During and after world wars, civil wars, riots, bombings, and other acts of violence where men, women, and innocent children are maimed and killed, the question, why, is asked again and again. Since the mind is the holder of motivating beliefs and values and the ultimate director of all action, the mind is the obvious place to look for answers. Yet, the study of the mind is almost non-existent.
Given the central importance of the mind to the life of each and every individual, doesn't it strike you as somewhat strange that study of the mind is not in the curriculum of formal education from kindergarten on, or before? Why is this most important of important subjects so blatantly ignored? Yes, there are licensed psychiatrists and psychologists that are alleged to make a study of the mind and hold knowledge of it, but what is the inference of setting authority over your mind and tacitly excluding you from knowledge of it? Could this be part of the problem rather than a solution to it? No doubt these "authorities" do hold some knowledge of the mind but what is the nature of the study and knowledge? How are you to evaluate claimed knowledge of your mind if you are kept in ignorance of it? Are you to simply accept and blindly react to something that you do not understand? Isn't this a little scary? In reference to these questions, what is the real significance of the existence of licensed psychiatrists and psychologists? Suppose that licensed psychiatrists and psychologist are actually a reflection of a widespread psychological problem. If this is the case, can the end result be anything other than propagating the very cause of the problems they are trying to remedy?
A medical doctor may set a broken bone or even perform a heart transplant. A mechanic may repair your car. A carpenter many build you a house, a plumber plumb it, and an electrician wire it. No one can be knowledgeable and proficient in all fields that are of personal interest and value. To fulfill one's wants and needs, it is frequently necessary to rely on the knowledge and expertise of another or others. However, the mind, your mind, is a different matter. To place the content of your mind as amenable to external construction, to turn it over to authority, is to abandon responsibility to self and simultaneously throw away your autonomy and individuality. Are you comfortable with this?
The cause of the resistance to examination of the principles of the mind and needed introspection is inherent in the fallacies that lie at the root of most philosophies and dominate thinking. It is the same resistance that disregards and denies the principles of language usage and principles of epistemology. Contrary to popular opinion, the mind is not an unfathomable mystery beyond the understanding of laymen. In fact, the concept, authority, in this field is a deterrent to the understanding of mental processes and psychological derivatives.
First, let's once again find and recognize with clarity the basis for facts, all facts. Literally everyone I know, or know of, verbally agrees that all knowledge is dependent upon the underlying order of the universe, the 100% consistent immutable natural laws. In a word, PRINCIPLES. Unfortunately, although all lay claim to this belief, nearly all belie the claim by contradicting it over and over again. The most obvious contradiction is the belief that an omni-god exists and can alter reality at will. Thus does claimed immutable natural laws become subject to the whim and caprice of an alleged omnipotent being, and the all-important 100% consistency factor goes out the window - and consistency in thinking with it. Unless you can find just cause to conclude otherwise, consciously focus upon the immutable natural laws and the 100% consistency factor. Hold to it as if your life depends on it. It does.
I know of nothing more unique than the mind. Although the mind is derived from the physical brain, it is not physical in itself, and not subject to quantitative measurement. This, however, does not place it out of range of understanding. Unique though it is, the mind is still part of the universe and must necessarily be governed by specific natural laws, i.e., principles. This means that although mind content (beliefs and values) varies from individual to individual, all minds function by the same principles of operation. Pre-natal or post-natal brain damage (or drugs) may affect certain functions, but does not alter the natural principles.
The phenomenon called the mind is so unique that upon cursory examination, it appears as a mass and mess of contradictions that defy untangling. The mind has the capacity to mentally discover and to mentally invent. Alas, it also has the capacity to fail to make a distinction between the two; that is, fail to make a distinction between what is inside of the mind and what is outside. This happens more often and in much greater degree than you might imagine. Worse yet, it appears quite correct to most because the mode of thought involved is unquestionably accepted by nearly all. In conjunction with this is a natural principle of the mind that all but disappears in the process: Volition. Each individual is by nature a volitional entity imbued by natural principle with the freedom of choice. Yet, the mind is highly susceptible to being programmed and controlled by dominant beliefs that proscribe the parameters of thought. This means that choices are made only within the parameters allowed by the dominant beliefs. Knowledge of reality outside of these parameters is emotionally regarded as non-existent. Much to my sorrow, most go through life not as an independent thinking individual, but as a reactive entity motivated in thought, feelings, and actions by the directives of the dominant beliefs. If this is true, is there an escape from this mind prison? Yes. Its knowledge of the mind. This is the means of controlling your own mind and thinking independently.
