Perceiver belief is easily confused by feelings; a strongly emotional denial can therefore be quite effective. However, this only removes a single rule of conscience. It is like using a handgun to shoot at a target.
Much more effective is to use Perceiver strategy itself to cripple Perceiver thought; this generates a mental „bomb‟ which obliterates the target and everything around it.
I suggest that this „bomb‟ works by attacking the implicit Perceiver assumption which lies behind
For instance, during the time of American slavery, whites were able to live in luxury while treating blacks as subhuman. Women from the Southern States would literally gather for prayer meetings in the same room in which they beat their slaves. How could a person ask
„God‟ for mercy while at the same time giving no mercy to his fellow human? By denying that his fellow was human.
Because of this declared mental gulf between black and white, no link of conscience could connect the two. The white master might feel guilt for his behavior toward other whites, but not over his treatment of blacks.A
Whenever we think that we are special, or divide
ourselves into „us‟ versus „them,‟ or regard some group or individual as different, then we are denying the possibility of any Perceiver connection between us, and through this „bombing‟ conscience. And, history shows us that when conscience is absent, then life is cheap—it is a further indication of the link between life and conscience.
Let me close this section with another politically incorrect example.
The average citizen today makes a clear distinction between a live baby and fetal matter growing within the womb of a mother. One is regarded as human, whereas the other is labeled as subhuman. This mental distinction allows doctors and hospitals to go to great lengths to protect the health and integrity of babies, even as they destroy unwanted fetal tissue. As Henry Morgentaler, a leading Canadian abortion provider, is reported to have said,
“If I felt that the unborn fetus was human, my conscience would really disturb me.”
A I know that the term „white‟ and „black‟ has become politically incorrect.
However, in this case, the term is accurate because skin color determined everything.
Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of knowing. Religion and philosophy have both spent millennia grappling with the issue of knowing. But, we have just learned that it is Perceiver mode which is responsible for giving us a sense of knowing. Therefore, if we understand Perceiver thinking, we should be able to use this knowledge to gain an insight into epistemology.
Why do we have such problems with knowing? Why have thinkers studied this issue for so many years? I suggest that it is because Perceiver thought, the mental strategy responsible for knowing, is faced with a potential contradiction. On the one hand, it can only learn facts by observing Mercy experiences. On the other hand, the emotional „glare‟
associated with Mercy experiences makes it difficult for Perceiver thought to know things about experiences. That is, Perceiver strategy must gain its knowledge from a source which, by its very nature, disrupts knowing.
The result is that Perceiver knowing comes in two basic forms. One type emerges when Perceiver thought is in charge of knowing. The other occurs when knowing is dictated by Mercy feelings. Let us look at these two alternatives, starting with the case in which Perceiver thought is able to operate independently.
Knowing through Confidence
We have learned that each Perceiver belief carries with it a certain level of confidence. This trust gives a Perceiver belief the ability to endure emotional pressure. How does Perceiver confidence grow? I suggest that confidence in a specific belief grows whenever that fact survives an emotional attack.
Gaining Perceiver confidence is like building muscles: Both require a program of exercise. If I start an exercise routine by immediately lifting heavy weights and running long distances, I will probably end up becoming a good friend of my local physiotherapist. Most of us know that we have to start at a level which we can handle and build up gradually over time. Some of us, like myself, learn the hard way.
Through a combination of mental stress and abrupt increase in physical activity, I did
manage to give myself several years of tendinitis and I did get acquainted with the local health clinic.
Because of this need for development, I suggest that Perceiver thought cannot gain instant confidence. We cannot expect a belief immediately to survive all emotional attack. As generations of wise men have told us, faith must be tested. Just as the weight lifter becomes stronger by pushing to the limit of his ability, so confidence in a belief grows as it is stressed to the edge of its endurance.A
Perceiver knowledge cannot be acquired instantly.
Mental knowing can be torn apart by emotional pressure.
Facts grow in confidence as they survive emotional threats.
If Perceiver facts need confidence in order to survive emotional pressure, then this means that knowledge is not learned, but rather acquired. I suggest that this distinction is becoming clear in today‟s information-driven society. In terms of quantity of material, never has so much been available literally at our fingertips. We have „information superhighways‟ and „world-wide-webs‟ bursting at the seams with
„megamasses‟ and „gigagobs‟ of data about everything.
