace it. Therefore the big question is, how can I follow suffering without making suffering my goal? After all, if my main purpose is to suffer, then I am falling into the trap of bitterness.

Bitterness will be avoided only if relative suffering is part of a larger, positive goal.

The only way around this paradox, I suggest, is to make suffering a byproduct of some other goal. This happens naturally when I get ‘zapped’ randomly on my way through life. I do not choose to experience tragedy. Instead, I am struck by it. Similarly, if I move to some ‘third-world’ location, it is important for me to have a positive reason for going there. Relief organizations and peace missions often miss this point. If their sole purpose is to alleviate suffering or stop fighting, then the underlying problems cannot go away, because they define the existence of the helping organization. In contrast, if some positive societal, material, or spiritual goal is being pursued, then it is possible to remove suffering and not just alleviate it, and to prevent war rather than just stop it after it has begun.

One final point. I suggest that those who partially follow patience will also find themselves experiencing relative suffering. We know that the path of patience is based upon Perceiver logic, and driven by Teacher understanding and Mercy vision. As Perceiver strategy gains the confidence to analyze the 'facts' and 'beliefs' of culture, Teacher thought builds these mental ‘bricks’ into a general structure of understanding, and Mercy strategy focuses upon the new-and-improved internal images that are formed when Perceiver facts reconnect Mercy memories.

But, the part-time student of patience only uses Perceiver logic to analyze some of his cultural assumptions. He develops rational Teacher understanding, but he does always pursue the logical implications of this understanding. He gains internal Mercy visions of what-could-be, but he does not know how to implement these visions in such a way that changes his culture.

Metaphorically speaking, one could compare his predicament to that of a fish attempting to fly. He has grown wings that allow him to leave the ocean, but his body has not changed. Instead, he is ‘neither fish nor fowl.’ Instead of ‘soaring like a bird,’ he feels like a ‘fish out of water.’ Thus, his emotional focus will be more on what he has lost than on what he could gain. It is as if he is driving with his eyes fixed upon the rear view mirror. It is this backwards-look that turns incomplete patience into relative suffering. The part-time student has analyzed enough 'facts' of his culture so that he no longer thinks like others and no longer fits in to society, but he has not extended his thinking and analyzing far enough to build a new worldview and formulate a new culture.

Imposed Relative Suffering

Notice that those who follow the path of patience automatically induce relative suffering in others. We can see this by driving down the street of a rich neighborhood. The wealth on display is all linked in some way to patience.[GGGGGGGGG] These riches impose relative suffering upon others by showing them what they do not have. In the realm of material wealth, this is the engine behind capitalism, which promises me that if I work hard, I can also possess riches like my neighbor.

This explains how a society can experience transformation. I have mentioned that in our modern Western world, the me of the physical body follows Perceiver confidence. This does not mean that every person in our society follows Perceiver logic in all areas of the objective. We know that this is not the case. However, if some of the principles that belong to the adult me are accepted by society, and if enough individuals practice these principles, then the others will be dragged along through the path of relative suffering. As long as there are a few visionaries who lead through patience, then relative suffering will take care of the rest of the population.[HHHHHHHHH]

A successful person will impose relativesuffering upon his neighbors.

·    Personal growth is then driven by jealousy.

Now let us extend this principle. The same method can be used to jumpstart personal transformation in a society, even one such as ours, which has pursued social transformation so relentlessly—if a few individuals can break through to the benefits of personal change, and if these pioneers can protect themselves from the envy and jealousy of the others. Their personal success can then provide an example to others and lead society as a whole into relative suffering. Eventually, the worldview of society will change, and the path of personal transformation may actually be encouraged. This method could work—if those who were providing the personal examples had a bright enough goal to keep them from being blinded by the adulation of the masses, and if their goal contained sufficient excitement to keep them focused upon personal progress, instead of being distracted either by the relative suffering being imposed upon the average citizen or the personal threats being uttered by the bitter majority.[IIIIIIIII]

The Five ‘Whammies’

Earlier in the book, we described five ‘whammies’ that prevent a mind from escaping idolatry. Suffering, by definition, destroys that which Mercy strategy holds dear. Therefore, we would expect that whenever suffering hits, these ‘whammies’ would short-circuit learning and prevent personal transformation from occurring. With this in mind, let us look at the relationship between the five ‘whammies’ and the material we have just covered.

Suffering and the Five ‘Whammies’

First, there is the ‘whammy’ of losing a Mercy object. This is the initial blow that starts me on the path of suffering. I suggest that my response to losing an object will determine whether I enroll in the school of suffering or whether I ‘drop out’ and embrace idolatry. Let me explain. We know that the childish mind is rooted in defining experiences and emotional 'truth.' We know this, but the childish mind does not. Rather, it assumes that certain Mercy experiences and their related Perceiver 'facts' are absolute. This implicit idolatry can only be uncovered by removing the idols or questioning the 'beliefs.' If the suffering individual demands the return of his lost Mercy treasures, then the idolatry becomes explicit. This leads to an attitude of denial. Why? Because a person has explicitly chosen to reject the facts of his painful situation and hang on to his emotional absolutes. In contrast, if he accepts the facts, then he has made it past the first ‘whammy.’

The second ‘whammy’ involves Mercy pain. Suffering hurts. The trap here is to allow the experience of loss to become a new defining experience for Mercy and Perceiver thought. We have just seen that this path leads to bitterness, in which my whole mind centers around my hurt and my loss and all of my Mercy emotions are interpreted in terms of this central agony. Obviously, such a choice turns what could be a school of suffering into an inescapable prison.[JJJJJJJJJ]

The third ‘whammy’ is the threat of mental disintegration. Losing something that is precious to Mercy strategy does not just feel bad, it also attacks the core of mental integration. This is what gives power to the status quo. It cannot be changed, it dare not be altered. Whenever the mind begins to fall apart, then Facilitator censorship steps in to protect mental stability.[KKKKKKKKK] I also suggest that it is the threat of mental disintegration which gives ultimate power to feelings of envy and jealousy. The other person is not just ‘hurting me,’ he is ‘threatening my way of life!’

Fourth, there is the ‘whammy’ of Perceiver confusion. When defining experiences are attacked, then any Perceiver 'beliefs' that come from these Mercy experiences will also fall into doubt. The temptation is to try to prop up these 'facts' by using Mercy feelings to freeze Perceiver thought and keep it mesmerized. This leads, I suggest, to conservatism. It uses emotional pressure to hold on to the 'facts' of the past. As with the previous ‘whammy,’ I suggest that conservatism is also under the implicit control of Facilitator mixing. On the one hand, Facilitator strategy demands change—it must have variety. Therefore, the Facilitator will deride those who prevent him from mixing and blending as ‘conservatives.’ However, this same Facilitator person will be the first to turn into a conservative when he feels that there is excessive change. Thus, the fourth ‘whammy’ acts as a ‘rubber band’ that ties society and individuals to the past.

Finally, the fifth ‘whammy’ is the attack to my Teacher ‘understanding.’ Suppose that I follow the path of philosophy, accept my present personal situation as absolute, and build a general Teacher understanding upon this assumption. Or, suppose that I am a ‘second-hand philosopher’ who lives in a Facilitator-led society and accepts the dominant worldview. Anything that overturns my Mercy emotions and melts my Perceiver 'facts' will also threaten my Teacher understanding. Thus, Facilitator-driven local optimization ensures that radical change is impossible and Facilitator-led philosophy turns this into a worldview.

On the other hand, if I acknowledge that personal change is possible, and accept that other people and other ways of thinking exist, then I suggest that I will make it past this final ‘whammy.’ Enshrining my current personal status as absolute builds my Teacher ‘understanding’ upon one or more of the first four ‘whammies,’ and puts either Mercy feelings or Facilitator mixing in charge. In contrast, accepting the possibility of change and the existence of others automatically sets these ‘whammies’ aside. In addition, it enables Contributor strategy—which has the power to channel Exhorter thought and propel me out of my painful situation—to begin acting. Will this ‘kill’ Facilitator thought? Of course not. Rather, Facilitator mixing becomes the ‘executive secretary’ to the ‘boss’ of Contributor planning.

The first ‘whammy’ leads to idolatry and denial—I won’t let go; it did not happen.

The second ‘whammy’ provokes bitterness—I feel hurt.

The third ‘whammy’ makes me fall apart. Facilitator censorship protects mental integration.

The fourth ‘whammy’ leads to confusion. Facilitator conservatism preserves the status quo.

The fifth ‘whammy’ attacks Teacher understanding. Facilitator philosophy rebuilds understanding.

But what exactly is a Teacher worldview that affects emotional me? It is an image of ‘God.’ Therefore, learning through suffering will ultimately and inevitably acquire religious overtones. These may not be apparent as I am making my way through the first ‘whammies.’ However, as I begin to encounter the fifth ‘whammy,’ I will realize that my ultimate struggle is redefining my worldview, or in other words, building an image of ‘God.’

I suggest that this gradual realization will occur to both the secular and the religious student of suffering. Initially, the secular individual thinks that learning through suffering is nothing more than rational thought in the midst of emotional pain. Eventually, though, his struggles will build an internal image of ‘God’ and he will view his personal growth in ‘spiritual’ terms.

Similarly, the religious student of suffering may think and speak in terms of God, but he is in fact following a prefabricated view of ‘God,’ taught to him by his revelation. It is only as he makes his way through the ‘whammies’ that he realizes that he too must build an image of ‘God’ and not just swallow one whole from his instructors.

If this is the case, then we should re-examine the relationship between suffering and the five ‘whammies,’ this time including an image of ‘God’ in our discussion.

Idolatry and the Five ‘Whammies’

I mentioned that responding incorrectly to the first ‘whammy’ leads to explicit Mercy idolatry. So, how does such idolatry affect an image of ‘God’? Remember that an image of ‘God’ is rooted in a universal Teacher theory. And generalTeacher theories hate exceptions to the rule. They love it when the same principle applies to many situations. But, what exactly is a Mercy idol? An exception to the rule. It is a special object, experience, ritual, or person that is different from all other similar items. However, it acts general. It pretends to be universal. This fools Teacher strategy. If it accepts an idol as general, Teacher strategy will feel that it has a universal understanding. However, as soon as Teacher thought tries to apply this understanding to other situations, then Mercy idolatry puts a stop to Teacher processing. In essence, Mercy idolatry feeds Teacher thought with a candy that turns into poison when it is swallowed. After a few episodes of failed idolatry, Teacher thought is going to conclude that it hates idols. In other words, me is not the only one who suffers under idolatry. An image of ‘God’ is also subjected to repeated, intense pain.

Now imagine interacting with such a ‘God.’ First, this ‘God’ will demand a steady diet of idol worship. This is because ‘God’ can only gain the illusion of possessing a universal Teacher understanding if extreme emotional intensity is attached to the external idols that define the image of ‘God.’ Saying it differently, a ‘God’ of idolatry is sustained by pseudo-theories—Teacher concepts that are given inflated generality through the application of Mercy feelings. Obviously, no ‘God’ likes its ‘God’-ness to be stripped away. Therefore, this ‘God,’ who is in reality an illusion, will demand that idols be kept separate from normal objects and experiences, both physically and mentally, because any contamination of this barrier of holiness would force ‘God’ to admit that its defining idols are special cases, and not general theories. Now suppose that some idol-worshipper does connect the holy with the profane. If this connection survives, then the image of ‘God’ that is based in idolatry will die. But ‘God,’ by definition, is rooted in universal Teacher theories. Therefore, ‘God’ will accept, as a general theory, the concept that blasphemy leads to personal death and will demand the death of anyone who dares to profane the holy.

But what if such a God does not really exist? It does not matter. The point is that idol worship develops an image of ‘God’ that is vulnerable, and the mental interaction between Teacher and Mercy thought that is generated by such an image of ‘God’ will be sufficient to produce a worship system protected by murder. This means that those who worship idols are locked into the first two ‘whammies’ by their image of ‘God.’ If they attempt to pursue rational thought, ‘God’ will call for their execution. If they accept this ‘God,’ the resulting emotional 'truth' will lead inevitably to personal pain and suffering. The only way that they can escape this personal suffering is for their image of ‘God’ to die.

And, because idols are finite objects occupying physical locations, each tribal group will have its own unique set of idols, and therefore its own pseudo-universal image of ‘God.’ Each tribe and its ‘God’ will attempt to protect its holy sites from blasphemy and try to destroy competing holy sites. Eventually, if there is enough ‘divinely’ guided blasphemy and murder, these tribes will come face to face with the ‘whammy’ of bitterness and religious suffering.

Mercy idolatry locks a society into the first two ‘whammies.’

·    A ‘God’ of idolatry must cling to idols and deny facts in order to stay ‘alive.’

·    This creates an environment of inescapable personal suffering.

What happens when pain becomes absolute and bitterness takes hold? I suggest that me and my image of ‘God’ then become trapped in a web of mutual pain.[LLLLLLLLL] On the personal side, idolatry feeds Teacher strategy with collapsing Teacher theories—which impose suffering upon my image of ‘God.’ This same idolatry supports emotional 'truth' which leads to personal pain for me. On the general side, the continual repetition of Teacher pain gives Teacher strategy a universal theory of pain. It will understand that its ‘understanding’ will always fall apart.[MMMMMMMMM] Teacher strategy then uses this ‘general theory of pain’ to understand all of the painful Mercy experiences that result from its idolatry. The result is a ‘God’ of suffering, programmed by my idolatry. And guess who gets blamed for all of this suffering? God. This blame feeds the general Teacher theory of ‘pain.’ In turn, my image of ‘God’ expands its Teacher understanding by predicting that there will be more suffering for me.

And, when people take karma into their own hands, then this mindset turns into a society of human imposed suffering which further reinforces this image of ‘God.’ If it sounds nasty, then rest assured, it is. We see it illustrated today in the continent of Africa and its history of endless tribal warfare and genocide. As long as African idolatry and tribal religion remain intact, then I suggest that the killing and maiming will continue.

That brings us to the third and fourth ‘whammies’—preserving mental integration, and protecting 'facts.' The pure idol-worshipper, I suggest, is not consciously aware of these ‘whammies.’ This is because his 'truth' is definedby external objects, and his mind is held together by his external environment. Mentally and behaviorally, he maintains a strict separation between holy objects and rituals on the one hand, and common items and actions on the other. This ensures that the holy is not profaned by being internally connected with that which is secular. Externally, though, each shrine, village, house, person, and pot occupy a certain physical location—places which are all spatially related. If he is in a holy location filled with holy objects, then he carries out holy actions. Similarly, locations and objects that are not holy bring to mind secular actions.[NNNNNNNNN]

This explains the strong connection between the idol-worshipping tribe and the land it occupies.[OOOOOOOOO] The physical environment of each tribe literally provides the structure that holds its mind together. Destroy the idols, and you attack the 'facts,' change the environment and mental ‘integration’ is destroyed. So strong is this effect, that in the extreme one cannot even speak of individual tribal members, because idol worshippers lack the mental glue that is needed to define personal identity. Instead, mental integration is almost totally based upon commonly held externals.

 A tribal society is not aware of the third and fourth ‘whammies.’

·    The physical territory of the tribe provides mental integration.

·    The objects within this territory determine the Perceiver facts.

Each tribe feels driven instinctively to remove the idols of competing tribes. Yet at the same time, tribal members feel confused when they leave their own ‘turf,’ and face mental fragmentation when they encounter other idols. The result is incessant, compulsive, limitedtribal warfare. This hostility is a continuing threat to the external grid of holy and secular objects and locations around which the mind of the idol-worshipper is integrated. The end result is inescapable external conflict, for all tribes, revolving around the third and fourth ‘whammies.’

The tribal member is a pantheist, because his physical world is his Teacher understanding.