As a primary illustration of subconscious response emanating from held beliefs, let's look again at one of the statements above. I, in effect, stated that the failure to make a distinction between what is inside of the mind and what is outside is a common occurrence and generally accepted as the "norm" beyond questioning. What was your mental response to this statement? In all probability, it was casually passed over with no conscious thought or analysis, or of its significance if true. Why? To speak of someone failing to make a distinction between what is inside of the mind and what is outside usually evokes the thought of a person severely mentally deranged and perhaps committed to a mental institution. This reflex emotional picture does not in your mind equate with the "norm" in which I placed the conclusion. Ergo, the statement is emotionally and instantly rejected as false without any examination and effort to ascertain why I made the statement, or what evidence I can offer as proof of it. The idea that the "norm" in thinking accepted by millions is "abnormal" is too far removed from the accepted "norm" to be seriously considered. Nevertheless, the statement is quite true and there is an abundance of evidence to support this conclusion. (The observation above about positing society and a corporation as "entities" are a couple of examples of confusing mental inventions and ideas with objective discoveries.)
Since every thought and action presupposes the existence and operation of mind principles, an infinite amount of data is always available for study. As in all scientific study, the ever-present core objective is to accurately relate cause and effect. Fundamentally, I'm talking about tracing effect back to action and action back to motivating beliefs and psychological causes. This is accomplished by identifying the mind principles and causal nature of the principles that determine the final outcome of given premises and beliefs. By using the same mind principles, we can also ascertain how and why specific premises and beliefs are created and accepted. Granted, sometimes the twists and turns of mind functions create a mental circumstance with some beliefs deeply buried and not so easy to detect. However, in general, and in reference to the commonly held beliefs that are the central subject of inquiry, we do not have this problem. They are practically on the surface and highly visible.
I mentioned near the beginning of this book the problem of resistance to any idea that opposes the status quo of what "everybody knows". The psychological resistance of which I speak is not of a conscious variety. It is not like deciding between higher or lower taxes, drug laws or no drug laws, abortion or no abortion. The resistance of which I speak is not consciously known at all. There is no mental viewing of alternatives with a conscious and consciously emotional response to options. If there were, there would be no problem. It is precisely the absence of awareness of an alternative that constitutes the problem. The resistance to awareness of an alternative is quiet, subtle, and nearly absolute. Given this declaration, you may justifiably ask: How then does one know that such a psychological barrier exist? And how does one deal with it if known?
First, let's establish that such a psychological barrier does exist; that emotions, known or unknown, derived from dominant beliefs, denounce and reject what your conscious mind tells you is logical and true. Start with an overview of the general situation of perpetual war and other violent conflicts discussed earlier. Is it your conclusion that this is a natural condition and nothing can be done about it? If so, how does volition fit into this conclusion? Are you saying that volition does not exist and individuals do not have a choice about the matter? If determinism is your answer, this takes us down a different road of necessary discussion as to how you reached such a conclusion in the face of choice to do so. On the other hand, if you believe the situation, i.e., the eternal war problem, can be resolved, why is that millions over hundreds of centuries have failed to find and implement the solution? What I'm getting at is that either perpetual war is a natural and naturally unchanging condition, or that the means to resolve the problem lies undiscovered because of psychological resistance to the knowledge required. If this is the case, would you call this a substantial psychological barrier protecting the violent status quo and sacred ideas? If yes, is such resistance consciously known to the holders and believers that perpetuate the condition by their thoughts and actions? Are they aware of an alternative to war, but refuse to choose it? If so, why?
An individual's beliefs and values are a sum total of all of his (her) life's experiences, and evaluation of these experiences. The evaluations are not always of a conscious design. Many beliefs are held by subconscious association from direct experience or subconscious mental integration of expressed or implied premises. Beliefs subconsciously accepted and held by logical inference are no less directive beliefs than those accepted by direct declaration and conscious deliberation; indeed, are even more so. What poses the problem is that subconsciously held beliefs are frequently not defined and not known to the holder. They exist only as directive emotions often in direct conflict with conscious observations and conclusions. By mention and illustration of the resistances, I am trying to call your attention to an element that may preclude grasp of observations and conclusions that I present. In the final analysis, it comes down to trusting your conscious mind rather than succumbing to emotional dictates that are contrary to what conscious mind tells you is true. The rationale behind this is that all emotions are a reflection of beliefs held whether acquired consciously or subconsciously. Since a belief may be either true or false, to rely on emotions to make that determination is to dismiss conscious mind and the principles of epistemology. While emotions are the motivator, the movers and shakers of all thought and actions, emotions are not reliable tools of cognition.
