Knowing versus 'Knowing' 183It is natural for a society to create a permanent split between emotional
'truth' and logical truth. Thanks to environment, parenting and schooling,
youngsters can acquire a substantial amount of common sense without ever
having to apply any self-initiated effort. Likewise, children naturally
develop respect for the 'beliefs,' customs, institutions and role models of
their society. But, because this mental development is motivated by others,
individuals generally stop learning once the pressure is removed.
Whenever society allows them to „graduate,‟ they rest on their laurels,
accept the existing mental splits, and begin „living.‟
Let us look more closely at what is often so easily accepted. A
permanent schism between objective and subjective, spreading through all
of society, is like the wall of a freezer separating the frozen interior of
'truth' from the warm exterior of common sense. As long as this insulated
barrier remains intact, the Perceiver observer will be awake on one side,
and „frozen‟ on the other. If every member of society possesses the same
mental „deep freeze,‟ then there will be a minimum of mental confusion,
because each individual will know exactly what type of Perceiver thought
applies where.A
This unity of thought creates a high level of personal comfort. It
happens because a division between objective and subjective destroys
Perceiver ability to sense similarity, and in this way it „bombs‟ unwanted
conscience or guilt. How? We know that no Perceiver information can
cross the threshold of uncertainty intact: A fact simply cannot coexist with
a 'fact'—the one eats up the other. If there is a wall which Perceiver
information cannot pass, then conscience also cannot cross the barrier, for
conscience is a Perceiver connection between cause and effect.
Contradiction is thus not sensed; conviction is therefore not triggered. The
human mind can in fact tolerate extensive inconsistency—between
objective and subjective thought—without any feeling of guilt.
This dividing wall between objective and subjective allows „modern‟
man, for instance, to handle oxymorons such as smart bombs, street-
fighting video games, television sitcoms, and rock music concerts—
without guilt. In each case, there is a stark contrast between the destructive
childishness of the subjective component and the advanced state of the
objective medium. Think for example of the complexity of today‟s
personal computer. Now compare that with the primitiveness of hand-to-
A This consensus appears to be present in western society. For instance, the
secular world knows and recognizes its essential nature as non-religious;
western religions, in contrast, know that their mission centers around
„spiritual salvation.‟ Both elements, therefore, accept the primary
distinction between religious and secular—their faith is identical in this
aspect of „subjective versus objective.‟ A similar unity of thought seems to
exist elsewhere.