That leaves us with the fifth ‘whammy’ of Teacher understanding and philosophy, the ‘whammy’ which involves a person’s image of ‘God.’ For the idol-worshipper, this issue is irrelevant, for he does not have an imageof ‘God.’ This is because his mind lacks the internal connections that are required to form a worldview. Instead, his environment becomes his ‘God,’ and he worships Nature. Why? Because an image of ‘God’ can only form as general Teacher understanding impinges upon Mercy identity. The only general Teacher order which the idol-worshipper knows is his external world. For him, the worldis God; he is a pantheist.

Revealed 'Truth' and the Five ‘Whammies’

We have seen that pure Mercy-based idol-worship locks a person into the first two ‘whammies’ and traps him within a physical world which imposes upon him the last three ‘whammies.’ I suggest that revealed 'truth' has a very different effect. We can work out the connection between revelation and the first ‘whammy’ by reminding ourselves of the nature of revealed 'truth.' By definition, revelation replaces Mercy idolatry. It tells the student to forget the 'facts' of his childhood and to place his 'faith' in a new set of 'facts.' Thus, as long as revelation is taught clearly and consistently, 'believers' will make it past the first ‘whammy’ of Mercy loss and its accompanying idolatry.[PPPPPPPPP] Note that this effect is independent of the content of revealed 'truth.' It will occur as long as education teaches students a new set of 'facts,' and does not simply reinforce the existing 'truths' of culture.

A similar principle applies to the second ‘whammy’ of Mercy pain. Bitterness grows when I build my mind around an experience of loss or hurt. It fixates upon the horrible things that have been done to me. In stark contrast, revealed 'truth' demands that I take my attention away from me and focus instead upon the emotional source of 'truth.' Thus, revelation, by its very nature, is an antidote to bitterness, simply because it takes my mind off of my pain.[QQQQQQQQQ] Of course, it is always possible to negate this effect by teaching a doctrine of bitterness, but in that case, the message would contradict the medium.

The story is different when it comes to the next two ‘whammies.’ As before, this weakness is due to qualities inherent in the method of revealed 'truth,' irrespective of its content. Let us look first at the third ‘whammy’ of losing mental integration. I have mentioned several times that revealed 'truth' must protect the holiness of its emotional source. The authors of ‘The Book’ must be regarded as special and unique. This weakness, I suggest, locks the 'believer' into the third ‘whammy’ by placing both me and my image of ‘God’ on a type of mental ‘leash.’

It works as follows: Filling my mind with solid Perceiver 'truth' generates Mercy images that energize my imagination and allow me to change. But, suppose that me has too much fun and too much novelty. Then my personal Mercy feelings and Exhorter excitement will begin to corrode my emotional source of 'truth.' In response, I must put on the brakes, protect my revelation—and all of my fun grinds to a halt.

Revealed 'truth' naturally leads a 'believer' beyond the first two ‘whammies.’

·    Revelation replaceschildish idols with adult experts.

·    Revelation demonstrates that change is possible by giving the 'believer' a new set of 'facts.'

Similarly, general Teacher strategy thrives on universal Perceiver 'beliefs,' because they permit Teacher thought to come up with truly general understanding. In pursuit of this emotional pleasure, students of revealed 'truth' will try to expand their 'doctrine' to include other areas of thought. And, because an image of ‘God’ is rooted in general Teacher understanding, ‘God’ will find this research exciting and pleasurable.[RRRRRRRRR] But, what if there is too much study? What if the original Holy Book gets buried by a pile of commentaries and study aids? Then my image of ‘God’ will find itself stranded out on the limbs of the tree of knowledge, while the main trunk of revelation rots away. Obviously, research will come to an end, and blind 'faith' will make a grand return. And what will be the mental hand controlling the ‘leash’ of personal and doctrinal growth? Facilitator strategy, the guardian of the status quo, supported by a ‘God’ of the status quo.[SSSSSSSSS]

A similar problem will occur with the fourth ‘whammy’ of Perceiver confusion, and its response of conservatism and 'factual' preservation. I suggest that this ‘whammy’ will exhibit itself as an inability to translate the concepts of revealed 'truth.' Suppose that some Holy Book does contain absolute truth. Perceiver absolutes, by definition, are universal facts that apply in all situations and at all times. Therefore, it should be possible to translate these facts into every language, and to discover these facts by observing any situation.[TTTTTTTTT] However, revealed 'truth,' by its very nature, suffers from a critical deficiency. On the one hand, it claims to teach universal Perceiver 'truths'—facts which apply everywhere and ‘everywhen.’ On the other hand, these 'facts' are taught through the specific words of a special book.

Revealed 'truth' locks an individual into the third and fourth ‘whammies.’

·    Mental integration is still ultimately based in Mercy importance.

·    The universality of 'truth' must be restricted.

The result of this Teacher idolatry is a schizophrenic attitude to universality. 'Believers' will insist that their Holy Book contains universal 'truth.' They may go to great lengths to translate this Book into all human languages, and search through every field of knowledge for facts that are consistent with their 'truth' and which confirm its universality. But, all of this intellectual exploration will still keep the weight-bearing foot planted firmly upon the specific words of the special Holy Book.

Therefore, claiming to believe that the Holy Book contains universal truth will be applauded, but actually allowing these Perceiver facts to stand on their own without the crutch of holy Teacher words will be rejected as a lack of 'belief.' Similarly, the words of the Holy Book may be translated into many languages, but the Perceiver meanings will be restricted to a religious context. Finally, doctrinal scholars will examine other disciplines for facts which confirm holy truth, but they will never allow these others areas of thought to become sources of truth—despite asserting that the same Perceiver truth can be found everywhere. The end result is a form of conservatism which attempts to preserve universal truth by holding on to a specific set of words—revealed at some time in the past.

Notice how both idol worship and revealed 'truth' attempt to build universality upon a foundation of specifics. Idolatry turns a limited set of Mercy objects and experiences into general Teacher theories. But, no single object is universal. The world is not made solely of megalithic stones or transparent crystals.[UUUUUUUUU] Instead, it is filled with many differentfinite Mercy objects. In order to take one object—the idol—and pretend that it is universal, one must ignore all otherobjects. This explains why Mercy-based idolatry is so destructive, both mentally and socially.

In contrast, revealed 'truth' builds its pseudo-universality upon specific Teacher words. Unlike Mercy objects, the external world does not give specific form or shape to words. Instead, each language assigns its own ‘shape’ and meaning to the ‘grunts and groans’ emitted by the human voice. Because words and their meanings are defined by humans, and not imposed by external reality, it is much easier to take a specific Teacher word and pretend that it is a general Teacher theory. Thus, Teacher idolatry is a step up from Mercy idolatry. But, the underlying contradiction still remains. How can Teacher words describe Perceiver absolutes that are both universal and not universal?

What then is the underlying problem? The fifth ‘whammy’ of philosophy, inadequate Teacher understanding, along with a puny image of ‘God.’ The only way to overcome this ‘whammy’ is to let go of all specific Mercy and Teacher crutches, including idols and Holy Books, and to build a Teacher understanding that is truly general. In religious terms, my image of ‘God’ must die and come alive again.[VVVVVVVVV]

The 'believer' is unaware of the fifth ‘whammy.’

·    He worships specific Teacher words while maintaining the illusion of general understanding.

How does one reform a worldview, or rebuild an image of ‘God’? For the Mercy idol-worshipper, I suggest that the answer does not lie in either physical force or education. Armed might simply replaces one set of idols with another, leaving the underlying mindset intact. The idolatrous mind also lacks the internal content needed to benefit from education. Instead, I suggest that the external world must be transformed—changed from a natural world governed by magical thinking to a technological society that is ruled by rational logic and acquired skills. Because the external world is the idol worshipper’s ‘God,’ you can only reprogram his image of ‘God’ by transforming his world.[WWWWWWWWW]

Similarly, I suggest that the ‘God’ of revealed 'truth' cannot be transformed through mere words or logical arguments. This is because words are the problem. Instead, the intellectual environment must gradually be changed from one based in words to one rooted in substance, objects, power, and sequence. This is what science and technology have done to modern thinking. Words are simply vibrations in the air. They may describe general theories, but by themselves, they contain no generality. In contrast, modern computers and machines embody general theories. They do not just describe order-within-complexity, they exhibit it.

In general, I suggest that every image of 'God' that is rooted in some form of emotional 'truth' will eventually be faced with ‘death.’ Why? Because infinite and finite are not the same thing. You cannot build general Teacher theories upon either specific Mercy situations or specific Teacher words. Eventually, the Teacher understanding will crumble and ‘God’ will die. Any attempt to tie specific and general together directly will lead to the fundamental contradiction of a tribal God, and such contradictions kill ‘God.’

Any image of ‘God’ that is rooted in words will ‘die.’

·    Infinite and finite cannot be jammed together.

·    Only incarnation,combined with death-and-rebirth, can give permanence to such a ‘God.’

If you do not believe me, then look at our Western world. According to Jean Paul Sartre, ‘God is dead.’ Why? Because the Western image of ‘God’ was based upon the revealed 'truth' of the Holy Bible. The words of a specific book were lifted up and declared to be universaltruth. As a result, we now live in a post-Christian world.

But what if the Bible really is the ‘Word of God’? Does ‘God’ still die? Of course. An image of ‘God’ always dies when specific and universal are jammed together. This conclusion has profound implications upon the doctrine of incarnation. If we wish an incarnation to tie together finite and infinite in a mentally valid manner, and if specific and universal can only be combined legitimately by having an image of ‘God’ die,[XXXXXXXXX] then logic tells us that a doctrine of incarnation must be combined with a doctrine of the death-and-rebirth of ‘God.’ Separating these two statements is mentally impossible.[YYYYYYYYY]

Rebuilding an image of ‘God’ is not a simple process. Perceiver ‘bricks’ must be formed and tested, one fact at a time. Any existing image of ‘God’ that is rooted in emotional 'truth' will feel threatened by this incursion of logic and will respond by making me feel guilty—for having ‘sinned’ against ‘God.’ Each Perceiver fact that I acquire, though, will take me one step further in overcoming the fourth ‘whammy.’

Once a sufficient number of solid Perceiver bricks have been accumulated, then it becomes possible to tackle the fifth ‘whammy.’ Philosophy creates a ‘God’ in its own image. The only way to defeat philosophy is to create an alternative image of ‘God’ that can swallow up the ‘gods’ of philosophy. Why ‘swallow up’? Because we are dealing with general Teacher thought. If I attack one general Teacher theory with another, then the new theory will simply produce a mental image of another ‘tribal God.’ On the other hand, if I build a truly general Teacher understanding, then I acquire a legitimate image of ‘God,’ based in universal Teacher theories. What will happen to my existing the tribal ‘gods’? They will continue to exist—as subsets of my worldview, aspects of my universal image of ‘God.’[ZZZZZZZZZ]

MBTI® and the Five ‘Whammies’

We have seen that the five ‘whammies’ are mental barriers that sidetrack a person from pursuing personal change. Similarly, I have suggested that personal transformation can only be achieved by integrating the MBTI® categories in a specific order. Is there a relationship between these two paths? Yes. In fact, I suggest that each of the MBTI® divisions is responsible for one of the first four ‘whammies.’

First, there is the ‘whammy’ of idolatry. Mercy identity clings to defining objects and experiences and refuses to let go of these Mercy items. These emotional experiences then define Perceiver 'truth.' Obviously, we are looking here at the Feeling side of a T/F split. Idolatry builds personal identity around Feeling and rejects Thinking.

The second ‘whammy’ is bitterness. Instead of allowing a hurtful experience to propel me forwards, I cling to the pain and allow it to define me. This type of mindset, I have suggested, is associated with a P/J separation. We can understand why this is so by comparing personal trauma to an emotional explosion. Bitterness freezes the loss and turns it into an emotional absolute. Because my mind is now built around an emotional explosion, Exhorter drive and motivation are enabled. But because this situation is frozen, the energy from MBTI® Perceiving is unable to change the fundamental facts of the situation—the MBTI® Judging. Because the memory of trauma demands attention, yet refuses to be altered, the only choice is either to fixate upon it, or else to run away from it. In neither case is excitement allowed to enter into the situation and transform it. The result is a split between Perceiving and Judging.

The third ‘whammy’ is mental disintegration. When my defining experiences are changed, then my mind literally falls apart. In order to know which MBTI® division is responsible for this ‘whammy,’ we need to know a little more about personal transformation. I have compared Sensing and iNtuition to two ‘sheets’ of material that can be stuck together by Perceiver glue. This ‘gluing’ process does not occur easily or automatically. Instead, I suggest that the only way to unite these two mental ‘sheets’ is for one of them to fall apart. The remaining sheet then ‘reaches out’ and provides the integrity for both ‘sheets.’ So, if I want to use iNtuition to rebuild Sensing, I must pursue an action which is impossible, guided solely by my understanding. Why impossible? Because Sensing lives in the real world of action and movement. This way of thinking will only fall apart if I attempt to do an action or movement that is physically impossible.[AAAAAAAAAA] S/N then integrates as iNtuition turns the impossible into the doable.[BBBBBBBBBB]

We see this process occurring all the time in science and technology. For example, in 1961, John F. Kennedy stated that the United States would send a man to the moon within that decade. As far as Sensing was concerned, this goal could not be accomplished. But, scientific iNtuition was used to develop new machines that were capable of performing the task. Thus, Sensing was rebuilt by iNtuition using the mental glue of Perceiver logic. Whenever machinesfail, as when the Apollo 1 astronauts died on the pad, or the Challenger Space Shuttle exploded, Sensing stops and iNtuition steps in to repair the damage. Engineering progresses through its failures.

The first ‘whammy’ of personal loss is associated with the T/F split.

The second ‘whammy’ of bitterness relates to the P/J division.

The third ‘whammy’ of falling apart is associated with S/N.

The fourth ‘whammy’ of factual confusion relates to I/E.

Finally, there is the fourth ‘whammy’ of Perceiver confusion and the resulting factual conservatism. Such a conflict can only arise when I am faced with two opposing sources of truth, and I am being asked to let go of my old source of beliefs in favor of a new set of facts. Notice that we are not looking here at a struggle between two different experts. That is a Mercy conflict between emotional sources of 'truth.' Instead, this is a battle between two self-consistent worlds, each capable of producing its own set of seemingly solid, logical Perceiver information. I suggest that the only type of division that can generate such a titanic struggle is the separation between Internal and External—the I/E division. The person who faces this dichotomy questions his sanity. In fact, at times he does not even know what sanity is. This is because he is struggling to reconcile two different forms of Perceiver reasonableness.

I suggest that such a struggle has already occurred—to some extent—twice in our modern world, first during the industrial revolution, and then in our day during the information revolution. In both cases, those who had grown up in the ‘old world’ felt lost in the new. All of their reference points were gone. Their sense of Perceiver reasonableness no longer applied. Their answers were not just out-of-date, they were irrelevant. The differences in thinking were so profound that one could say that those who were separated by these revolutions lived on different planets. In both cases, these paradigm shifts occurred when internal worlds reached out and transformed the external environment.[CCCCCCCCCC]

The Five Whammies and Me

Now that we have worked out which MBTI® splits lie behind the first four ‘whammies,’ let us look at the relationship between these connections and revealed 'truth.' I would like to illustrate this discussion by describing my personal struggle with the five ‘whammies.’

Normally, one does not include personal information in a theoretical book on the mind. That is because modern research attempts to remain objective, staying within Thinking while avoiding Feeling. When studying the mind, though, it is impossible to keep these two apart, because one is attempting to apply Thinking to the very source of Feeling.