Every scientific researcher worthy of the name focuses upon discovery and use of principles, the 100% consistent natural laws that determine action, reaction, cause, and effect. The study of the mind is no different. Grasp of mind principles is the key to understanding. It will not suffice for me to just point them out and you to casually accept if so inclined. This won't work. It is for you to see the principle in operation and to know by your own mind and experience that they are indeed principles upon which you can rely at all times. I can furnish information but, in the final analysis, this is the ultimate do-it-yourself project. It can't be done any other way.
By nature, every individual is a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity. Although a goal sought is not always designated as such, goal seeking is an ongoing mental operation of every conscious individual. A goal is simply a desire for a change in a set of circumstances. A goal may be as involved and complex as building and flying a space craft, or as simple as raising a finger. The latter could very well be a consciously desired goal by someone recovering from paralysis of a hand. Goal seeking is mental or physical action. Also, while not always consciously recognized and declared, every action is preceded by a theory. For instance, if you arise and walk to the refrigerator to get a drink of water, this action takes place only after theorizing (subconsciously in this case) that you have the ability to achieve the end desired. By bringing this theorizing to the surface and viewing it in conscious light, we may view the mind principles in action.
The hypothetical or syllogistic form is often used in testing a theory. Although many elements are usually involved, fundamentally it consists of two premises and a conclusion. The first premise sets a propositional condition. The second either confirms or denies the proposed condition. A logical conclusion is drawn in correspondence with either the confirmation or the denial.
I gave an illustration earlier, but importance warrants a repeat for emphasis. Example: Premise 1. If it is raining, the ground is wet. Premise 2. It is raining. Conclusion. Then the ground is wet. Or - Premise 1. If Individual A wishes to live, he must take nourishment. Premise 2. Individual A wishes to live. Conclusion. Then Individual A must take nourishment. If A is equal to B and B is equal to C, then A is equal to C, and so on. The validity of this mental process is dependent upon a specific principle of the mind and the 100% consistency of the principle.
Focus most strongly upon this "if-then" factor for it is an absolute and working mind principle, i.e., the "logic circuit" involved in all your calculations via conscious mind and in both aspects of subconscious. Literally every belief you hold, consciously or subconsciously is by this means. However, and this is a most critical however, and again I repeat for emphasis, the mental integrator does not evaluate premises given as true or false. This is the function of the conscious mind and choice. The mental integrator is a natural mental reflex that simply and always produces a logical conclusion from antecedent premises. Since the mental integrator consistently produces a logical conclusion from given premises, it is the ultimate error detector. If a logically inferred conclusion is self contradictory or is in contradiction of some other belief or beliefs held, then beliefs held or at least one of the antecedent premises must be false. Several or all may be false.
Let's test further. Premise 1. If Individual A is flapping his arms, he is flying. Premise 2. Individual A is flapping his arms. Conclusion. He is flying. If you hold the conclusion that Individual A cannot fly by flapping his arms, then you must logically conclude that either this conclusion is false or else the premise that logically led to the contrary conclusion is false. Observe another mind principle evidenced in this mental action: You cannot simultaneously hold something to be true and untrue. You may from time to time change your beliefs, but your mind cannot hold a contradiction within itself. (The net result would be zero.) Whenever something is regarded as true, that which opposes it is necessarily regarded as false, i.e., mentally displaced and regarded as non-existent.
The mind principle of differential reference and mental displacement of the contrary is evidenced in the physical realm as well. A wanderer lost in the desert and dying of thirst "sees" a pool of water. If he "sees" a pool of water, then he cannot see the actual sand that the pool of water displaces. Again, another mind principles emerges: With sufficient provocation by fear and desire, a mind can create alleviating compensation and project that creation upon objective reality and believe that the subjective mental creation is objective discovery. Some have "seen" Jesus or the Virgin Mary. A grieving mother "sees" her dead son. There is much evidence of these happenings, but little understanding of delusional cause.