However, we are discovering that the real problem is not information, but rather „infoglut.‟ We have lots of facts, but do not know where they fit.
We have heaps of data, but do not know how to apply them to our personal world of emotions and experiences. Why do we feel lost in a sea of information? I suggest the problem is that we have learned a lot of information, but we have not acquired it. We have filled our storage sheds of automatic Perceiver thought with myriads of facts, but we have not taken the time to examine these facts, find solid connections, pull them into our internal Perceiver worlds, and build a system of belief. The result is piles of facts, rusting out in fields of learning. No wonder we feel confused.
Sheltering Confidence
Unfortunately, our method of handling information prevents us from building anything solid within our internal Perceiver worlds. First, we tend to look at details and not at the big picture. The various media inundate us
A The illustration which I just gave compared Perceiver confidence to muscle strength. Actually, it is Server confidence that is really the analog to physical strength, since both grow through repeated action. The physical analog to Perceiver confidence is bone strength, since bones and Perceiver confidence both provide solid connections which hold elements together. It is interesting that bones also become stronger under repeated exercise.
Bone stress triggers local piezoelectric voltages which encourage bone growth.
with facts. Schools load us with information. Researchers gather statistics and numbers. The result is a type of knowledge which resembles an encyclopedia, but without the benefit of even alphabetical order.A
Second, we try to stay objective by divorcing the world of Perceiver facts from the messy realm of emotional Mercy experiences: The reporter attempts to stand on the sidelines when presenting the news. The professor avoids subjective feelings. Legislatures pass conflict-of-interest laws which prevent government ministers from serving in areas of personal expertise.
Even in daily conversation, we usually talk about the weather, sports, or the economy, and we avoid personal issues. Why? Because we have learned that Perceiver facts can be overturned by emotional pressure.
Therefore, we respond by removing the pressure.
Facts can be protected by sheltering them from emotional pressure.
This is called „staying objective.‟
Objectivity gives the illusion of instant knowledge.
However, if facts acquire Perceiver confidence by surviving emotional attack, then we are „protecting‟ our Perceiver information from the very environment which it needs in order to gain stability. As a result, I suggest that we are gradually losing the ability to deal with information rationally.
In essence, we are like the ninety pound weakling who copes with his frailty by avoiding heavy work. The more labor he shuns, the weaker he becomes. Eventually he turns into the couch potato barely able to press the remote control for his television set.
Saying it again, if we ignore questions of belief, I suggest that the inevitable result is lower levels of Perceiver confidence, because we are avoiding the very situations which test our confidence, and it is only by surviving episodes such as these that our level of confidence can grow.
This strategy of suppressing feelings becomes a vicious circle, because the more emotional pressure we avoid, the more we must avoid. Meanwhile, the flood of information increases, and the need for solid Perceiver facts becomes ever greater.
For instance, I mentioned „conflict-of-interest legislation.‟ This states, for example, that if a certain legislator is a potato farmer, then he is barred from becoming minister in charge of potatoes. The goal is to make sure that the minister remains rational when making laws about potatoes.
However, I suggest that the interaction between Perceiver confidence and Mercy emotions produces exactly the opposite effect. First, Perceiver facts become separated from the Mercy experiences upon which they are based.
If the minister of potatoes must be someone without recent personal
A We will see later that keeping knowledge fragmented is one way to avoid Teacher thought and emotions.
experience of potato farms, then the laws which he passes will lack common sense—because he does not know that much about potatoes.
Second, Perceiver facts which the minister does happen to
know about
potatoes will be low in confidence, because they have not been subjected to emotional pressure. When all of the special interest groups representing various potato farming organizations begin to exert emotional pressure upon the poor minister of potato farms, any Perceiver system of belief which he has constructed will be unable to withstand this emotional barrage. The result is that laws about potato farms will be driven by subjective feelings of interest groups—exactly the opposite of what conflict-of-interest guidelines are supposed to achieve.