But, haven’t I stated that a scientific theory can stand on its own, and that only philosophy needs to include the personal life of the researcher? Yes. That is why it is very important to include personal details at the right time. Philosophy begins with the subjective; it builds upon Feeling. As a result, its Teacher understanding becomes incurably tainted by the Mercy idols, traumas, and biases of the researcher. In contrast, I suggest that it is possible to study mental symmetry as a scientific theory, without making any reference to personal history.

While such objectivity may avoid the snare of Mercy idolatry, it falls right into the trap of Teacher idolatry. That is because I am using words to describe the theory of mental symmetry—you are reading a book. And words, by themselves, are Teacher idols. How does one overcome this obstacle? By adding Mercy experiences to the Teacher words. That is why I choose to include a personal description at the end of this book. In addition, this brief discussion will introduce a controversial topic which is core to the process of personal transformation. Having said this, let us begin.

As I have mentioned before, I was raised in a strict Mennonite home, based strongly upon the revealed 'truth' of the Bible. Looking back at my childhood, I remember that my mother continually and repeatedly hammered home to me the need to avoid the first two ‘whammies.’ First, our family was supposed to be different from normal families. In particular, we were not supposed to make wealth, fame, possessions, status, or appearance our primary goals. We grew up without a television in the house, because mother did not want ‘images of the world in our living room.’ In other words, we were supposed to stay away from all forms of Mercy idolatry. Second, I was warned again and again about the dangers of bitterness: “Don’t be bitter, you just destroy yourself.” Knowing what I do now, I see that our family emphasis upon revealed 'truth' allowed me to escape the first two ‘whammies.’

Meanwhile, I struggled valiantly with the third and fourth ‘whammies.’ First, throughout my life I have had problems with occasional outbursts of anger, invariably triggered by perceived injustice. Every once in a while, the struggle of ‘being different’ and ‘responding correctly’ became so intense that I could no longer handle it and I would fall apart inside. All the suppressed facts and apparent hypocrisies would then come out, in gory detail. My family and friends saw this weakness as a fatal flaw in my personal character. But, what could I do? I tried to hold myself together, and yet the fact that I was using revealed 'truth' to deal with the first two ‘whammies’ seemed to put me into situations that were intolerable.

Second, I could not reconcile my internal world of 'faith' with modern reality. I knew that most of what I was taught at home made sense, and yet I was ashamed of the stupid and backward way in which this 'faith' was so often presented and expressed. Even though the Christian 'truth' I encountered tried to package itself in modern terms, it always seemed to be associated with a provincial outlook that was years out of date. Thus, I instinctively sensed that revealed 'truth' had locked me into the two ‘whammies’ of fragmentation and factual conservatism.

The nature of these struggles altered as I began to study cognitive styles and develop the theory of mental symmetry. First, I realized why it was important to avoid idolatry. Instead of viewing iconoclasm as a mental restriction that prevented me from enjoying the ‘toys’ and status that others possessed, I realized that it was they who were the limited ones. Their idolatrous mindsets stopped them from pursuing meaningful goals and locked them into the shallow existence of modern consumerism.

Second, my response to bitterness changed. I used to think that avoiding bitterness meant trying to ‘grin and bear it’ when someone poked me with a needle. Gradually, I realized that the pain of these mental jabs actually forced me out of passivity and encouraged me to develop my mind and discover better ways of operating. Instead of suffering Mercy loss, I was developing Contributor thought.

Third, I still fell apart mentally when situations became intolerable, but now the result was different. I discovered that, for some strange reason, my understanding put me back together. Instead of growing weaker after each outburst, I actually became stronger inside and more integrated. I distinctly remember the discussions I had with family and friends over precisely this issue. They insisted that a mature adult never ‘loses his cool.’ I agreed with this conclusion, and yet I had learned that true mental wholeness lay on the other side of mental disintegration.

As I continued to fall apart and come back together inside, I found myself increasingly able to pursue and embrace new ways of thinking and operating.[DDDDDDDDDD] In contrast, I saw that those who never fell apart also did not change their fundamental approach to life. They might talk about a new society, but this talk seldom seemed to extend into action. In other words, when my world of Sensing fell apart, iNtuition really was ‘reaching down’ and putting it back together in a new way. I found, though, that this process was very draining. It felt as if my mental operation was being guided simultaneously by two contradictory forces—an accurate description of partial S/N integration. Thus, just surviving seemed to take much of my mental energy.

Fourth, my struggle with factual conservatism also changed character. As before, I found myself continually trying to reconcile modern thinking with ancient 'faith.' To my surprise, though, I gradually discovered that the 'truth' I had learned from an ancient Holy Book could survive apart from this book. I did not need to idolize some ancient tome. Instead, I now had a general Teacher understanding which was capable of holding these doctrines together, and this new theory was compatible with modern science and technology. Thus, I could let go of my intellectual fixation upon the past and its associated Teacher idolatry, and my Perceiver facts would still survive. Step by step, I realized that old and new were actually different aspects of the same worldview, and could be governed by similar rules of Perceiver reasonableness.[EEEEEEEEEE]

As before, I found myself disagreeing with friends and family. They pointed out the follies of abandoning one’s 'faith.' I understood their concerns, for I could see the destructive results of moral relativism, in which each lifestyle defines its own version of 'truth.' And yet, my questioning was leading me to a discovery of universal truth, whereas those who claimed to preach 'absolutes' invariably applied their so-called 'universals' to a continually shrinking fringe of modern existence.

But why was I perceiving these struggles as whammies? Why were they hitting me so hard? Because I was approaching life from the finite Mercy perspective of the child. When I was growing up, I didn’t know that my mind suffered from a T/F split. All I knew was that letting go of idols hurt. It was only later, as I did research on the mind, that I realized how pervasive the division between objective and subjective really was. Similarly, I did not like getting jabbed out of my passivity with emotional ‘needles.’ But gradually, I learned to understand and appreciate the mental circuitry that developed because of this discomfort. Similarly, I used to view ‘falling apart’ as a major Mercy crisis. But, as the rest of my mind developed, I slowly realized that Mercy trauma could not make the real me fall apart, because me no longer centered upon Mercy experiences. Instead, I had a far deeper identity and Mercy experiences were an expression of my true self-image. It was this realization that turned the tide in my continuing struggle with anger, and slowly but surely gave me the strength to ‘maintain my cool.’

This mental transition is illustrated by the history of this book. The first draft contained only a description of the five ‘whammies.’ After I had finished the initial writing, I analyzed MBTI®. I then rewrote this book including an understanding of MBTI®. Strangely enough, my description of the five ‘whammies’ survived intact—but they could now be viewed from a psychological perspective rather than through emotional Mercy eyes.

Anger and Personal Transformation

Before we look at the fifth ‘whammy’ I would like to address the issue of anger and show how it relates to personal transformation. What exactly is anger? Figuratively speaking, it is a way of ‘letting off steam.’ When I get angry, I lose control of my emotions. That which was ‘bottled up’ suddenly ‘explodes.’ In mental terms, Exhorter urge overwhelms Contributor control. The Perceiver walls and Server roads that Contributor strategy uses to restrict and channel thought and action give way, and Exhorter energy, rooted in emotional Mercy and Teacher memories, expresses itself directly. In MBTI® language, one could say that Judging is flooded by Perceiving.

And what is the source of anger? Invariably it is driven by the emotional Mercy memories that form the core of the untransformed me. When the inner child does not get its way, then, like the typical youngster, it throws a temper tantrum. Does this means that anger is always bad? Well, it depends. Let me elaborate.

Anger occurs when mental drive breaks through mental structure.

One of the goals of personal transformation, I suggest, is to become free of anger. This is because anger, by definition, is a sign of incomplete personal growth. It signifies a ‘crack’ in the wall of the mental ‘container’ that channels internal desire. Thus, I suggest that it is always wrong to reward anger. The parent, for instance, should never give in to the screaming demands of the child, for this simply encourages him to continue acting childishly.

Does this mean that all inappropriate emotional expression should be suppressed? No. This is because the goal is to transform the old me and not just kill it. In other words, childish anger should be permitted but not rewarded. In essence, the angry individual should be made to ‘sit in the corner’ until he regains control of his emotions.

I suggest that this is where modern objective Thinking makes its mistake. Today’s Western society assumes that Thinking and Feeling cannot come together. Because Thinking holds on to Perceiver logic by avoiding emotions, it is convinced that anger always threatens civilized behavior. This diagnosis is correct, for anger is an expression of the childish me, which is by nature uncivilized. While objective thought makes the right diagnosis, it errs in its treatment of anger, for it ‘gets rid of it’ by suppressing childish emotions. However, if rational thinking ever fades, then this submerged rage will re-appear—as it is doing in present society. These days, almost every group seems to be ‘expressing outrage’ at something or against someone. We conclude that objective rationalism cannot survive anger, for the two oppose one another. As far as objective logic is concerned, anger is always bad.

So what about revealed 'truth'? I suggest that it too is vulnerable to rage, because of the nature of revelation. Suppose that I ‘lose my cool’ and ‘run off at the mouth.’ I am using strong Mercy emotions associated with me to add pressure to my Teacher words. But, this is precisely how revealed 'truth' operates. It also uses Mercy feelings to give emphasis to specific Teacher words.[FFFFFFFFFF] Therefore, personal anger corrupts revealed 'truth' at its very source. As a result, revelation soon concludes that anger is a grievous ‘sin against God’ which can only be overcome through much time and spiritual fervor.[GGGGGGGGGG]

Objective thought suppresses anger because it threatens objective logic.

Revealed 'truth' condemns anger because it corrupts the emotional source of revelation.

But what about so-called ‘righteous indignation’? Is there such a thing? To a certain extent, yes. This occurs when the emotional Mercy experiences which define revealed 'truth' are themselves the source of anger. Then anger does not destroy revelation but instead reinforces it. However, using this method is very risky, for the anger is still coming out of my mouth, and being expressed by myself. Thus, anger can only stay ‘righteous’ as long as me does not enter into the picture. If such anger leads to any personal gain for me, then it will very quickly lose its ‘righteousness’ and turn into childish rage. In the process, this rage will destroy revealed 'truth' and make me—the childish me—the source of my religious 'truth.' Even when anger is ‘righteous,’ continuing it for too long will turn the mental focus away from Perceiver 'truth' to the emotional Mercy experiences which define this 'truth,' causing revelation to turn into pure Mercy idolatry. Thus, if indignation is to be ‘righteous,’ it must stand for Perceiver 'truth,' it must avoid receiving personal Mercy benefits, and it must be resolved as quickly as possible.[HHHHHHHHHH]

That brings us to the relationship between anger and personal transformation. What exactly happens when an aspect of the old me falls apart? The connections that used to integrate this me give way and are replaced by new connections that are rooted in Perceiver logic. Do the Mercy experiences of mesurvive this process? Yes. Do these Mercy experiences retain their emotional significance? Yes. What exactly is replaced? The Perceiver facts that hold these Mercy experiences together.[IIIIIIIIII] But, what happens when such Perceiver 'facts' crumble? I get angry—by definition. This is because the experiences and the emotions are present, but not the connections. The ‘steam’ is there, it is ‘hot,’ and the ‘boiler’ has been destroyed.

Personal transformation will alwaysbe accompanied, in some way, by anger.

·    It attacks the 'facts' of the old me while preserving the experiences and feelings of the old me.

Personal transformation will always free a person from anger.

·    It builds a new home for me that is solid and independent of Mercy feelings.

Thus, we conclude that anger is an essential step in the process of personal transformation. Unless there is some sort of emotional explosion, the Perceiver 'facts' which held together the emotional experiences of the old me have not fallen apart. Why can’t this transition occur in a unemotional manner? Because we are trying to re-link emotional experiences while preserving the feelings. The very survival of Mercy thought depends upon the presence of strong Mercy feelings. But, why can’t the Perceiver facts be changed without affecting Mercy feelings? Because, under emotional 'truth,' Mercy feelingsdefine the Perceiver 'facts.'

Notice exactly what I am saying. It is possible to build a new me without getting angry. The new me is, in fact, incompatible with anger. However, it not possible for the new me to swallow up the old me without experiencing some sort of emotional shockwave. If there is no anger, then the old me remains intact.

Does this mean that all anger is consistent with personal transformation? No. Instead, I suggest that most forms of anger are incompatible with personal transformation and that true growth is accompanied by a very specific type of anger. First, the anger that is part of personal transformation does not last long. Like a summer storm, it will blow up and then go away. If anger continues to simmer, then this is a sign that some of the structure that holds the old me together is still intact.

Second, an episode of anger will not be repeated. If it does reoccur over the same issue, then this shows that these emotional Mercy memories have not yet acquired the Perceiver stability of the new me. This does not mean that there will be no more emotional blowups. Instead, each time some aspect of the old me falls apart, there will be another emotional shockwave. However, if personal transformation is truly occurring, then each emotional outburst will happen in a different region of thought and lead eventually to greater emotional stability in that area.

Notice that exactly the opposite occurs when anger is combined with revealed 'truth.' The one who follows blind 'faith' does not dare to get angry, because each emotional outburst threatens the core of his 'truth.' In fact, we can make the following statement. If a person is following Teacher idolatry, then he will be unable to cope with anger—either produced by him or directed at him. Instead, when anger strikes, he will have to block off that area of thought.[JJJJJJJJJJ]

Third, the anger that accompanies personal transformation will be ballistic. In order to understand this concept, we need to compare Exhorter with Contributor thought. Exhorter strategy is responsible for starting things. In physical movement, it provides the initial burst of energy that propels the part of the body being moved close to the desired location. Contributor thought then takes over and adds the details, zeroing in on the target. In other words, it turns an idea into a plan and fine-tunes the movement that was begun by Exhorter strategy.[KKKKKKKKKK] Therefore, whenever movement is coarse and rapid, this shows that Exhorter strategy is in charge. Detailed movement, on the other hand, indicates that Contributor thought is involved.

Now let us apply this distinction to anger. The anger that accompanies personal transformation should involve only emotional Mercy experiences[LLLLLLLLLL] and not be accompanied by any Perceiver or Server content. Therefore, it should use Exhorter strategy and not Contributor thought. Hence the term ballistic. It should be full of bursts, lunges and swings, but have no detailed movement. The initial surge will be present, but there should be no follow-through, either physically or figuratively. In contrast, fine-tuned anger demonstrates that the structure of the old me is still intact.

Fourth, this anger should not be destructive. Flailing is fine, but not breaking. This is because the goal is mental integration, and that does not go together with physical destruction. Anger that breaks things simply reinforces the old me. But what can prevent anger from turning destructive, if the anger itself is provoked by a collapse of the 'rules' that limit the old me? The part of me that has already been transformed. Thus, the individual who is experiencing personal change will increasingly find that the soft voice of reason limits the extent of his outbursts and prevents them from turning destructive.

Finally, I suggest that this anger should also be verbal. Why? Because personal transformation involves a change of emotional focus from Mercy to Teacher thought. The old me focuses upon Mercy feelings. The new me is integrated by Teacher emotion.[MMMMMMMMMM] This means that talking allows the old me to get the attention of the new me. In religious terms, the old me cries out to ‘God’ for personal salvation.[NNNNNNNNNN]

Should the anger associated with personal transformation continue to reappear? No, it is specifically related to the destruction of the old me. Once childish identity has been digested, then there will be no more anger. If anger remains, then this indicates that part of the old me is still present.

I would like to end this section with a comparison. Suffering affects me by striking a blow at some external object which I hold dear. Because this object defines 'truth' for me, destroying it will also attack the associated Perceiver 'facts.' Like anger, this will also cause the old me to fall apart. But, at the cost of major physical destruction.

If you were learning to fly an airplane, and you could choose between suffering a real plane crash and going through a pretend crash in an aircraft simulator, which would you pick? Any sane person would choose the virtual crash over the real one. Therefore, what is better? The virtual destruction expressed by anger or the real destruction of physical loss? I prefer anger. However, rest assured that dying to the old me through anger will guarantee you the condemnation of both those who follow objective logic and those who 'believe' in revealed 'truth,' for unlike you, they have no way to recover from rage.