A much stated belief in Christianity is that an omnipotent god gives man free will. Let's examine this via hypothetical form and see how the belief stands up in the "logic circuit" and how the belief is sustained.
Premise 1. If an omnipotent god exists, then man has free will. Premise 2. An omnipotent god exists. Conclusion. Then man has free will. The problem is, of course, arbitrary declaration absent definition and connection to reality. If we define and then set the proposition in hypothetical form, we arrive at a far different conclusion. Premise 1. If an omnipotent god exists, then the omnipotent god controls all. Premise 2. An omnipotent god exists. Conclusion. Then the omnipotent controls all. Premise 1. If an omnipotent god exists and controls all, then man has no control, no free will. Premise 2. An omnipotent god exists and controls all. Conclusion. Then man has no control, no free will.
The seeming escape from definition and the unwanted logical conclusion is simply by ignoring the definition and unwanted logical conclusion. However, the matter does not end here. The mind cannot hold the self-contradiction. It must either accept the omni-god idea and reject individual volition, or reject the omni-god idea and accept individual volition. While the conscious mind may delude itself, subconsciously, this choice is made. Premise 1. If an omnipotent god exists, then individual volition does not. Premise 2. An omnipotent god exists. Conclusion. Individual and individual volition does not, is an illusion. This subconsciously held conclusion, derived from denial of the principles of knowledge and denial of finite individual as the real, is the dominant belief that is manifest in many forms throughout the prevailing philosophical and socio-economic environment. It will be discussed in much detail later. For now, let's clarify the existence of determinant mind principles.
Three critical and descriptive terms of mind are self (ego, if you prefer), conscious, and subconscious, the latter two already discussed in some measure. There are two aspects of the subconscious. One is highly visible and easy to discern and accept as a principled operation of the mind. The other is no less principle, but obscured and not so easily recognized since it harbors dominant fallacies that psychologically act in their own defense to hide from the conscious mind.
To visualize the primary subconscious, let's hypothetically put it into practice. Suppose you are driving down the road at 60 miles per hour and a car suddenly exits from a side street and stops directly in front of you. What do you do? Quickly apply the brake? Why? When you learned to drive a car, you consciously learned the function of the brake. This knowledge combined with other knowledge and the desire to avoid injury or death all instantly combined to create a mind-physical reflex in correspondence with antecedent knowledge and values held. This is primary subconscious at work. It is necessary for survival. Time does not allow for re-learning or reevaluation of prior beliefs where circumstance calls for immediate decisions and actions. Even in non-emergency situations, daily you perform hundreds, if not thousands, of tasks without conscious review of all relative knowledge and directive values.
If we put the car situation in the simplistic form of mind functions, we find the mental integrator in action. The mental integrator is a principle of the mind that integrates given premises and infers a logical conclusion consistent with the premises given. In the car instance, let's begin with the value of your life and the knowledge that a severe impact on the body can cause injury or death. In effect, the integrator takes this path: If I wish to live, then I must avoid severe impact of my body. Knowledge of brake function creates: If I wish the car to stop, then I must apply the brake.
The important thing here to see and grasp with confidence is that subconscious directives are very real, not mysterious, and always are a reflection of beliefs held either consciously or subconsciously. If the beliefs integrated are true, they will result in the proper response to produce the desired end result. If the beliefs integrated are false, the end results will not be as consciously preferred and expected.
While everyone uses this principle in many calculation actions, as they must do to survive, when the integrator infers a logical conclusion in conflict with dominant beliefs, the conclusion is oft denied, which is also denial of the integrator as a 100% consistent principle of the mind. To do this is to abandon the greatest safeguard against error that the mind can provide.
In the automobile example, the subconsciously held beliefs are a matter of antecedent and known conscious conclusions. This is not always the case. Many beliefs are created and held by subconscious mental integration without conscious deliberation. The situation of subconsciously creating and holding beliefs is a matter of mind principle and is ever-present from the cradle to the grave. Subconsciously created and subconsciously held beliefs by a human individual is by a mental method very similar to that of animals of the four-legged variety.
