Knowing versus 'Knowing' 181because the mind is encased in a physical body which uses the carrot and
stick of pleasure and pain to encourage us to develop some common sense.
In contrast, when Perceiver confidence is being used, then it is the internal
world which generally prevents Perceiver logic from being followed
completely. The operation of incomplete conscience and the consequent
feelings of guilt tend to discourage even the strongest individual from
following common sense to its logical conclusion. The reason is that guilt
disturbs my internal sense of identity—it attacks me.
What is me? Let us see if we can provide an answer to this question. So
what if generations of philosophers have banged their heads senseless
trying to determine the answer.A Maybe our model of the mind will give us
the key to unlock the door even to the riddle of self-identity.
However, before we start, there is one more option which we need to
examine. We have assumed that teenage conflict between blind 'faith' and
common sense needs to be resolved. Why not leave things the way they
are? Why not just divide all of life into two different spheres, one ruled by
Perceiver logic and common sense and the other under the domain of
emotional 'facts' and blind 'faith'? If we could all agree where the lines are,
then we might be able to help each other ignore the fact that Perceiver
thought in all of us is split in two by the mental trenches of the threshold of
uncertainty.
I suggest that this is the response taken by today‟s society. In almost
every arena of life, mental activity is cut into two mutually incompatible
spheres by a line which separates the subjective region of emotional 'facts'
and personal feelings from the objective side of common sense. Here are
some examples of splits between 'facts' and facts: religious and secular,
home and work, private life and public life, personal and professional, art
and business, culture and economy, beauty and utility, social sciences and
natural sciences, love and self-interest, duty and selfishness, nationalism
and economics, socialism and capitalism. All of these pairs of terms
describe some arena of society in which two opposing forces are fighting
each other for control of some area of mental „land.‟ One side is emotional
and determines 'facts' by strong feelings, the other leans upon common
sense and places rational, cold logic in charge.
A I suggest that the philosophers failed because their assumptions led to
faulty questions. But doesn‟t philosophy begin by questioning all
assumptions? It tries, but I suggest that there is one major assumption
which never is questioned. We have discovered that over 90% of historical
philosophers appear to have the cognitive style of Facilitator. In other
words, philosophy assumes that Facilitator thought can, by itself, come up
with a universal theory. But it appears that this is a logical impossibility. In
essence the reason is as follows: You cannot explore a „land‟ by using a
mental „car‟ which is only capable of traveling between existing locations.