‘God’ and the Fifth ‘Whammy’

Let us return now to the fifth ‘whammy’ of inadequate Teacher understanding and crumbling images of ‘God.’ Where does it fit in? Let me answer this question by continuing to describe my personal path. As a child, I was taught that life was primarily a struggle between the external realm of Satan and the internal kingdom of God.[OOOOOOOOOO] After many years of struggling with the first four ‘whammies,’ I finally realized that this was an accurate statement—and yet one which was only partially understood by those who taught it.

Let me explain. Revealed 'truth' instinctively teaches that those who 'believe' in this revelation belong to the kingdom of God, whereas those who reject 'truth' and pursue external goals are part of Satan’s realm. If revealed 'truth' were the sole source of learning in a society, then this would probably be a valid statement. But what happens when Thinking develops through objective science and technology while Feeling remains primitive? Those who cling to blind 'faith' end up 'believing' in a childish, irrational God who has been rendered obsolete by modern growth. In essence, we are back to the contradiction of a tribal ‘God,’ with the ‘tribe’ living on a reservation that is surrounded by modern civilization.[PPPPPPPPPP]

Traditionally, Christianity has approached ‘God’ and ‘Satan’ from the human viewpoint of Mercyfeelings and Teacher words. But, suppose that we examine this topic from the perspective of Teacher understanding, built upon Perceiverdefinitions of the terms ‘God,’ ‘Satan,’ and ‘belief.’ What would then be the essential characteristics of these three labels? First, if God exists, then, by definition, He is far bigger than any human being. A God of the universe would have to be at least as large as known space, and that is truly immense. If He is outside of time and space, then that would make Him even bigger. Therefore, any search for God would have to follow an integrating mindset that attempted to gather as many different finite elements as possible under one ‘infinite’ heading. Second, the word ‘Satan’ means adversary. Using this definition, one can conclude that whatever pits one group, idea, viewpoint, philosophy, or image of ‘God’ against another is, by definition, Satanic—it follows a path that is adversarial. In contrast, a mindset that integrates groups, ideas, viewpoints, philosophies, or images of ‘God’ is, by definition, ‘Godly.’

Thus, any person—including the Christian 'believer'—who approaches life, religion, or ‘God’ from the viewpoint of Mercy specifics automatically places himself within the camp of ‘Satan.’ In contrast, a pursuit of Teacher generality is, by definition, a search for ‘God.’ But, we have learned that discovering true generality is not a straightforward process. Going directly from Mercy specifics to Teacher generalities leads only to the nonsense of Buddhist meditation. Rather, one must build Teacher generality through an indirect path that involves Perceiver facts, Contributor plans, and Server actions. In religious terms, man can only discover God through the help of a Contributor incarnation, for Contributor strategy ties together Perceiver and Server thought, and makes this network of thought come ‘alive.’

Any person whose mind is rooted in Mercy specifics is a ‘follower of Satan.’

·    He thinks in terms of adversaries, and ‘Satan’ means adversary.

Now, try explaining these concepts to someone who 'believes' these doctrines. He claims to accept the words written in his Holy Book. But, add enough Perceiver meaning to his doctrinal words and, chances are, you will find that he does not really believe. This demonstrates that 'belief' that is rooted in Mercy specifics is not the same as belief that is guided by general Teacher understanding—even when it uses the same words and ascribes identical verbal meanings to these words. Thus, we conclude that truth about ‘God’ can only be grasped by those whose minds have been transformed through an encounter with ‘God.’[QQQQQQQQQQ] It cannot be comprehended by those who approach life through a limited, human perspective. Those who claim to 'believe' a Holy Book may say these very words as well. But do they mean them, or does their Mercy bias make them incapable of true belief?

So how can the limited human mind develop a valid image of ‘God’? One of the main ways is through revealed 'truth,' because revelation is an intermediate form of thinking that can lead a person out of idolatry and teach him how to think and act for himself. But, revealed 'truth' still has its ultimate roots in Mercy specifics—and thus leads inevitably to an adversarial view of truth. In other words, even though ‘Satan’ is opposed to ‘God,’ ‘Satan’ working in combination with revealed 'truth' can help people to discover ‘God’—through the method of suffering.[RRRRRRRRRR] This explains why ‘God’ needs ‘Satan’ and suffering.

If these paragraphs sound very religious, that is because many religious people say these words. But check things out. Do these same 'believers' actually believe the words that they are saying? Maybe, maybe not.

Before we end, I would like to examine one more parallel between idolatry and revealed 'truth.' Mercy idolatry, I suggested previously, faces the idol-worshipper with the first two ‘whammies.’ In contrast, the third and fourth ‘whammies’ become embedded into the external environment so deeply that the idolatrous mindset is incapable of even acknowledging their existence.[SSSSSSSSSS] This external vulnerability is then combined with continued external conflict.

I suggest that the same effect occurs with revealed 'truth'—two ‘whammies’ further on. If revealed 'truth' is used properly, then the first two ‘whammies’ of idolatry and bitterness are no longer a problem. Instead, the 'believer' is faced with the third and fourth ‘whammies’ of fragmentation and conservatism. However, when it comes to the fifth ‘whammy’ of Teacher understanding and images of ‘God,’ then I suggest that the 'believer' is incapable of even approaching this topic. Worse than that, his blind 'faith' creates an external environment in which conflict between different gods is inevitable.[TTTTTTTTTT]

We can work out the nature of this conflict by expanding upon the information that we already have. This discussion will introduce several concepts that will reappear in a later volume. Earlier on in the book, we saw that science and technology were birthed out of a rebellion against the revealed 'truth' of Christianity. Our look at the inherent self-denial of revealed 'truth' showed us, moreover, that those who want to pursue selfish Mercygoals must also rebel against revealed 'truth.' Thus, both the scientist and the businessman are ‘dropouts’ from the school of revealed 'truth.'[UUUUUUUUUU]

What is the nature of this rebellion? Religious revelation teaches a person how to think, but restricts his thinking to the words of the Holy Book. Thus, if the scientist wants to study other areas, he must reject the restrictive focus of doctrinal research. Similarly, the revealed 'truth' of a Holy Book gives a person the mental ability to conceive of Mercy goals, but then insists that these goals should never be pursued—because such behavior would contradict the doctrine of self-denial. Therefore, in order to achieve personal success, the businessman must turn his back on religious self-flagellation. Thus, the scientist rebels from the Teacher idolatry explicit in revealed 'truth' in order to pursue general Teacher order, while the businessman rebels from the self-denial implicit in revealed 'truth' in order to follow personal Mercy goals.

As we have seen, rebellion-founded science will turn into objective science and technology—which comprehends and transforms external reality. This is because the external world avoids subjective feelings, which therefore remain irrational, as it encounters the Perceiver repetition inherent in external reality. Similarly, secular business, having turned its back on the internal emotional absolutes behind revealed 'truth,' will focus upon pursuing external goals and external improvement.

Thus we have the growth of two different external systems. One is rooted in Teacher and the other in Mercy emotions. Each is building an external kingdom according to its own mindset. These two viewpoints, I suggest, are illustrated by the present-day dichotomy between left- and right-wing. Teacher-guided thinking leads naturally to left-wing socialism, with its emphasis on social programs, government interference, philosophy, psychology and education. Opposed to this mindset is the right-wing capitalist, guided by profit, individuality, and the creation of wealth. Modern politics tells us that these two mindsets are not compatible and that they fight one another continually.

As the external superstructure associated with these two ways of thinking grows, the result will eventually be two different images of ‘God.’ What types of ‘gods’? Well, on the one hand, the scientist will find himself lost within a vast complexity of university campuses and research programs. How can he, an individual researcher, achieve significance? Usually by specializing in some small, finite region of Teacher understanding. Which ‘God’ combines finite Teacher with infinite Mercy? ‘Gaia.’ Observation suggests that many of those who champion the protection and worship of ‘Mother Nature’ are either researchers in the biological sciences, bureaucrats, or craftsmen. Seldom, if ever, does one find a businessman among the ranks. In each case it is finite Teacher and Server processing that is being emphasized.

Revealed 'truth' leads inevitably to a conflict between two competing images of ‘God.’

·    The intellectual rebels from Teacher idolatry by pursuing secular understanding.

·    This path leads through socialism to Gaia.

·    The entrepreneur rebels from self-denial by seeking secular wealth.

·    This path leads through capitalism to Buddha.

Integrating these two ‘Gods’ requires an externalsecular incarnation.

The entrepreneur, on the other hand, lives within an equally intimidating network of corporations, products, and marketing systems. How does he achieve personal success? Usually by finding some niche market in which he can excel. Thus, like the researcher, he also specializes. But, he focuses upon some Mercy specific. It is interesting to observe the ‘god’ who is often promoted by the businessmen, salesmen, and athletes who pursue finite Mercy goals. They worship the ‘god’ of Buddhism. They are ones who meditate before skiing down the hill or before making a sale.

As external structure grows and internal content continues to disappear, both of these sides lose their internal inhibitions against building direct mental links between Mercy and Teacher thought. Thus, they enter more fully into a worship of their respective ‘gods.’

While those who specialize will tend to discover either ‘Buddha’ or ‘Gaia,’ those who lack internal content will end up worshipping both ‘gods’—simultaneously. This is because the content of their minds is determined by their environment, and our modern world combines objective science with money-based capitalism. Lacking all internal inhibitions, they leap simultaneously into two different forms of emotional worship.

But ‘Gaia’ and ‘Buddha’ don’t like each other. ‘Buddha’ looks at scientific research and 'knows' that this contradicts the theory of ‘Oneness.’ Similarly, ‘Gaia’ sees the external improvements produced by business and declares that they violate the holy ‘Oneness’ of Nature. ‘Buddha’ demands an end to rational science and ‘Gaia’ cries for a halt to external progress.[VVVVVVVVVV]

This inherent animosity is rooted in two fundamentally contradictory mindsets. ‘Buddha’ combines finite Mercy with infinite Teacher. In contrast, ‘Gaia’ brings together finite Teacher with infinite Mercy. If it is difficult to keep concepts of finite and infinite separate when each inhabits different modes of thought, imagine the mental tricks that are needed to keep them separate when finite and infinite simultaneously occupy both Teacher and Mercy thinking. Those who attempt to interact meaningfully with these worshippers know that such people are belligerently irrational and vehemently stupid—all expressed as the essence of Mercy love and the ultimate in Teacher understanding.

And to whom do these people turn when they need help reconciling finite and infinite Mercy and Teacher thought? To an incarnation, of course. But what type of incarnation? An external, secular incarnation. External because they need to bridge the two external viewpoints of civilization. Secular because both of these fragments were birthed by a rebellion from religion. Thus, we have returned to our familiar conclusion—a fascist dictator. He is viewed as the god-man who preserves the order of society while at the same time protecting those who want to seek monetary profit. And who are his front-line troops? Those who are belligerently irrational and vehemently stupid.

Of course, it is also possible for an individual to become rational and to stop acting stupid. But, that means going against the whole stream of society. Are you willing?


Absolute     A Perceiver fact, residing within the internal world of Perceiver thought, which determines the labeling of other facts. Because facts only enter into the internal world of Perceiver thought through the step of belief, an absolute is always a belief. Within each mental context, the fact with the greatest certainty will act as an absolute.

Abstract     One of two basic types of mental information. Abstract data consists of ideas, theories, and facts. It looks for general principles. Teacher and Perceiver modes work with abstract data.

Analytical     One of the two major ways of mental processing. Analytical thinking works with time, order, and sequences. Analytical processing occurs within the left hemisphere of the brain cortex. Teacher and Server strategy think analytically.

Approval conscience     The form of conscience created by emotional 'truth.' Mental connections between cause and effect are determined by the opinions of important people, and punishment or approval is also doled out by these same individuals, or by their representatives.

Associative     One of the two major ways of mental processing. Associative thought works with objects, and space. Associative processing occurs within the right hemisphere of the brain cortex. Perceiver and Mercy modes think associatively.

Automatic Thought     The ‘storage shed’ of thought. Each of the four simple styles has its own region of automatic thought. Any input to the mind is automatically placed and sorted within automatic thought.

Back of the Cortex     See posterior cortex.

Belief     The step which places a Perceiver fact within the internal world of Perceiver thought. If a Perceiver fact is associated with excessive Mercy feelings, then Perceiver strategy will be mesmerized into 'believing' it. If a fact is repeated sufficient times within automatic Perceiver thought, then Perceiver thought will be strongly encouraged to believe it. This book treats truth and a belief as synonyms.

Bitterness     Accepting facts that are painful while refusing to believe that they can be changed. The result is a ‘frozen block’ of experiences within which mental ‘life’ is not possible, leading to a P/J split. While bitterness focuses upon this ‘frozen pain,’ rebellion tries to run away from it.

Church and State     Two organizational structures that emerge when Perceiver thought is partially developed. State uses physical force to reinforce Perceiver principles of natural cause and effect, whereas Church uses preaching to reinforce the voice of conscience that is acquired from the study of a Holy Book.

Commitment     The step which places a Server sequence within the internal world of Server thought. Because the physical body is capable of imposing sequences upon the external world, action and commitment are usually related.

Common Sense     The network of Perceiver facts and beliefs which develops through experiences with the physical body and the natural world. It is based in repetition and Perceiver confidence.

Composite Styles     The composite styles are the Exhorter, Contributor, and Facilitator. These three combine other modes of thinking. They are responsible for the drive and motivation of thought. They are located within the basal ganglia and the thalamus of the brain.

Comprehension     The step which places information within the internal world of Teacher thought. If a new Teacher theory has stronger emotions than existing Teacher memories, then comprehension will be involuntary. Involuntary comprehension is often responsible for the mental ‘aha’—in which the ‘light suddenly goes on’ internally.

Concrete     One of two basic types of mental information. Concrete memories deal with experiences, actions, and events. They look at a situation itself, and not the theory behind it. Mercy and Server modes work with concrete information.

Confidence     A mental and physical sensation related to stability. If there is a solid connection, then confidence will be positive. If it is known that no connection exists, then confidence will be negative. Perceiver, Server, and Contributor strategies think using confidence. Perceiver confidence is determined by the truth or error of facts. Server confidence is related to the ‘doability’ of actions or the existence of sequences. Contributor confidence is based upon the relationship between Perceiver facts and Server actions.

Conscience     A Perceiver connection between two Mercy experiences separated by time which has the potential to affect identity in a negative way. If Mercy strategy identifies with the first experience (which feels good), then Perceiver thought predicts that Mercy thought will also have to identify with the second experience (which feels bad). Conscience and patience use the same mental mechanism.

Conscious     The mental ‘room’ in which a person ‘lives,’ determined by cognitive style. For example, the Server person is conscious in Server strategy. Each cognitive style has a different area of consciousness.

Culture     The set of Perceiver facts, Mercy experiences, Mercy feelings, and Server actions held in common by a group of people, and integrated around their Perceiver beliefs. Culture can either be the basis for mental thought, or an expression of internal thought.

Defining Experience     A Mercy memory which has sufficient emotional strength both to affect Mercy feelings and to determine Perceiver 'truth.' First, it is an emotional absolute—the most emotional memory within its Mercy context. Second, it mesmerizes the Perceiver observer into 'believing' that this specific situation defines 'truth.'

Denial     Refusing to accept Perceiver facts that lead to emotional discomfort. Denial produces a T/F split and is related to the first ‘whammy.’