If you observe the actions of an animal such as a dog or a horse, you will see that the minds of these animals work very much like that of a human except for the fact that a human being can think in the abstract. By calculating in the abstract, I mean mental operation by which one can know the consequence of an action without taking it, i.e., the mental ability to deal with ideas and abstract representations. For instance, a dog may struggle with a board trying to carry it through a doorway, but can't know if the board will go through the doorway without trying it, by direct experience. Whereas, a human individual may tell just by looking, or certainly can by measurement with a tape measure without moving the board. The knowledge held by a four-legged critter such as a dog comes by three basic elements: Instinct, parental guidance, and experience. The knowledge registers as emotional impressions, but the "if-then" factor is still visible as determined by observing actions and counteractions. If a dog encounters some other animal, say a badger, and comes out on the very painful end of the conflict, this experience will register in the mind and integrate with instinctive values for future reference. Without a conscious determination, the experience results in: If I wish to avoid pain, then I must avoid the badger. This is belief by causal, or what is seen as causal, association. This same mental element can be found in a human individual in many instances. A humorous one is the superstition of "lucky hat", etc. If the person was wearing a particular hat at the winning of a ball game, it sometimes superstitiously becomes emotionally regarded as the cause, that is, there is an effort to duplicate the previous conditions of which the "lucky hat" was a part. That a person consciously knows better does not automatically eliminate the emotional "associated cause". A car dealer advertises a car with the decoration of a beautiful woman. Many products are promoted by celebrity movie or sports stars. These are but versions of "identity via association." These cons are highly visible, yet enjoy much success in the marketplace. Other than perhaps being induced to buy a product by influences other than its quality, no great harm is done. Other instances are often a great deal more serious. Beliefs by association without conscious deliberation are very real and often constitute very real problems in humans and other animals.
Other similarities of mind functions are highly visible. A dog can be named and learn his name. A dog can mentally abstract existents on the sensory level, categorize and learn commands without conscious effort and without awareness of self as a mortal entity. Whatever the circumstances involving knowledge by the mind, the "if-then" factor is in operation. Where the similarities end, identity begins. An animal's view of the world is restricted by the elements named above. The human ability to calculate in the abstract, to conceive ideas, to communicate via language, to believe without restrictions presents a far different mental and psychological situation.
Most are aware that a child's environment has much potential for influencing a person's beliefs and values for life. What is not so widely understood is the hows and whys of this situation. Recall that the mind works by differential reference. What one knows to be true acts as a defense against accepting fallacy that opposes known truth. What of the mind of a child that holds little knowledge and little defense against whatever fallacy may be heard or taught? When this is combined with the physical and psychological dependence of a child, the door is wide open for dominant beliefs and influences to be realized in every type of behavior imaginable.
It is not just a matter of conscious teachings, but the logical inference and subliminal directives that literally direct all the thinking and actions of the individual for their entire life. A child does not need to be told directly that he is "evil"; nor does he (she) require that "evil" be defined. It is simply emotionally attached to things and thoughts. If a thing done or not done is labeled as "evil", the child by association and conscious or subconscious mental integration evaluates self by his relationship to the designated "evil". A child does not need to be told directly that persons or a particular race or nationality are "inferior". He may hold such a belief and opinion from the subconscious integration of a passing remark or gesture. If by the conversation of his parents, a child concludes that intelligence is much valued, intelligence (though undefined like "evil") becomes a measure of self. If said parents give the impression that tying a shoelace is a mark of intelligence, and if the child is unable to tie a shoelace, it creates a negative impression of self. There is literally no limit to such incidents in a child's, or an adult's, life. In fact, undefined, emotionally held beliefs directing opinion, values, and value judgments often play a very large part in the view of self and interpersonal relationships on every level.
Subliminal directives and indirect instruction are all the more influential precisely because they are subliminal. There is no conscious awareness of exactly what is being taught, therefore no conscious evaluation and no conscious resistance. Tie a subliminal directive to the self value of a believer and it has more force than a thousand skilled orators arguing against it. A believer will pursue the directive even unto death none the wiser as to what or who is directing the motivating thoughts and consequent actions.
Think for a moment about the world you were born into and in which you now live; an earth mentally chopped up into "nations", "states", "governments", and "collective entities" of nationalities, race, whatever. Have you ever really questioned this? Have you analyzed it and found it all to be based on truth? Have you accepted all the beliefs that underlie this philosophical structure because your conscious mind found them to be true - or because "that's the way things are" and there can be nothing else? Have you considered these underlying directive beliefs and evaluated them in the context of your self value and personal goals? What's going on in your mind and other minds? How does thinking and mode of thought relate to your happiness or absence of it? What one believes to exist, to be true, is their concept of reality and their place in it. These determinations are made by thought. Mode of thought is a critical element in these determinations and decisions. It is of paramount importance to an individual to correctly identify them in order to act upon the real and achieve desired ends. What is involved in the necessary process? Is your thinking consistent with the principles of knowledge?
