Epistemology 137“Because!”—exclamation mark included. He will insist that facts are
learned instantly, and will reject the idea that belief is a process.
Second, the individual with rational beliefs will be able to discuss the
issues rationally. Emotions, even strong feelings, may enter. However,
when push comes to shove, cool heads will take precedence over hot
feelings. On the other hand, a discussion of emotional 'facts' will
eventually turn into an emotional shoving match with winners and losers.
A point will always be reached at which communication breaks down and
emotion takes over.
Finally, I suggest that emotional 'facts' are best recognized at other
times and in other people. It is usually easy for me to detect areas in my
neighbor in which Perceiver thought is mesmerized; it is much harder for
me to see where my own 'beliefs' are determined by blind 'faith.' Similarly,
it is much easier for me to see where I used to accept emotional 'facts'; it is
much more difficult to see where I still place blind 'trust' in my 'beliefs.'
The reason for this is quite interesting. I have mentioned that Perceiver
strategy is responsible for building the map of human thought—for telling
me „where I am.‟ Suppose that my Perceiver map is in error. The only way
to discover this is to compare Perceiver thought with some other mental
map. But, Perceiver strategy is the map; there is no other map. Therefore,
errors cannot be detected. One could compare this situation to that of a
warning light in a car. The brake light, for instance, will signal when there
is a problem with the brakes. But, what will tell me that there is a problem
with the brake light itself?
Knowing—A Summary and an Analogy
Let me summarize. We are looking at the interaction between the
Mercy internal world and the Perceiver internal world—between
identification and belief. Identification allows emotional experiences into
the internal Mercy world, whereas belief pulls facts into the internal world
of Perceiver thought.
We discovered that Perceiver belief can only maintain connections in
the face of emotional pressure and personal identification if Perceiver facts
have sufficient confidence. This confidence takes time to develop and can
only be built up gradually through a process of emotional testing.
We then mentioned two possible shortcuts to knowing: The first
method tries to avoid strong feelings by remaining objective. It preserves
Perceiver facts by sheltering them within an environment free of emotional
pressure. If facts do not face emotional stress, then there is no need to build
the Perceiver confidence that is required to handle emotional pressure. The
result is a shortcut to knowing, which works as long as feelings remain
shallow. I suggest that this is the path that is generally followed in an
„advanced‟ society in which the comforts of civilization protect people
from emotional trauma. As a result, we tend to associate objective thinking