Dominant and Auxiliary     A basic concept within the theory of MBTI®. According to MBTI®, T/F and S/N are the primary MBTI® divisions. MBTI® states that one of these four is dominant and that it faces either internally or externally. It then suggests that the one of the two from the non-dominant pair plays the role of auxiliary—leading to the sixteen different MBTI® personality types. This book suggests that the auxiliary describes a person’s underlying, assumptions, while the dominantdescribes his operating assumptions.

Emotion     A mental and physical sensation related to interaction. If the interaction is harmful, then the emotion will be painful. If the interaction is beneficial, then the feelings will be positive. Emotion may be produced by either Teacher or Mercy thought depending upon the type of interaction. If there is an interplay between ideas, theories, words, curves, outlines, or sequences, then Teacher feelings will be generated. If the interaction involves people, experiences, events, meanings, or objects, then Mercy feelings will be produced.

Emotional Absolute     The Mercy memory, within a certain context, with the strongest emotional label. It determines how Mercy thought feels about all related memories. Each mental context would have its own emotional absolute.

Excitement     A mental or physical sensation produced by Exhorter thought, which is generated in turn by emotion. Excitement is related to novelty. When there is the possibility of something new, uncertain, or unpredictable, then there will be excitement. If there is no change, excitement turns into boredom. If change is blocked, then excitement is replaced by frustration. Excitement and mental energy are closely connected.

Facilitator Dominance     The form that society takes when T/F is bridged, but not P/J. There will be variation, but no fundamental change. Improvements will be implemented as long as they do not alter the status quo.

Fact     A repeatable arrangement of Mercy experiences. If Perceiver strategy sees that certain Mercy items occur together often, it accepts these connections as a fact. Facts involve mainly automatic Perceiver thought. Beliefs and truth, in contrast, always live within the internal Perceiver world.

'Fact'     The arrangement of a single Mercy situation, the emotions of which fool Perceiver thought into thinking that this arrangement will be repeated in other situations. A 'belief' or 'truth' is a strengthened form of 'fact.'

Fairness     A policy that accompanies tolerance. Fairness uses Perceiver thought in the objective to ensure that each person or group receives equal treatment. In the subjective, though, fairness suppresses Perceiver logic and 'believes' that each person or group is its own source of 'truth.'

Faith     Belief in action. Belief describes a fact which Perceiver thought knows to be accurate. Faith combines Perceiver knowing in facts with Server knowing in actions. This enables Contributor strategy—which combines Perceiver and Server thought—to operate. In other words, faith is related to Contributor confidence. It is possible for an awake Contributor to build upon a foundation of mesmerized Perceiver and/or Server thought. This leads to blind 'faith.'

‘Five Whammies’     Five major mental traumas that occur when an individual experiences personal loss. These are losing the item, suffering Mercy pain, falling apart inside, being confused in Perceiver thought, and losing Teacher understanding.

Frontal Cortex     The front half of the cortex, which in turn is the folded sheet of material which appears on the surface of the brain. This region contains the internal world of thought. Each of the four simple styles has access to a portion of frontal cortex. Memories can only enter into frontal cortex by passing one of the four ‘doormen’ which stand guard over the entrance. Humans have a much larger frontal cortex than do animals; this is one of the major  brain differences between humans and animals.

Gaia and Buddha     Two major images of ‘God’ that emerge when there is external structure and people lack internal content. Buddha ‘explains’ finite Mercy experiences with a universal Teacher understanding by stating that all Perceiver facts are illusion. Gaia, in contrast, says that all specific Teacherspecializations are part of a universal Mercy consciousness. It achieves this ‘unity’ by insisting that independent Server action is illusion, and that all actions express the will of the whole. Another name for Gaia is Nature, or Mother Nature.

‘God’     An internal image that emerges whenever general Teacher understanding impinges upon subjective Mercy thought. Mercy strategy will interpret this general Teacher theory in personal terms, and feel that a word-based, universal ‘person’ who operates independently of space and time is ‘living’ within the mind.

Guilt     The negative Mercy feeling which comes from triggering conscience. Perceiver thought knows that there is a connection between some good Mercy experience and a bad Mercy result. Because Mercy thought has identified with the good Mercy experience, Perceiver strategy predicts that Mercy strategy will also have to identify with the bad Mercy result.

Holiness     A religious term meaning ‘separate.’ Holiness protects ‘special’ items by building walls around them which separate them from ‘normal’ items. Holiness can occur in one of four different forms, corresponding to the four MBTI® splits. This correspondence exists because MBTI® describes the four most fundamental splits that exist within human thought, and a split is, by definition, holy.

Identification     The mental step which places an experience within the internal world of Mercy thought. If an experience, in some particular context, has stronger emotions than related memories which already reside within the Mercy internal world, then identification is involuntary.

Idolatry     A mental structure in which the mind is integrated around specific items. Idolatry comes in two basic flavors. In Mercy idolatry, specific objects, experiences and people form the foundation for thought. With Teacher idolatry, the mind is built upon specific Teacher words, sentences and Holy Books.

Imagination     The inner flow of thought. Imagination can be verbal, associated with the left hemisphere, or visual, connected with the right hemisphere. The three composite styles are responsible for generating imagination. Exhorter thought, the first stage, comes up with ideas, pictures, words, and drive. Contributor mode, the second stage, combines these elements to produce an internal ‘movie’ of plans and situations. Facilitator strategy, the third stage, fills in the gaps of this internal ‘movie’ and makes it smooth and realistic.

Internal World     Each of the four simple styles has its own internal world. This is a region of thought where memories enter by invitation only. The internal world allows a person to become unique, because he can choose how it is developed. The internal world is contained within the frontal cortex.

Knowing     The solidness of a specific Perceiver (or Server) memory. If the Perceiver observer is awake, then knowing corresponds to confidence. If Perceiver thought is mesmerized, then the strength of 'knowing' (written with single quotes) is a measure of the depth of Perceiver hypnosis.

MBTI®     An acronym which stands for Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a system of personality styles developed by Carl Jung, Isabel Myers, Katharine Cook Briggs, and others. It divides people into sixteen types using the four divisions of Thinking versus Feeling, Perceiver versus Judging, Sensing versus iNtuition, and Introverted versus Extraverted. MBTI® is the name which this book gives to this theory.

Me     The set of Mercy memories upon which Mercy thought can continue to concentrate. Me is usually divided into two parts: the me of Mercy identification and the me of the physical body. The former is formed by the emotions produced by the body, while the latter is developed by the structure, knowledge, strength and skills of the body.

Mental Symmetry     The name given to the theory described in this book. This label refers to the many symmetries—or mirror images—which lie at the heart of this theory, and which can be seen by examining the diagram of mental symmetry.

Natural Conscience     The form of conscience which develops from common sense. Perceiver thought discovers solid connections between cause and effect which are independent of the opinions of people or their emotional status. Natural conscience is held together by Perceiver confidence.

Object     A collection of Mercy memories organized by Perceiver strategy. Perceiver thought observes Mercy mode and decides which Mercy experiences belong together and which do not. If Perceiver strategy decides that certain Mercy memories form a group, then these Mercy memories will become an object. Mental objects can come in all sizes, shapes, and forms. They can be modified into something quite abstract and different from the initial Mercy situations.

Objective     A form of thought which protects Perceiver facts by avoiding Mercy feelings. When objective thought analyzes the natural world, it leads to common sense and Teacher understanding, but threatens Mercy thought. Objective thought corresponds to MBTI® Thinking. Modern science is an example of objective thinking.

Patience     A process of personal growth in which a person waits for something better to happen. The mental stress that is felt during the waiting period forces identity to move into a new me. Patience will only lead to personal transformation if a person focuses upon a positive goal that is reachable, andprepares for this goal without pretending that he has already reached it.

Personal Transformation     The process of changing a me based in emotional 'truth' to one rooted in logical facts. The Perceiver facts which hold me together are dragged through the threshold of confusion. This causes me to fall apart and then come back together again. The Mercy experiences which defineme survive but the connections between them change. In terms of MBTI®, personal transformation integrates the T/F split. This term refers either to the specific task of bridging T/F or else to the path of integrating T/F, P/J, S/N and I/E—in that order.

Philosophy     In general, this describes the search for a general Teacher understanding that can explain subjective Mercy experiences. In specific, it refers to a two-stage process followed by the Facilitator person who experiences societal confusion. First, he achieves mental clarity by searching through Perceiver memory for facts that he 'knows' to be 'true.' Second, he finds illumination by forming these solid facts into a general Teacher understanding.

Posterior Cortex     The back of the cortex, which in turn is the folded sheet of cells which one sees on the surface of the brain. Posterior cortex carries out automatic thought, which stores information from the four senses of sight, sound, taste, and touch. (The fifth sense of smell affects frontal cortex directly.) Each of the four simple styles has access to its own region of posterior cortex.

Pseudo-culture     A set of Mercy memories which is given emotional depth through Teacher order. The positive Teacher feelings fool Mercy mode into feeling that the culture has deep meaning when it is actually quite shallow.

Pseudo-theory     A Teacher theory which is given its ‘generality’ through Mercy emotion. The positive Mercy feeling fools Teacher strategy into thinking that the Teacher explanation is more general than it actually is.

Revealed 'truth'     A method of education in which the student is given a set of new set of 'truths' which replace the 'facts' that he acquired as a child. Revelation uses words to teach 'truth,' unlike the emotional 'facts' of the child, which are picked up experientially. As a result, revealed 'truth' replaces Mercy idolatry with Teacher idolatry—a higher form of thought.

Self-Confidence     The level of confidence associated with the Perceiver facts which define the me of Mercy strategy. It measures how well I know myself. Self-confidence can also refer to the confidence which Contributor strategy has in forming and executing plans involving me. Because Contributor confidence is based upon a foundation of Perceiver and Server knowing, these two definitions are closely related. See Self-Image.

Self-Denial     The Mercy mindset that is a byproduct of revealed 'truth.' Revelation teaches 'facts' that are based in the words of experts. If Perceiver strategy is to 'believe' these 'truths,' the emotional importance given to these experts must be far greater than the importance assigned to meMercy thought will then conclude that me is nothing compared to the experts, leading to an attitude of self-denial. Experiences that make me feel either good or important will be downplayed, and facts that define or protect me will be ignored.

Self-Image     The object which Perceiver thought forms about meMe consists of Mercy memories and resides within Mercy thought. Self image is the set of facts which the Perceiver observer forms about me by observing from next door. It is possible for Mercy feelings to mesmerize the Perceiver observer into 'believing' certain 'facts' about me. This results in a warped self-image. See Self-Confidence.

Simple Styles     The four cognitive styles of Mercy, Perceiver, Server and Teacher. They are called the simple styles because each uses a single form of mental processing on a single type of information. The simple styles deal with the content of thought. They are located within the cortex of the brain. The composite styles are located within the sub-cortex, and build upon this foundation of thought.

Social Transformation     Also called societal transformation. The process by which a society turns into a civilization.  This transformation is driven by the development of science and technology. In social transformation, the Server actions performed by individuals and the Teacher structure which organizes these actions undergoes massive change. What emerges is the specialist, who becomes an expert at performing a limited set of actions, and who is given a verbal label by society—such as butcher, doctor, lawyer, and so on. In terms of MBTI®, social transformation integrates the S/N split. This term refers either to the specific task of bridging S/N or else to the path of integrating S/N, I/E, T/F and P/J—in that order.

Subconscious     The mental ‘rooms’ in which a person does not ‘live.’ This is determined by cognitive style. In the Mercy person, for instance, all modes of thought except Mercy processing are subconscious. A person may be partially aware of some of his subconscious. For instance, the Perceiver person can ‘see’ Mercy thought.

Subjective     A form of thinking which accepts Mercy feelings, and avoids Perceiver logic by allowing Mercy emotions to mesmerize the Perceiver observer. Much of art, religion, entertainment, and the soft sciences fall into the category of subjective thought. MBTI® Feeling is equivalent to subjective thought.

Suffering     Emotional pain which the me of the physical body imposes upon the me of Mercy identification. In some way, either the world or my body forces me to live with emotional discomfort. Suffering can lead to personal transformation if the me of Mercy identification accepts the facts that are provided by the me of the physical body and if it focuses upon pleasant experiences.

Syndrome     A method of removing feelings of guilt by appealing to medical knowledge. If my ailments can be diagnosed by the medical profession as a set of symptoms which are common to many people, then I can blame my body or my environment for my failures.

Threshold of Uncertainty     The region of Perceiver uncertainty which separates logical facts from emotional 'truth.' Emotions (usually from Mercy thought) are not strong enough to mesmerize Perceiver thought into 'knowing' what is 'true,' and Perceiver confidence is not strong enough for logical thought to know what is true. In this state, the Perceiver observer is half awake.

Tolerance     The belief that each person is the source of his own 'truth,' and that no one should be the source of someone else’s 'truth.' Tolerance destroys Perceiver thought because it forbids Perceiver strategy from looking for connections. This leaves emotional 'truth' in charge and ensures that some personwill always be the source of 'truth'—thus bringing an end to tolerance. If each ethnic group is regarded as its own source of 'truth,' then there is national tolerance. 

Transformation     This term can refer either to Personal Transformation or else Social Transformation.


[A] In terms of MBTI®, this is the T/F split. Why is this split present? Because we are looking at a situation in which societal transformation is birthed in the absence of personal transformation. In other words, S/N is bridged while T/F is kept distinct.

[B] Remember that we are looking at a world before the introduction of science and technology.

[C] Thus, there may be scholasticism, but not science.

[D] Thus, for example, when Islam says that the Quran loses its holiness if it is translated into another language, this shows that the specific Arabic Teacher words of the Quran completely outweigh the Perceiver meanings of these words. This is because translation preserves the Perceiver meaning while using a different set of Teacher words. That, by definition, is pure Teacher idolatry.

[E] Doctrinally speaking, my research followed an indirect path. As I have mentioned, I grew up in a Mennonite setting which taught me extensively about the Bible (Friesen is a common Mennonite name). My study of the mind, though, followed a strict Engineering bias, in which I attempted, as much as possible, to follow Perceiver logic wherever it led. I then discovered, to my delight, that I did not have to reject my childish 'beliefs,' but that most of them survived intact. I also realized that a vast intellectual gulf now separated me from those who proclaimed these same 'beliefs.'

[F] By the way, notice that we have stumbled across another method of graduating from revealed 'truth.' If the same facts are attached to different Teacher words, then learning this new theory will force a person to free himself from Teacher idolatry, and this will automatically echo back into Perceiver thought and turn 'facts' into facts.

[G] Turning away from revealed 'truth' will cause Teacher idols to wobble, and turning toward Sensing will build up the Server confidence needed to expand Teacher thought. This is the mirror image of how Perceiver facts affect Mercy experiences.

[H] Society, that is, moves from one side of the N/S split to the other.

[I] If you look at the history of Italy, where science was born, you see that the crossover only existed for two or three generations. Before this time, religious pressure was too great. After this period, secular thought had forgotten its religious roots.

[J] This does not mean that the church should take over the state. There should still be a separation between the two. In fact, in a few pages we shall see that the birth of science occurred within the overall framework of a bias toward the state and its methods.

[K] ‘Catholic’ means universal.

[L] We will look at different flavors of idolatry and holiness in just a moment.

[M] I state it this way because a mental shift from Mercy to Teacher integration can be triggered by factors other than science.

[N] If we lived in ‘bodies’ that could sense Teacher feelings but not Mercy emotions, then Teacher idolatry would be the more fundamental of the two.

[O] Remember that the S/N split exhibits itself as a separation between leaders and followers—between management and labor.

[P] In the next section, we will see exactly how Mercy idols lead to an S/N split.

[Q] But, follow only Teacher understanding and me reduces to a speck of dirt residing on a small cog of the great cosmic machine. Therefore, it is interesting to notice today the emergence of functional egocentricity. Scientists are discovering that the universe is delicately tuned for human life. If any of a number of cosmic constants or variables were to be altered significantly, then human existence would be impossible.