Let's begin the inquiry by observing a popular but fallacious notion dealing with the mind function of identifying an entity. I dare say that at least 99% of the population would say that they identify by both similarities and differences. Eyesight is a swift and proficient sense and the mind is so proficient at speed integration that it appears that differences and similarities are known simultaneously. This leads to the conclusion that identity is by both difference and similarity. Emotions fit this belief and there is a psychological resistance to accepting that which runs counter to the emotions. As demonstrated earlier in the epistemology chapter, these emotions do not conform to reality. Objective identity is by difference and difference only. If I can demonstrate this fact conclusively, would you accept it as principle and truth even though you still feel that its not true?
Bear in mind that when I speak of emotions influencing thinking and decisions, I am talking not just about the highly visible and obvious such as a murderer's mother believing that he is innocent. The influencing of which I speak is of a quiet and consciously unknown nature. It is actually incorporated in the dominant mode of thought itself, which makes it more difficult to recognize. One knows that it is emotional influence and emotionally held conclusion by observing the conflict with conclusions that your conscious mind tells you are true. The following will suffice as a primary illustration.
If you speak of the similarity of two entities, aren't you saying that you are aware of the two entities? Is it possible to know of the similarity before knowing that each of the entities exist? Forget the speed and efficiency of eyesight for a moment and focus upon principle as indicated by your own logical conclusions. Isn't it objective fact and principle that to note the similarities of two entities, one must first know that two entities exist? If identification of each entity is a pre-requisite to awareness of similarities, obviously similarity plays no part in objective identity. Does this make sense to you? What this is all about is to discipline thinking by principles and make correct objective identities in all areas of life. At first, emotions resist and it takes a conscious effort to keep thinking in line with the principles of identity. When the truth of identity becomes well set in the mind by thought and experience, then it become a matter of mental reflex with emotions corresponding. Many things that you once considered unquestionable truth, you will now see as obvious fallacy.
To further illustrate this most important point of identity by difference, imagine three large, identical cardboard cartons, each containing a kitchen appliance. The cartons are labeled A, B, and C. The appliances within are a food mixer, an electric cooking range, and a refrigerator. The task is to locate the refrigerator as a description of each appliance is given. Item A is metallic. Item B is metallic. Item C is metallic. Where is the is refrigerator? Item A is white. Item B is white. Item C is white. In which carton is the refrigerator? Item A operates on electricity. Item B operates on electricity. Item C operates on electricity. Where is the refrigerator? Item A has no compressor. Item B had no compressor. Item C has a compressor. Which item is the refrigerator?
I trust the point is made that an infinite list of similarities may be offered, but will not aid one iota in mentally abstracting and identifying an entity. Only when a compressor is added to the description of Item C, creating a different set of characteristics, is mentally abstracting and identifying possible. Identity by difference and only by difference is principle. This elementary, irrefutable, and all-important fact is psychologically dismissed by the idea of similarity as a fundamental of identity. The consequence of this is emotionally regarding a subjectively created, similarity-based category as an actual objective existent, i.e., mentally treating it as a real and causal entity. The category element is combined with other abstract mental inventions resulting in a philosophy of illusory "infinite entities" and "universal values." This philosophy, epistemology, and mode of thought is nearly universally accepted without question. Language usage attests to this regrettable fact. Constitutions, laws, books, speeches, and all elements of the media are saturated with non-identity and contradiction. By most, it is all blandly and blindly accepted without so much as a raised eyebrow. What "everybody knows" is not to be questioned. After all, didn't consensus of opinion make the earth flat?
The test above and any other valid test you can devise shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that objective identity is by difference and difference only. It also demonstrates a very important element of the mind: Emotions are the product of beliefs and conscious confrontation with facts that oppose those beliefs will not instantly dismiss the emotions although the conscious mind concludes that they are false. Which do you trust, your conscious mind or your feelings? The why of and the significance of this principle of identity by objective difference is a matter of life and death, for it is a matter of separating fact from fallacy. One acts upon what one believes to be true. If correct entity identity is not made by the principle of difference, then neither is the actual relationship(s) known and understood.