Third, building facts apart from feelings creates apathy. The minister of potatoes will not care about potatoes, because they have nothing to do with his personal feelings. If he has no experience with potatoes, and has never been a potato farmer, then obviously he will not be interested in potatoes.
What would he find exciting? His primary occupation of politics. He will enjoy the politics behind potatoes. He will get a thrill out of playing one special interest group against another.
The result is a politician who floats spinelessly in a sea of popularity, drifting from one opinion poll to the next. Meanwhile, the poor potatoes find themselves in worse shape than they were before government intervened on their behalf. And who pays the bill for all of this? You and I.
On the other hand, suppose that politicians were chosen on the basis of personal success and invited to govern in these areas. Suppose that the privilege of forming laws was given to those whose beliefs had survived the fire of emotional testing. The result would be a government which governed effectively, because legislators would have acquired knowledge and not just learned it. They would have confidence in the facts and be able to handle the pressure exerted by special interest groups.A
A Do conflict-of-interest guidelines address a legitimate need? Yes. It is hard to think rationally when personal feelings are involved. But, separating facts from feelings does not solve the problem.
I suggest that our current focus on eliminating sexual harassment and exalting political correctness again illustrates an attempt to preserve facts by avoiding emotional pressure. Suppose that we respond to sexual innuendo or cultural harassment by forbidding every word or gesture which feels threatening or insulting. I suggest that this strategy is again self-defeating: Avoiding emotional situations leads to lowered Perceiver confidence. As our confidence drops, we are less able to deal with harassing situations and we end up feeling more threatened. The cure becomes worse than the disease.A Ultimately, the point is reached at which it is impossible to do or say anything.
Notice how we have analyzed both of these issues in terms of solid Perceiver connections. „Conflict-of-interest‟ legislation is „wrong‟ because it is a contradiction: By avoiding personal emotions, our laws become slaves of personal emotions. Likewise, responding to sexual and cultural harassment with suppression leads to greater feelings of harassment and less freedom. Therefore, in the same way that stealing is „wrong,‟ we conclude that this method of dealing with harassment is also „wrong.‟
What is „right‟ in these issues? A strategy which can be maintained over the long term, a Perceiver connection which does not lead to a contradiction. How does one learn to distinguish „right‟ from „wrong‟? By taking the time and effort to construct Perceiver systems of belief and then raising the associated levels of confidence by applying these beliefs successfully in emotional situations. As we said, knowledge must be acquired and not just learned.
Building Confidence
We shelter confidence by creating an external separation between Perceiver facts and Mercy feelings. We arrange a person‟s environment in such a way that he never has to face both strong emotions and think logically at the same time. In other words, the Perceiver observer in him knows that it will only be asked to observe the Mercy room next door under conditions of „low light.‟ If the emotional glare is too strong, then the Perceiver observer will be excused from thinking. The benefit to this approach is that the Perceiver observer does not have to spend any time opening and closing the „curtain‟ between his room and the Mercy room.
The downside is that Perceiver confidence gradually weakens.
We build confidence by following a different path. We shine enough Mercy light on the Perceiver observer to make it uncomfortable, but not enough to confuse it. We then ask Perceiver thought to function under
A I am not saying that harassment is good. Rather, I am suggesting that a focus upon suppressing the public expression of harassment will result in people feeling more harassed and more persecuted. The atmosphere which is created will feel more oppressive than the original situation.
these conditions. Operation under this emotional stress builds Perceiver confidence, which in turn allows the Perceiver observer to handle more Mercy light.
Building confidence, like sheltering it, creates a separation between Perceiver facts and Mercy feelings, but this time the division is internal.A As the Perceiver observer continues with its thinking under the discomfort of the Mercy spotlight, it gradually wakes up and realizes that it and the Mercy experiences which it is observing are not the same. This leads to a mental distinction between fact and feeling: Facts describe the Perceiver connections between experiences, whereas feelings are the Mercy labels attached to the experiences. In other words, Perceiver labels of „right‟ and
„wrong‟ become independent of Mercy labels of „good‟ and „bad.‟
This means that Perceiver confidence can only grow when „good‟
experiences are „wrong‟ or when „bad‟ experiences‟ are „right.‟B If „good‟
is always „right‟ and „bad‟ always „wrong,‟ then there is no need for the Perceiver observer to wake up. Instead, Mercy processing remains sufficient to define both Mercy feelings and Perceiver 'facts.'C Remember this point. It will become significant later on.