[R] The other new religion was Islam. But, it denies the concept of incarnation, and it kills those whom it accuses of blasphemy. On the other hand, maybe a rebellion—or graduation—from Islam will give birth to something else.

[S] Christian theologians continually debate the relationship between ‘faith’ and ‘works.’ The Epistle of James, for instance, states that ‘faith’ leads to ‘works.’ Martin Luther, in contrast, concluded that salvation was ‘by faith alone.’

[T] This explains why the typical Server person lives within a here-and-now world of physical action. As we know, the childish me is based in Mercy idolatry, and we have just seen that Mercy idolatry implies Server action. This means that the childish me gives the Server person mental freedom to live fully within conscious thought, expressed through physical action. As a result, he has no reason to develop his mind further—unless his actions are inadequate or his idols crumble.

[U] Notice the reciprocal relationship. A priest acquires emotional significance by performing religious rituals. But, the priest also gives emotional significance to an idol by carrying out special actions.

[V] In case you had forgotten, emotional 'truth' leads always to personal pain and suffering.

[W] This throws a new light on professional sports with its pantheon of ‘superhuman’ athletes whose actions are worshipped in huge sports arenas. Mentally speaking, this is a throwback to the Mercy idolatry and S/N holiness of previous ages.

[X] Obviously, this will not lead to a separation between church and state.

[Y] Several factors are at work here. Christianity began in an atmosphere of Mercy idolatry and promoted a Holy Book—which assumes an S/N split between normal life and special words. Studying this book develops Perceiver thought which creates a T/F split between objective and subjective. This Perceiver logic permitted society to develop science and technology, which integrated S/N externally. A Christian who 'believes' that the Holy Bible is the sole source of moral 'truth' will still exhibit the original S/N split. In contrast, a Christian who asserts that the Bible is an accurate source of truth will be able to reconcile 'faith' with modern reason. Thus, Christianity contains the tools for integrating S/N—for those who are willing to let go of Teacher idolatry.

[Z] That is why we can talk about Western Civilization having a single image of ‘God.’ Individual doctrines may vary widely, but there is substantial agreement over the overall concept of Deity. Even those who claim that they do not believe in God invariably have a specific image of ‘God’ that they are rejecting. Likewise, when a societal image of ‘God’ begins to change, then this also tends to affect all people within that society—regardless of their professed 'beliefs.'

[AA] But, maybe the real God is confused. If that is the case, then it is possible to conceive of a Being who is more Universal, leading one back to the conclusion that the Being who claims to be God is not worthyto be called God.

[BB] This tells us that the theory of MBTI® itself is at the first stage, for it regards the MBTI® splits as unbridgeable.

[CC] Consider, for example the division between labor and management. If there is interaction between workers and bosses, if people can move easily from one side to the other, and if those who manage also work some of the time, then there is substantial S/N integration. However, if there is a strict class distinction between those who give orders and those who follow orders, then an S/N split exists. Why? Because an impassable barrier separates one side from the other. Such a separation is the essence of holiness, for ‘holy’ means ‘separate.’

[DD] I am deliberately using vague language in order to cover both Teacher and Mercy idolatry.

[EE] Even if my Perceiver content is the same as their 'doctrine.'

[FF] We will look at relative suffering in a few more pages.

[GG] In other words, they could have followed the path of ‘patience.’

[HH] The Romans were proud of their Coliseum and saw it as a great example of Roman technology.

[II] Like I said, we have been fed a sanitized version of Roman history.

[JJ] ‘Satan’ means adversary. Human butchery is, by definition, adversarial.

[KK] I am not saying that the Roman coliseum was the sole cause for the collapse of the Roman Empire. However, I am sure that such hideousness must have had a major corrupting influence on society.

[LL] We just saw that S/N holiness and Mercy idolatry go hand in hand.

[MM] For example, the Roman coliseum was the ‘gift’ of the Roman emperor to his people, the tool that he used to gain the approval of the population.

[NN] Remember that I/E is a secondary split which depends upon S/N.

[OO] Most of the science fiction from the 1960s and 70s was much brighter.

[PP] I recently saw this one at the local mall in my home town. When I suggested that the pair of so-called girls looked like ‘excrement,’ one declared that her appearance was ‘art.’ Two bystanders were shocked at my comments. After all, one said, man is just an animal. Exactly.

[QQ] We will see shortly that this focus upon I/E is an indirect result of a predominance of state over church.

[RR] Why do I refer to ‘God’? Because that is the only ‘person’ who ‘sees’ my internal thoughts.

[SS] Brain scans reveal that hyperactive children have less frontal lobe activity, and I have suggested that the frontal lobes are the location for the internal world of thought.

[TT] The activation of each mode of thought corresponds to the level of the related neuromodulator. For instance, if serotonin is high, then Contributor thought will be active and the mind will feel strong Contributor confidence.

[UU] For example, during final editing of this book, I came across an article in the local newspaper linking Contributor thought with Serotonin: “The drug Ecstasy…significantly affects the part of memory linked to planning and remembering daily activities…users suffer significantly imparied ability to remember to pass on messages, pay bills, turn up on dates or at job interviews, lock the front door behind them, comb their hair in the morning or even to remember what they are saying in the middle of a sentence. Experts have know for years that Ecstasy can also significantly lower levels of the brain chemical serotonin.” Vancouver Sun, March 29, 2001.

[VV] B.A.G. Fuller describes the attitude of the later Roman Empire in A History of Philosophy: “The old theology, too was by this time thoroughly decadent…The Christians and the Jews alone were persecuted, and they not on religious grounds, but because their conscience forbade them to take part in religious rites equivalent to saluting the flag and taking the prescribed oath of allegiance to the state.”

[WW] It may have been more powerful and universal than the state, but in form it resembled the state.

[XX] One can see why Luther taught ‘salvation by faith alone.’ He was attempting to break free of the fixation that a state-like Church had upon physical action. Before he acquired his insight, he tried for many years to achieve personal salvation by performing arduous and painful physical deeds. His desire to move away from action and religious ritual also provides a possible explanation for why he continued to accept the anti-Semitism of his day.

[YY] Does this mean the Catholic Church is ‘evil’? Of course not. Today, it usually carries out the role of a church by speaking with the voice of conscience. However, we can definitely conclude that the state-like Roman Church of the Renaissance was fatally corrupt.

[ZZ] I am referring here to the temple worship of Roman times, not to the Roman Catholic Church.

[AAA] Where does one find a religion that focuses completely upon the internal and the non-physical? In Asia, in the stillborn form of Buddhism and its kin. According to Eastern religion, ‘God’ is found within through meditation—the absence of physical action. Why do I call it ‘stillborn’? Because this ‘God’ is discovered by denying content and sensation. Thus, if the Roman Church had developed more completely, the present split between Western and Eastern religion might not exist.

[BBB] A similar effect is seen in slavery. A person becomes a slave when the state declares that he is not an individual. The typical slave puts minimal effort into what he is doing, while giving the appearance of action.

[CCC] I remove the straight quotes because personal faith does contain some Perceiver confidence.

[DDD] Given this historical bias, it is easy to go one step further and attempt to integrate I/E by extending E into I.

[EEE] This is the fundamental flaw behind compulsive behavior. It attempts to gain mental peace by performing physical action. But, it is Perceiver confidence that brings stability to Mercy fears and not Server action.

[FFF] Can a public ‘altar call’ lead to personal transformation? Yes, we have seen that 'faith' can turn into faith. However, it still uses a method of the state to achieve a goal of the church.

[GGG] No pun intended?

[HHH] Does this mean that there is no real hell? Not necessarily. If humans who live within physical bodies are capable of inflicting gross torture upon each other, then a metaphysical being who did not live within a physical body would theoretically be capable of even greater horrors. However, the fact still remains that a hell-fire church is portraying itself primarily as a refuge from the state and not as an independent entity with its own reason for existence. In other words, the ‘leg’ of the state is still much longer than the ‘leg’ of the church. It is curious that The Lord’s Prayer—a fundamental verbal element of Christianity—addresses precisely the issue of the church escaping a focus upon the state and discovering its own reason for existence.

[III] If you want to see how much American views have changed, try preaching a hell-fire-and-brimstone sermon of yesteryear to today’s population. You will immediately be labeled as intolerant and rejected as an extremist.

[JJJ] Because both social splits would be integrated whereas both personal splits would remain intact.

[KKK] The sixteen MBTI® types are a shortcut to ‘life.’ Here is another, at an even lower level. The individual will be strongly motivated to buy into this new system because the alternative is mental disintegration, and that causes a pain deeper than any physical suffering that might result from negating his person.

[LLL] Fascism is also ‘inhuman.’ But it is more open about its aims. In contrast, communism claims to save the individual while in fact destroying him.

[MMM] Figuratively speaking, ‘Gaia’ pretends to be a ‘goddess,’ full of ‘motherly love’ for Nature, but in power, ‘she’ turns out to be an inhuman monster, just as communism promises paradise but delivers purgatory.

[NNN] But what about the looming ecological threats? These problems can also be viewed as opportunities to develop new ways of utilizing natural resources. However, if E extends into I, then people cannot even conceive of changing their external way of life. Thus, the biggest problem is not the looming crises, but rather mental dependence upon existing external structure.

[OOO] If a person is mentally integrated around his external environment, then conscience will only be present if an external alternative exists which is different and better than the prevailing status quo.

[PPP] In other words, ‘Gaia’ is fine as long as it coexists with humanity and respects the individual.

[QQQ] In the same way that S/N integration is forcing Judaism to rethink its Mercy idolatry, so bridging T/F would face Christianity with the implications of its Teacher idolatry.

[RRR] This is similar to the way in which Mercy idolatry affects the S/N split. Supposedly, iNtuition is the realm of the ‘gods.’ However, these so-called deities are seldom more than super-charged versions of the humans who reside in Sensing. Likewise, Teacher idolatry may claim that its Truth is universal, but its facts really center around subjective feelings. In other words, religious Thinking barely extends beyond religious Feeling.

[SSS] Remember that mental transformation rebuilds me but centers around a general Teacher understanding. It is the Buddhist who teaches that me is the center of the cosmos. Transformation, in contrast, recognizes that I am a finite being living within an essentially infinite universe.

[TTT] Part of the problem is that ‘perfection’ is viewed by 'believers' as a state in which me never becomes linked to experiences that Perceiver 'truth' labels as 'bad.' Figuratively speaking, if me is a car, and if ‘imperfection’ means landing in the ditch, then the 'believer' attempts to keep his car out of the ditch by wrestling it away from the edge whenever desire sends his identity in the direction of some forbidden experience. However, personal transformation puts identity behind the ‘wheel’ of the car. Such a person will focus upon driving down the road of life, and—as a byproduct—staying on the road.  

[UUU] Both figuratively and literally.

[VVV] Similarly, science and technology may be stimulating a rebirth of Judaism. On the one hand, the country of Israel is becoming a high-tech center. On the other hand, the discovery of Bible Codes indicates that the Jewish Scriptures contain some sort of hidden mathematical-like structure. While most of the claims made about Bible Codes are probably exaggerated, something must be there, otherwise a journal of statistical science would never have published an article on the subject.

[WWW] Integrating S/N through science and technology is done by a society. However, humans are still finite individuals who live in limited physical bodies. Therefore, external change produced by societal transformation will drag the me of the physical body in individuals through a form of personal transformation—a process that may take several generations. This change will only affect the emotional me if an individual follows the path of personal transformation.

[XXX] We will be examining Contributor thought in a later volume.

[YYY] This explains my earlier footnote in which I compared morality to driving a car down a road.

[ZZZ] I realize that this statement is not politically correct. But, as far as I can tell, it is accurate. The industrial revolution began in England, and the modern revolution of private enterprise emerged in America.

[AAAA] Remember that denial of 'truth' shows inadequate T/F integration while rebellion from 'truth' demonstrates incomplete P/J integration.

[BBBB] The Contributor person, because he is conscious in Contributor strategy, can live out this contradiction within his own person. Most of the time, he is an agnostic, pursuing selfish gain while ignoring 'truth.' Occasionally, he reactivates his suppressed subjective core. By giving away some of the wealth and laying aside some of the prestige that he has gained in business, he can make it appear that he practices the self-denial that is demanded by 'truth.'

[CCCC] Figuratively speaking, one could say that a ‘leg’ of the church which promotes growth through rebellion is ‘crippled.’ When the church is ‘crippled,’ then it makes sense that society will place most of its ‘weight’ upon the ‘leg’ of the state.

[DDDD] It is also possible to move past the self-denial implicit in revealed 'truth' by 'believing' that ‘God’ wants me to develop the physical world. It is also possible to enjoy the Mercy results of my work if I 'believe' that ‘God’ loves me and wants me to be happy in this world. However, few follow this path, and goal-oriented behavior, no matter what the initial motivation, will eventually eat away at revealed 'truth.' Revelation must then be replaced by a rational alternative, or else 'belief' and rebellion will re-emerge.

[EEEE] Only a few systems of revealed 'truth' teach sufficient Perceiver confidence to initiate private enterprise. Most ‘educational’ systems, though, are capable of adding individuals to an existing network of private enterprise.

[FFFF] I know that this sounds judgmental. But, the history of post-colonial Africa forces us to this conclusion.

[GGGG] Does this mean that modern so-called ‘private enterprise’ has a religious side? Of course. Whenever a general Teacher theory impinges upon subjective identity, an image of ‘God’ emerges. Business contains both Teacher order and subjective identity in great measure. What type of ‘God’? One which disapproves of those who fail to ‘look after Number One.’ Obviously, such a ‘God’ is incompatible with the self-denial implicit in revealed 'truth.'

[HHHH] One final reminder: MBTI® Perceiving is not the same as Perceiver strategy. MBTI® Perceiving is excitement outside of rules. In private enterprise, Contributor mode builds upon Perceiver thought, MBTI® Perceiving attempts to escape these rules, and thus, inadvertently, undermines private enterprise.

[IIII] This does not mean that people should not cooperate or that they should work for nothing. However, true private enterprise finds satisfaction through meaningful work in which each individual is given personal responsibility.

[JJJJ] If business success determines emotional importance, then employees, by definition, have less emotional status than their employers.

[KKKK] Private enterprise already had a religious side. In the language of Toynbee, though, it was a higher religion. It now becomes a lower-level religion, with its own set of Mercy idols and an N/S split. On the production side, managers are separated from workers. On the sales side, products are advertised through the marketing of ‘superhuman’ icons who, in some way, go beyond the normal Sensing world of the average consumer.

[LLLL] This relates to the idea of pseudo-culture, described in the previous volume.

[MMMM] Remember that personal transformation involves three stages, which could be described as growing wings, flying, and landing. In terms of a ‘walking’ analogy, these are ‘putting one foot forward,’ ‘shifting the weight of the body onto the forward foot,’ and ‘bringing the second foot forward.’

[NNNN] Unless the high school dropout can manage to acquire an education in some other way.

[OOOO] Perceiver thought points out the contradictions in Teacher theories. But, if Perceiver logic is also silenced, Teacher thought can hold on to the theory that there is no theory.

[PPPP] Or in other words, how does one pursue psychology and avoid philosophy.

[QQQQ] The opposite is not necessarily true: If my mind contains an image of ‘God,’ this does not necessarily mean that I have undergone personal transformation.

[RRRR] If I think that a ‘logical God’ is a contradiction in terms, then this suggests that only general theories which use emotionally based 'truth' are being allowed to touch me.

[SSSS] Lane Friesen’s book on the Facilitator documents how this process occurs in the Facilitator philosopher. The philosopher also ends up believing in the existence of some God. His ‘God,’ however, is totally different from this one. In both cases, though, ‘God’ emerges as a general Teacher theory impinges upon subjective Mercy experiences.