Awareness of subconscious and subliminal influence is hardly a new discovery. Advertisers and politicians have been playing to this fact for a very long time, but only in a most superficial manner. What is most ironic about this is that the advertisers and politicians are apparently completely oblivious to the subconsciously held beliefs and subliminal influences that direct their own thinking even as they consciously attempt to direct the thinking and choices of others. They are completely unaware that their parameters of thought are confined by the subconscious directives of dominant beliefs.
Let's look at another example of the quiet and subconscious resistance to the status quo and sacred ideas. A few paragraphs above I stated: ".... the above recognition of principle and non-principle clearly differentiates and clearly presents two choices in modes of thought: A - conscious adherence to the principles of identity as described above and B - abandonment of these principles to an imaginary infinite entity. Since no one is omniscient and infallible, strict adherence to A, the principles of epistemology, does not mean that one's conclusions will be correct 100% of the time. However, abandonment of these principles does mean that one will be wrong 100% of the time in this mode of thought."
Before any testing, let's look at the claim and evaluate it as a hypothesis. If there are two modes of thought and one mode is certain to produce error, would it be of value to you to know this mode that you may avoid it, and thereby avoid certain error? How much value? Even if the odds are a trillion to one against the claim being true, would its value if true warrant investigation and testing?
Obviously, if true, the value of such knowledge is incalculable. Yet, if I presented this idea to a thousand persons, it is doubtful if even one would grasp the significance of the claim and expend the time and effort to test it. Actually, the idea is very easy to test and confirm as true. First, observe that literally every thing you accomplish every day depends upon mentally abstracting a limited entity by difference. You distinguish your hat from your coat, your auto from another auto, your house from another house, your self from other individuals, by limitation and difference. From the simplest task to the most scientifically complex, literally every identity and accomplishment is irrevocably linked to the principles of epistemology and the fact that identity, that is, knowledge of any aspect of reality, is a matter of differentiation. To be sure, there are many beliefs held of gods, ghosts, disembodied spirits, and phantasmagoria of every "non-description", but no validation is ever forthcoming, nor will there ever be. This also applies to the endless list of "infinite entities" and revered abstracts called people, nation, society, majority, minority, public, ad infinitum. I submit that no one ever has or ever will find an exception to the principles of identity via limitation and difference. So, why the total disregard and de facto denial of such important knowledge? What underlies this absolute resistance, this quiet and subconscious instant rejection without consideration?
The answer is highly visible, indeed, covers the earth. The principles of epistemology denounce as fallacy any and all, expressed or implied, "infinite entity" beliefs and ALL beliefs derived therefrom. At least 99.9% of the world population not only subscribe to some infinite entity belief, their entire view of the world, especially view of self and self value are totally psychologically dependent upon the infinite entities belief. This has been so throughout all known time. The beliefs and consequent circumstances are so constant and so nearly universal, that these beliefs and conditions register in the mind (conscious and subconscious) as absolute. There is no alternative to an absolute and the mind cannot envision a "counter absolute", even if the beliefs held as absolute are false. Ergo, the principles of epistemology that oppose these totally dominant beliefs cannot exist in the mind of a believer. In such minds, there is no alternative, and, therefore, nothing to consider and investigate. Of course, such believers have no idea of the why of their default rejection of principles; for they have little or no understanding of their mind. The dominant beliefs themselves preclude the examination of the mind - unless one strongly wills it otherwise and makes the effort. Can any single endeavor be more important in an individual's life?
Another major element in influencing thinking is authority. In this concept, fact and fiction become so entangled in so many ways for so long, that they tend to blur together with all "authority" emotionally considered to be fact. As a matter of necessity, we all begin our lives under parental authority. Then comes school and the authority teacher from which we learn. We encounter proficient authorities in many fields further embedding the idea of authority as synonymous with truth. Encompassing all of this is the ever-present authority of "government" and all of the derivative "authorities". Is it any wonder that subordination of the conscious mind to authority is so easily and so casually accepted? Most spend their entire lives, not deciding what to believe, but WHO to believe; indeed, often making a god or goddess of their favorite guru. In this state of mind, they are easily offended if one disagrees with the opinion of their discovered "superior being". They are emotionally unable to discern the difference between a criticism of a particular belief and a personal attack upon their deity. Thus do they set their beliefs as immune to criticism. They succumb to the revered and "unquestionable". "Authority" is their epistemology, not their own conscious mind.