Conflict between Mercy and Perceiver labeling makes confidence grow.
Initially, „good‟ is labeled „right,‟ and „bad‟ is labeled „wrong.‟
As Perceiver confidence grows, facts separate from feelings.
I suggest that the growth of Perceiver confidence goes through three stages. First, there is an awakening. The Perceiver observer discovers some connection; it catches a glimpse of some fact. If Perceiver thought decides to hold on to its fact, this leads to the second stage of struggle. Here, the Perceiver observer attempts to cling to its discovery while at the same time the emotional glare of Mercy emotion tries to knock the fact from its grasp.
I suggest that this struggle results from a conflict between Mercy feelings of „good‟ and „bad‟ and Perceiver knowledge of „right‟ and „wrong.‟ On the one hand, Perceiver thought insists that „wrong‟ must also be „bad‟ and
„right‟ must also be „good.‟ On the other hand, Mercy strategy is equally convinced that „bad‟ is „wrong‟ and „good‟ is „right.‟ It is when these twin assumptions crumble that the final stage of acceptance is reached.
A I suggest that the same contrast can be seen in communism and capitalism. Communism plans the economy centrally and externally, as we do morally with harassment laws and conflict-of-interest legislation.
Capitalism, in contrast, like confidence, trusts that the corporate will become ordered as each individual, internally, makes the right decisions.
B Yes, I‟ve written it correctly. It is precisely this abrasive atmosphere which is necessary.
C My use of straight quotes is quite deliberate, as you will soon see.
Perceiver strategy realizes suddenly that Mercy feelings of „good‟ and
„bad‟ have no bearing upon its own labeling of „right‟ and „wrong.‟
Likewise, it dawns upon Mercy thought that its feelings of „good‟ and
„bad‟ are not overturned by Perceiver labels of „right‟ and „wrong.‟
The previous paragraph may seem somewhat repetitive and simple- minded, but I suggest that growing Perceiver confidence really is like that.
The second stage of struggle in particular is very repetitive. The Perceiver observer finds itself rediscovering and regrasping the same fact over and over again. At times it seems as if no progress is being made. And, when Perceiver thought finally reaches the third stage of acceptance it is as if an internal light bulb goes on. The Perceiver observer bangs its head with its hand and says, “Now I see. It‟s so obvious, so simple. How could I have been so stupid? Duuuuuh!”
Emotional 'Knowing'
Before we go on, this is your mental tour guide speaking. Please, ev- eryone stop and take a quick stretch. I warned you earlier that we would get into some heavy emotional topics. As we walk through this next section, we may find some of the mud of subjective feelings clinging to our intellectual boots. Don‟t be concerned. Just think of it as an opportunity to gain mental confidence. If we find ourselves bogging down, we only need to „clean off‟ our shoes with some logical reflection and then we can continue our slogging. As long as the mud does not cake on too thickly, we should make it through. Everyone ready? Then, let us continue.
We have compared Perceiver thought to a person observing Mercy strategy through a window, looking for connections. We have learned that the Perceiver observer can only handle the glare of Mercy emotion if it has sufficient confidence. If the strength of Mercy feeling is too great for the level of Perceiver confidence, then Perceiver thought will be blinded by the emotional brightness streaming in from the Mercy room. When Perceiver strategy cannot see clearly, then belief begins to waver, confidence crumbles, and connections shake.
If the emotional glare increases further, then Perceiver thought will change from being blinded to being mesmerized. Rather than looking for connections which are solid, Perceiver strategy will assume that any Mercy experiences which are seen together, belong together. When the Perceiver observer reaches this glassy-eyed state, then each individual Mercy situation becomes interpreted as a universal Perceiver fact.A
A I choose the word „mesmerized‟ deliberately, because I suggest that hypnosis is an extreme example of this same mental mechanism. The hypnotic subject fixates upon the person of the hypnotist, and 'believes' everything coming from the hypnotist as absolute 'truth.'