[TTTT] These effects will only occur in the individual who has followed personal transformation to the point where there is a corresponding image of ‘God.’

[UUUU] Why? Because the mind is driven by Exhorter excitement, which has its basis in Mercy or Teacher feelings. Teacher processing, as we know, is oriented around time and sequence. Therefore, if me becomes disconnected from its image of ‘God,’ it will lose access to the ultimate emotional source for motivating personal sequence.

[VVVV] In essence, one is attempting to jog subconscious Teacher strategy into action. A Teacher person, who is conscious in Teacher thought, could attack the problem directly. If, however, he lacked sufficient ‘logical ammunition,’ he too would be unable to escape from this mental rut. Notice that this solution uses Server sequences and Teacher emotions to resolve a problem produced by Perceiver facts and Mercy pain.

[WWWW] Does this mean that the content of the Holy Book must be avoided? That is not the issue. The problem is not Perceiver thought but rather Teacher idolatry. The solution lies in using Perceiver logic to extend Perceiver doctrine and truth.

[XXXX] In our experience, both ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ people feel threatened by this image of ‘God.’ If I am religious, discovering this ‘God’ may cause me to feel estranged from organized religion. Why? Because ‘church’ builds its own image of ‘God.’ And the ‘God’ of church is often completely different from the ‘God’ of personal transformation. If I am secular, then I will begin to feel that some imaginary ‘person’ sees and judges what I think and do—and for most people, this is an uncomfortable sensation.

[YYYY] I also suggest that personal transformation is incomplete without social transformation. Thus, Gaia is fine as long as the ‘God’ of personal transformation is present to turn this ‘beast’ into a ‘person.’

[ZZZZ] Even this step of using logic involves combining head and heart, bridging MBTI® T and F. Therefore, my reaction to this analysis will indicate how serious I am about pursuing personal transformation.

[AAAAA] Again we see the combination of extensive social transformation and inadequate personal transformation.

[BBBBB] We saw earlier that social transformation increases the potential for violence through the development of weapons and the organization of armies. Now, we see that it also makes sex more attractive.

[CCCCC] So how many me’s are there exactly at this point? Well, there is a potential new me of Mercy identification held together by common sense provided by the me of the physical body. Personal transformation is building this new me. There is also the old me of Mercy identification given substance by 'facts' learned hypnotically from the external world. This me is held together by the physical structure of the external world—the source of socialtransformation. So we have the external world, the me of the physical body, the old me of Mercy identification, and the new emotional me.

[DDDDD] On the other hand, Exhorter strategy does find terror exciting. That is why the average person finds disaster attractive. If he knows that the trouble will never strike him personally, then Mercy thought will not complain too loudly about this Exhorter ‘junk food.’

[EEEEE] As I mentioned before, as a child I played with FischerTechnik, an amazing building set from Germany. I had about three cubic feet of raw material and spent countless hours constructing. I suspect that this is where I gained much of my ability to work with Perceiver facts.

[FFFFF] Parents who are rich, for example, sometimes make the mistake of immediately giving their children everything that they want. This cheats children of the satisfaction of planning, saving, and then acquiring.

[GGGGG] We are missing one aspect from our set of ‘wings,’ and that is ‘propulsion.’ We will see in a later book that Server strategy—with the help of Contributor thought—is responsible for moving me from here to there.

[HHHHH] This is one reason why a society that blasphemes its idols has to go through a ‘dark ages’ before it can progress further. Until the passage of time belittles what was blasphemed, people are still emotionally attached to the icons of the past.

[IIIII] The best way to accomplish this is to use Teacher understanding to explain the motivation behind my philosophizing—the approach we are taking in this book.

[JJJJJ] Does this mean that I should never see the goal? No. We are specifically looking here at the process of integrating the T/F split. In contrast, bridging the I/E division demands that internal vision be externalized. But, that comes later.

[KKKKK] Sex is emotional and personal. Thus, it involves the me of Mercy identification and falls within the realm of personal transformation. Social transformation, however, improves the physical body—which carries out the act of sex. Generally speaking, social improvements make bodies more attractive, the environment more pleasant, and virtual or real sex more attainable. In addition, social transformation causes people to question traditional rules of morality. Thus socialtransformation makes it more difficult to achieve personal transformation in the area of sex. Why? Because it raises the stakes.

[LLLLL] In other words, emotional 'truth' enrolls me in the ‘school of suffering’—a school in which ‘sex education’ is not part of the curriculum.

[MMMMM] Psychology about sex also tends to lack Perceiver logic. This is because it usually takes as absolute either the raw hormones of sexual drive or the animal drives of non-humans. In both cases, psychology rejects the concept that Perceiver logic can be used to change or channel sexual desire.

[NNNNN] That is why it is called the me of Mercy identification.

[OOOOO] Otherwise known as ‘until death do us part’—unless we acquire the ability to exist as individuals apart from physical bodies.

[PPPPP] Thus, we conclude that the teenager should not be sexually active, because his mind is still ruled by the emotional 'truth' of his parents and other authority figures. Until he has used his physical body to build a personal identity, he lacks the mental structure required to handle sex.

[QQQQQ] Why is the enjoyment lost? Because all of the ‘emotional baggage’ gets ‘misplaced.’ I will elaborate in just a moment.

[RRRRR] If our physical bodies could morph into different shapes, then the me of the physical body would not have the stability needed to integrate the emotional experiences of sex. In other words, we would not know which memories belong to ‘Fred’ and which to ‘Fran’ because ‘Fred’ would sometimes look like ‘Fran.’ This may sound silly, but emotionally speaking, most of us are shape-shifters who constantly morph from one emotional shape to another. Thus, we depend heavily upon physical shape for our mental sanity.

[SSSSS] The best would be to integrate T/F before carrying out the act itself. Otherwise, mentally speaking, you are ‘closing the barn door after the animals have already escaped.’

[TTTTT] What about those who use sex to manipulate and control others? Aren’t they using logic? Not with sex. Their bottom line is increasing their personal status. They are not trying to enjoy the act itself. What about those who perfect sexual technique? Again, the personal, subjective, intimate element is usually missing.

[UUUUU] In MBTI® language, an auxiliary of internal (T+F) leads to a dominant of internal N. Obviously, this sort of thing lies outside the theory of MBTI®.

[VVVVV] Remember that we are looking here at rebuilding the me of Mercy identification through personal transformation. Social transformation changes the me of the physical body. As I have mentioned before, personal transformation is largely an internal process, whereas social transformation occursexternally.

[WWWWW] This means that Buddhism is locked into a world of suffering, because it stops Perceiver thought from separating one Mercy experience from another. This creates a vicious circle: physical suffering motivates Buddhist denial, and Buddhist un-logic entrenches physical suffering.

[XXXXX] If common sense is not sufficiently strong, then even physical injury will not get my attention. Like the child with multiple personalities, I will mentally block off the pain and continue to go on my way. In other words, personal transformation can only occur if some area of my mind is guided by Perceiver confidence. Somewhere in my thinking there must exist the beginnings of a new me. In the absence of this mental seed, only extreme pressure such as war, death, or cultural genocide can provide sufficient motivation for change.

[YYYYY] We are looking here at the history of modern Russia. I am ignoring several centuries of imposed suffering which occurred before this time. Obviously, such a historical background would bias the thinking of modern Russians.

[ZZZZZ] Does this mean that the communist terror was good? Of course not. However, it is interesting to note that the rejection of each motivation for change led to the imposition of an even stronger pressure.

[AAAAAA] Emotional suffering is therefore experienced to some extent whenever the wishful thinking of Mercy identification is shattered by the cold, hard world of facts.

[BBBBBB] Fundamental change is thus aborted in the Western world, as well as in the Buddhist universe. The root problem in both cases is religious.

[CCCCCC] Again notice the logic. An image of ‘God’ emerges when general Teacher order affects subjective Mercy experiences. Suffering predominates when social transformation leads personal transformation. But, social transformation uses external structure to impose an image of ‘God’ upon the mind. The only way to escape this ‘wheel of suffering’ is to pursue personal transformation sufficiently so that personal growth takes precedence over social change.

[DDDDDD] For the onlooker who lacks the necessary T/F and P/J integration, it is very easy to confuse the two.

[EEEEEE] I know that this sounds silly. But, that is the type of ‘logic’ which one finds.

[FFFFFF] In almost all cases, multiple personalities are the result of child abuse, usually of a sexual nature.

[GGGGGG] It may be possible for one or more of the fragments of personality to experience personal growth. But, this still occurs within an environment of overall denial.

[HHHHHH] Earlier on we looked at the contrast between rebellion and denial. Here we see a denial that goes beyond rebellion.

[IIIIII] By living on his own, a teenager may develop the me of his physical body. This will then give him the common sense needed to tackle the me of Mercy identification—if his rebellion doesn’t fill Mercy thought with too many hurtful experiences. A similar principle applies, I suggest, to the growth of Western Civilization and its ‘teenage rebellion’ from Christianity.

[JJJJJJ] Others may be transformed, but not the philosopher himself.

[KKKKKK] When personal growth expands from I to include E, this can appear like a form of addiction. This is because such an individual person follows a certain course and cannot conceive of anything else. There is, however, a major difference. Addiction restricts the mind to limitedMercy experiences or Teacher theories. Internal wholeness summarizes mental structure with universal Mercy memories and general Teacher understanding. In other words, wholeness moves from I to E whereas addiction uses E to overwhelm I.

[LLLLLL] This is especially true of stronger drugs such as crack. Weaker drugs overwhelm mental content to a lesser extent.

[MMMMMM] This contradiction is a major problem of the drug trade. A system that promotes such blatant mental corruption in the end user collapses easily itself into corruption.

[NNNNNN] Most addictive drugs stimulate the ventral tegmental area and the nucleus accumbens. This is the mental reward circuit, involving dopamine. Our research suggests that this area and this chemical form part of Exhorter strategy.

[OOOOOO] Notice that the symmetry here is between internal and external, and not between analytic and associative.

[PPPPPP] It is interesting to note that this koan relates to quantum mechanics. A molecular particle can jump from one location to another. But, such effects normally occur only at the atomic scale. This suggests that there might actually be a logic behind many Zen koans. However, Zen is belligerently irrational. In contrast, quantum mechanics can be described by mathematics—which is based completely upon Perceiver logic. This suggests that the results claimed by Buddhism can only be achieved by rejecting the irrational philosophy of Buddhism.

[QQQQQQ] Rape achieves emotional pleasure by doing Server actions that violate the Perceiver integrity of another person. As far as Perceiver thought is concerned, Buddhism is mental rape.

[RRRRRR] By definition. Revealed 'truth' is revealed to the aspiring adult as a replacement for cultural absolutes.

[SSSSSS] The ‘new way of living’ centers around synthesis and Facilitator thought—the middle way. This is consistent with our observation that philosophy leads eventually to a form of Buddhism, and our finding that almost all philosophers are Facilitator persons.

[TTTTTT] The American government has tried, for decades, to fight drug abuse by ‘sending in the army.’ But, armed force, by definition, uses Server actions to destroy Perceiver objects and disrupt Perceiver connections. This lowers the overall level of Perceiver confidence, reinforcing the mindset produced by addiction, and making a real cure that much more difficult.

[UUUUUU] The idea of fractal similarity was discussed in the first book.

[VVVVVV] A whole book could, and hopefully will, be written about this subject.

[WWWWWW] The Buddha was a Facilitator person and these people do usually give an accurate description of the problem. Where they tend to err is in the solution.

[XXXXXX] The actual rearranging requires the assistance of Contributor and Server thought. However, Perceiver facts still provide the map which makes the changes possible.

[YYYYYY] These mindsets can also live as mental fragments within the same individual.

[ZZZZZZ] Remember that revealed 'truth' tends to suppress physical pleasure. Therefore, rebelling from this 'truth' would remove restrictions upon physical gratification.

[AAAAAAA] If the Bible really contains Perceiver truth, then these Perceiver absolutes, by definition, apply to all situations and can be translated into any language, including that of science, psychology, and mathematics. Therefore, restricting an absolute to a religious subculture or to a set of holy words is a contradiction in terms. In other words, there is nothing wrong with asserting that a Holy Book or textbook is an accurate source of moral truth. This Perceiver claim can always be tested. The problem arises when 'believers' lapse into Teacher idolatry and insist that their Holy Book is the only source of moral 'truth.'

[BBBBBBB] The Mercy person is especially tempted to close up his feelings, in order to protect his emotional me from further hurt. This response may avoid emotional pain, but it also eliminates joy.

[CCCCCCC] When conscience and images of ‘God’ are involved, then this is exactly how one feels.

[DDDDDDD] These comments summarize what is covered in much more detail in Lane Friesen’s analysis of the Facilitator.

[EEEEEEE] Many books, songs, and poems have been inspired by this combination.

[FFFFFFF] Earlier on, I suggested that rebellion is an expression of the P/J split. Bitterness and rebellion, I suggest, are flip sides of the same coin, because in both cases, the mind is centered around a set of memories that are both painful and unchangeable. Bitterness dwells upon the painful experience, attempting to blame it upon other sources. Rebellion, in contrast, runs away from it, while continuing to accept it as the foundation for thought. One could say that bitterness emphasizes Judging, whereas rebellion follows Perceiving. Both, however accept the P/J separation as primary.

[GGGGGGG] How? By blocking off the external world—physically, ethnically, spiritually, and socially.

[HHHHHHH] Next year in Jerusalem.

[IIIIIII] The key point is that personal transformation grows from a mental fragment in which Perceiver confidence rules over Mercy feelings. This seed can be provided by common sense related to the me of the physical body, as we are discussing here. This common sense can also be ‘simulated’ by the physical controls of a police state. Or, alternatively, the kernel of a new emotional me can come from some kind of revealed 'truth' which happens to promote common sense. Notice also that exactly the same mental process occurs when following sexual patience.

[JJJJJJJ] Part of the me of Mercy identification may have been transformed, but it may not be the main fragment. One can usually point to some crucial event when the core of me itself makes this transition. Before then, it feels as if each trauma is ripping away more of me. In contrast, after this point, me begins to cooperate with the process and feels increasingly integrated as more of the remaining fragments of me make it across.

[KKKKKKK] This imbalance is so pervasive in modern society that we have to keep reminding ourselves that it is an aberration resulting from unbalanced mental development.

[LLLLLLL] Maybe there is a reason why black has become the dominant fashion color.

[MMMMMMM] Remember that bitterness accepts the facts of a painful situation, but does not take responsibility for it. Thus, when someone does succeed in changing things, bitterness tries to destroy this example and continue pretending that change is impossible.

[NNNNNNN] All search engines show relevant pages—the Perceiver links. Some also indicate the relevance of each page to the topic—the additional information added in the mind by Facilitator thought.

[OOOOOOO] Sorry about the numbers. But, they aren’t that complicated, and I really don’t know how else to explain it in simple terms.

[PPPPPPP] Since all of these facts are known with 100% certainty, Perceiver confidence does not enter into the equation. The Facilitator person prefers this type of calculation, for it allows him to ignore Perceiver thought. Similarly, immature Perceiver thought tends to assume that all related facts are equally relevant, ignoring Facilitator calculations.

[QQQQQQQ] Reasonableness adds Perceiver confidence to Facilitator relevance, while karma adds Mercy emotions to Facilitator calculations. When one is dealing with 'facts,' in which Perceiver 'knowing' is based in Mercy emotions, then the two end up being the same thing.