Colleges and universities crank out experts and authorities at a rapid pace. They are accredited knowledge commensurate with degrees awarded. Sometimes rightly so and we would do well to heed their conclusions and advice in many instances. Other "degreed authorities" raise some very large questions. Although not perfect by any stretch, by and large, knowledge claimed by medical doctors, biologists, engineers, etc., is validated by application producing the intended results. Can we truthfully say the same about claimed knowledge of those holding degrees in theology, sociology, political science, philosophy, and other such subjects? Also, let us not forget the expert economists who play word games with illusory gross national product, ignore subjective value as market principle, and fail to define money and its role in the marketplace. To be rather blunt, other than in the technical areas, the professors and instructors in colleges and universities are unknowingly engaged in trying to standardize error.
No matter. They are all called authorities and few there be who think to challenge the idea of putting theology and the like on an academic parallel with the sciences. Nor does anyone seem to notice that degrees earned in medicine, engineering, and other tech based studies are earned only by adhering to the principles of epistemology, whereas degrees in theology, philosophy, economics (and others) are "earned" only by denying the principles of epistemology. Of course, in these institutions of authority, the principles are not recognized as they would rudely disturb the cherished status quo of authority by decree and deception.
In support of all the "authorities by decree" is the unofficial but much revered authority, "consensus of opinion". In a philosophical environment based on "higher powers" and subordination of the individual mind to the alleged higher power, mass opinion wields massive influence on the minds of most individuals. If nearly all hold certain sacred ideas, it follows that much influence rejects out of hand anything that opposes. To grasp the measure of the psychological resistance to the principles of epistemology, let's look at a partial list of what these principles oppose and declare to be fallacy.
"God's" will, life proper to man, the will of the people, the values of society, national interest, for the good of the community, public welfare, majority rule, natural rights, human rights, state's rights, federal rights, minority rights, public welfare, constitutional rights, objective morality, gross national product, family values, America's children, on and on and on. - Psychological saturation. These revered illusions have been around for centuries and all the violence and bloodshed derived from them has induced few to reexamine their premises. There is no doubt that the psychological dependency on these beliefs is near total and it is most unlikely that any argument will persuade many to take a new look. How ironic it is that millions feel that they cannot live without these beliefs, when in fact, the very things that they fear and consciously seek to prevent are the inevitable consequence of these revered fallacies.
Although these beliefs come under a wide variety of labels and claims, psychologically and epistemologically, they are all the same. The common denominators are hard to miss. First, in abandoning the principles of epistemology, the actual identity, human individual, is emotionally dismissed in deference to an expressed or implied "infinite entity". The epistemological and psychological effect is that real human individual is declared non-existent. Certainly, everyone is absolutely certain that they recognize human individual as real, but their thoughts, conclusions, and actions contradict the claim. The "infinite entity", under whatever label and claim, is explicitly or implicitly posited as a superior being to which the deposed and denied individual is subordinated. Real individual goals are now denied as each individual is effectively declared to be the means to a "universal goal". (Which, of course, is actually the goal of each believer hiding from self while seeking to collectivize all under his (her) personal beliefs and preferences.)
Since all ideas of "infinite entities", expressed or implied, are psychologically and epistemologically the same in that they deny identity and subordinate real individual to an expressed or implied omni-superior-being, for sake of utility, I refer to one or all as the god concept. "God's will", will of the people, and all other such ideas that express or imply an omni-entity of volition and creator of value. The alleged values are consciously or unconsciously believed to exist independently of any human individual creating them. In other words, these alleged values are said to be discovered and objective as opposed to being individually created and subjective. The concept, objective value, is diametrically opposed to the reality that values are subjectively created and attributed by each individual. No exceptions. There are no objective values or "natural standards" of any type anywhere. How could there be in the reality of human individual and unqualified natural volition?
If you believe that "the ways things are" is derived from unquestionable truth, then you accept the conditions as determined by nature and there is nothing you or anyone can do about it. On the other hand, if you suspect something may be wrong at the core and make the effort to think independently AND trust your own conscious mind, then a critical look at "the way things are" and why they are may culminate in a far different perspective than the one you now hold.
Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England,
1997
Permission in hereby granted to copy this work for personal
use or for FREE distribution provided that the work is copied or distributed in
its entirety and that this copyright notice accompanies each copy.