[RRRRRRR] On the other hand, mental growth does progress smoothly if one includes both Teacher and Mercy thought and follows the path of patience. Mental ‘weight’ may shift from one ‘leg’ to the other, but the ‘body’ of the mind continues to move evenly. However, the average human builds the core of his mind around Mercy feelings and has no general Teacher understanding. Therefore, for him, mental growth means ‘dying’ to Mercy idols and ‘coming alive’ to Teacher theory. This is because one of his ‘legs’ is much shorter than the other. Thus, it is possible for a person to approach life from the viewpoint of Facilitator blending and evolving if he has integrated all four MBTI® splits.

[SSSSSSS] In technical terms, Perceiver strategy notices that Facilitator blending is being repeated and decides that this is a general principle. This Perceiver belief becomes an absolute which is then used to evaluate other information.

[TTTTTTT] A recent letter to the editor published in my local Vancouver paper stated “that evolution is a scientific fact and that the ‘evidence’ for creationism is a puerile fantasy” (Vancouver Sun, October 2, 2000). This summed up the tone of several letters along with a previous editorial. I suspect that my comments will evoke a similar reaction. However, if it is permissible to discuss God and Christian 'belief' from a mental viewpoint, then it is also permissible to analyze the Theory of Evolution from the same mental viewpoint. If it is forbidden to apply mental analysis to Evolution, then this proves that Evolution is an article of 'faith' that protects itself through religious taboo.

[UUUUUUU] The hybrid theory of punctuated evolution attempts to use blending to add a sense of categories. That is like trying to produce a sharp edge by rubbing everything smooth.

[VVVVVVV] Remember that it is Perceiver thought which gives meanings to words.

[WWWWWWW] This describes right hemisphere Facilitator processing. In the left hemisphere, Facilitator thought requires a combination of variable Teacher memories and a fixed Server structure. That analysis must wait for another book.

[XXXXXXX] The goals of the immature Contributor person are usually stupid and shortsighted, but at least he is heading somewhere.

[YYYYYYY] Notice that both local optimization and synthesis combine Facilitator mixing with Mercy feelings. The difference is that optimization stops with the Mercy result while synthesis uses this Mercy calculation to define Perceiver truth.

[ZZZZZZZ] As far as the typical Facilitator person is concerned, it is interference. In Facilitator language it is ‘impolite’ and ‘extreme.’

[AAAAAAAA] If Perceiver facts are objective, then Perceiver-enabled Facilitator blending produces a sense of reasonableness. If Perceiver facts include Mercy feelings—which means integrating T/F, then optimization will develop as well as reasonableness. However, because Perceiver processing can relate one set of facts with another, this optimization goes beyond local optimization to a form of thinking which is far more global—allowing P/J to come together.

[BBBBBBBB] This type of situation arises whenever the first two requirements for a growing society or the first two requirements for intellectual growth are satisfied.

[CCCCCCCC] This puts a different slant on Canadian multiculturalism. Is it a number of cultures guided by the rule of law or a tapestry of contradictory 'truth' held together by Facilitator thought. I suspect that both interpretations are partially valid.

[DDDDDDDD] A bureaucracy lives within a social structure of man-made rules. Those who use the resources of a bureaucracy provide it with novel input. The ultimate goal of every bureaucracy, however, is to preserve and extend itself.

[EEEEEEEE] Many of the world’s best inventors were and are Facilitator persons.

[FFFFFFFF] Similarly in Canada, innovators often need to go elsewhere to develop their ideas.

[GGGGGGGG] This happens especially within the mind of a Facilitator person, as subconscious Perceiver thought observes the thinking of conscious Facilitator processing.

[HHHHHHHH] The Facilitator calls this restoring balance. Others (including other Facilitators) refer to it as censorship, and the dictatorship of political correctness.

[IIIIIIII] Remember that we are looking at an intermediate stage of mental development. When all of the mind is working in harmony, then Facilitator censorship serves the very essential role of protecting the mind from excessive input, in the same way that one shuts off a mike that is producing feedback.

[JJJJJJJJ] A few pages back, we looked at how Facilitator thought also permits the Teacher theory of ‘oneness.’ Blocking off the painful Mercy memories of trauma and culture causes Perceiver thought to doubt all related Perceiver 'truth.' This opens the door for the Teacher theory of ‘oneness,’ which is now, for different reasons, being accepted whole-heartedly.

[KKKKKKKK] As the Facilitator person repeatedly dissolves Perceiver 'facts' by denying the supporting Mercy experiences, subconscious Perceiver thought gains confidence in the belief that all Perceiver facts are relative. Yes, I know. It’s a contradiction. So, how does the Facilitator person handle this Perceiver discrepancy? By having each context define its own 'truth.' Any contradictory facts from a different context are suppressed through Facilitator censorship. Notice how the Facilitator person is continuing to make the best of each existing mental situation.

[LLLLLLLL] Thus, the Facilitator Buddhist knows that he cannot know. In general, it is common for the thinking of the Facilitator person to lead him to a belief that contradicts his thinking.

[MMMMMMMM] How can grudges last for centuries when people don’t? Each generation emotionally identifies with the pain of the previous generation, and these memories form the core of the me of Mercy identification. Sometimes, though, Perceiver logic steps in and asserts that I am not the same as my ancestors. Peace then becomes possible, unless fresh outrages refuel the bitterness.

[NNNNNNNN] A similar effect can occur as a result of a physical handicap or an unusual behavioral problem.

[OOOOOOOO] Lane Friesen noticed this effect in history and called it ‘dark-side thought.’

[PPPPPPPP] Facilitator thought requires a combination of Perceiver stability and Mercy variability. Under emotional 'truth', these two requirements contradict each other. If such a Facilitator pursues philosophy to the extent that me grows into an image of ‘God,’ the result will be two competing views of ‘God.’ The demand for Perceiver stability will create the ‘God’ of karma, whereas the need for Mercy variability will produce the ‘God’ of Buddhism.

[QQQQQQQQ] An image of ‘God’ is rooted in a general Teacher understanding. Therefore, the worst pain for ‘God’ is to live with a permanent split, because Teacher understanding hates unresolved complexity. In essence, the Buddhist sends his image of ‘God’ to ‘hell’—a place of inescapable, constant torment.

[RRRRRRRR] In the right hemisphere.

[SSSSSSSS] This combination satisfies the first requirement for a growing society. The colliding cultures must be viewed as similar but different.

[TTTTTTTT] In the absence of a struggle, Exhorter strategy soon finds approval boring and heads elsewhere for excitement, renewing the P/J division.

[UUUUUUUU] Again we see the ‘wheel of suffering.’ This is because suffering forces the ‘leg’ of personal transformation to drag behind the ‘leg’ of social transformation.

[VVVVVVVV] What then happens to ‘the devil’? Good question, I’m glad you asked.

[WWWWWWWW] I put the words ‘container,’ ‘occupies’ and ‘location’ in quotes because they describe Mercy items, not Teacher elements. Similarly, ‘perform’ and ‘action’ refer to Server sequences, not Perceiver thought.

[XXXXXXXX] Why would a person choose an environment of suffering? Because it is exciting, and excitement is the Exhorter fuel that drives the mind. In addition, I suggest that under the surface we are dealing again with an image of ‘God’—a general mindset that perpetuates personal suffering.

[YYYYYYYY] This is exactly what happens when Contributor strategy develops upon a foundation of emotional 'truth' as described in a previous section. Contributors leaders who embody this thinking manipulate their environment of suffering in order to change the ‘status quo.’ Their plans are often brutal, ‘final solutions.’

[ZZZZZZZZ] Ultimately, we have to build a new image of ‘God’ that includes a logical analysis of suffering.

[AAAAAAAAA] Did you hear the joke about the masochist who met the sadist? The masochist said “Hit me, hit me.” The sadist, with a cruel grin, replied, “No!”

[BBBBBBBBB] The army qualifies as relative suffering only during peacetime.

[CCCCCCCCC] However, remember our discussion about patience and revolution.

[DDDDDDDDD] In the same way, many who grew up in the ‘first world’ are rejecting technology—because of the social and environmental dilemmas that we are currently facing. Such an attitude also ‘throws out the baby with the bathwater.’ As I mentioned before, the problem is not excessive social transformation, but rather inadequate personal transformation.

[EEEEEEEEE] An attitude of self-denial can motivate me to gain approval through exactly these kinds of personal hardships.

[FFFFFFFFF] In other words, they are too personal and government is attracted to social change. Why is it important to emphasize personal change? Because we are trying to pursue personal transformation.

[GGGGGGGGG] Maybe the person who currently owns the wealth doesn’t exhibit much patience, but those who designed, built and acquired the wealth definitely did.

[HHHHHHHHH] This idea is also mentioned by Toynbee.

[IIIIIIIII] Relative suffering encourages the individual to measure up to the standards of his society. Envy, jealousy, and similar pressures discourage the individual from reaching beyond societal standards.

[JJJJJJJJJ] Refusing to accept personal responsibility for a trauma turns it into an inescapable prison.

[KKKKKKKKK] As usual, it is making the best of the existing situation.

[LLLLLLLLL] This effect occurs regardless of whether or not there is a real God. That is because any general Teacher understanding which touches me will guide the behavior of me. People will then order their external world to be consistent with this Teacher understanding.

[MMMMMMMMM] A Teacher theory which denies the possibility of Teacher understanding is like Mercy thought finding emotional comfort in the idea that me is unlovable.

[NNNNNNNNN] One could view this as a form of multiple personalities. It also illustrates our earlier discussion of the relationship between Mercy idolatry and S/N holiness.

[OOOOOOOOO] Notice that this is a group effect. In tribalism, the individual does not own land. Instead, the tribe as a whole has an inseparable relationship with its territory.

[PPPPPPPPP] Remember that the attitude of revealed 'truth' to Mercy idolatry is somewhat ambiguous. In addition, revelation easily succumbs to Teacher idolatry.

[QQQQQQQQQ] Perceiver 'truth' builds images in Mercy thought of ‘what could be.’ Therefore, instead of focusing upon present pain, the 'believer' meditates upon internal visions of ‘heaven.’ And, if he really 'believes' this 'truth,' then the internal picture of ‘pie in the sky by and by’ will seem more real to him than his present misery. This emotionally convinces Mercy strategy that it is possible to change present circumstances—freeing the mind from bitterness.

[RRRRRRRRR] Remember that we are referring here to an image of ‘God,’ which is subject to mental principles. Would a real God, if He exists, appreciate the research of His subjects? Any answer that I could give to such a question would be heavily biased by my mental image of ‘God.’

[SSSSSSSSS] In this case, we are looking at left hemisphere Facilitator thought, which emerges when the specific words of revelation come into contact with other words. Facilitator blending will then balance between the two extremes of parroting 'truth' blindly and developing my own words and theories.

[TTTTTTTTT] We are referring here to facts that truly are universal. Most Perceiver absolutes are not universal. Instead, they can be translated into many languages, apply within most situations, and are observed in many places.

[UUUUUUUUU] But, couldn’t the electron, proton, neutron or some subatomic particle be considered ‘universal’? To a certain extent, yes. However, I have yet to meet a primitive tribe that worships electrons. Instead, they exalt megalithic stones and transparent crystals.

[VVVVVVVVV] This concept is consistent with Christianity, for it teaches that God, in incarnate form, did die and return to life, and celebrates this every year at Easter. But, what will take precedence, Christian doctrine or Teacher idolatry?

[WWWWWWWWW] Thus, it was mentally necessary for the natives of Africa and America to be ‘colonized’ by Western civilization. It is this struggle, I suggest, which describes the real motivation behind Native land claims.

[XXXXXXXXX] But why not start with a valid image of ‘God’? Why begin with a ‘God’ based in specifics? Because humans are finite beings who grow up with their minds integrated around Mercy idols. This childish thinking will build an image of ‘God’ and it will be invalid.

[YYYYYYYYY] Putting this the other way, if Christianity states that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the central event of history, and if Christian 'doctrine' asserts that Jesus Christ is an Incarnation who is both God and man, then, by definition, the God of Christianity must die and be reborn.

[ZZZZZZZZZ] In a true sense, everything will be one, and thus even the Buddhist ‘God’ will survive.

[AAAAAAAAAA] S/N can also be integrated when it is impossible for me to act. Figuratively speaking, I am crucified, with my hands and feet nailed by circumstances so that I cannot move. If no possible action exists that can help the situation, then Sensing can be rebuilt by iNtuition. However, action can only be prevented when the mind is capable of forming a goal and pursuing it. Only a plan that exists can be frustrated. Thus, this sort of crisis happens to a person who has already—in some area—integrated T/F and P/J.

[BBBBBBBBBB] But doesn’t a person ‘fall apart’ when integrating T/F? No. Identity falls apart. Bridging T/F and P/J develops the mind and enables goal-oriented action. The result is an operating human mind. Tackling S/N as a person brings this movement to a halt, fragmenting the human machine—in order to rebuild Sensing with the help of iNtuition.

[CCCCCCCCCC] This type of crisis can also be caused by a major war, a political revolution, or a natural catastrophe. In such a situation, though, it is an external shift which makes the internal world irrelevant—E is changing I. Similarly, those who are passive bystanders in a technological revolution will also find their internalworld made obsolete by external progress. Only those who are mentally active will have an I that is capable of reaching out and changing E. For the others, E will affect I.

[DDDDDDDDDD] The next section will examine the relationship between anger and personal transformation.

[EEEEEEEEEE] Internally, my mind was ruled by the 'truth' of conservative Christianity. Externally, I lived within a modern world of science and technology. Personal transformation gradually transformed this internal world and made it compatible with external progress.

[FFFFFFFFFF] One could almost say that revealed 'truth' is a form of ‘divine anger.’

[GGGGGGGGGG] This tells us that the 'beliefs' of Islam cannot be based in a Holy Book, for it continually encourages personal anger. When Islam preaches ‘holy war’ and incites ‘days of rage,’ this demonstrates that its ‘revelation’ is rooted firmly in the immature desires of the childish me.

[HHHHHHHHHH] Therefore, anger that festers for decades in refugee camps cannot be called ‘righteous.’

[IIIIIIIIII] And, because Perceiver facts, through Contributor thought, tie Mercy experiences and Server actions together, replacing the Perceiver facts that hold me together will also end up indirectly changing the Server sequences that are carried out by me.

[JJJJJJJJJJ] Mentally speaking, the person who follows Teacher idolatry holds on to Teacher structures that are not supported by Server confidence.

[KKKKKKKKKK] This distinction between initial lunge and final movement is described in the neurological literature.

[LLLLLLLLLL] Or Teacher words.

[MMMMMMMMMM] When I extends to E, then Mercy emotions again play a critical role. However, they are now internally generated and no longer depend upon external idols for their existence.

[NNNNNNNNNN] Why ‘God’? Because the new me is based in general Teacher understanding that explains Mercy identity.

[OOOOOOOOOO] I am using the words without quotes because I am referring here to a 'belief' in external Beings.

[PPPPPPPPPP] Maybe the way that America has treated its native tribes is an external reflection of the way it responds mentally to its internal tribal ‘God’ of Christian revealed 'truth.'

[QQQQQQQQQQ] Even if God exists, the only way to grasp this infinite Person is to build an internal image of ‘God’ that ties together the specific words and experiences of the external world.

[RRRRRRRRRR] Why suffering? Because emotional 'truth' leads inevitably to personal pain and suffering, and revelation is based in emotional 'truth.'

[SSSSSSSSSS] Notice the connection between group mentality, the second and third ‘whammies,’ the S/N and I/E splits, and social transformation.

[TTTTTTTTTT] I use a small ‘g’ and no quotes because here we are talking about an externalization of competing images of ‘God.’

[UUUUUUUUUU] Sometimes this rebellion occurs within the individual. More often, society follows this path over several generations.

[VVVVVVVVVV] In other words, The Buddhist theory of Teacher oneness can handle Mercy diversity but not Teacher diversity. Likewise, the Mercy oneness of Gaia can cope with Teacher specifics but is repelled by Mercy divisions.