Skip to content

Preface

Why bother with “mind” and “Logic”?

Behind any transgression is a mind whose ability to introspect, reflect, reason, evaluate, judge, and decide is under-developed, impaired, or both. Given that the human mind is both under-developed and impaired, the life we experience is seldom, if ever, free of transgressions.

The world I was born into had fallen into the pit of a Great Depression in between two devastating world wars. Three years into the second war it was by no means certain that the good guys would win. But even if they didn’t humanity would have carried on. That’s not a given any more. The same human mind that makes of life one uninterrupted transgression has put everything at risk with global warming.

When will minds change? When bodies tell them to. That’s not true for everyone but global politics seems to confirm it. Minds will change not when common sense prevails but when physical discomfort and limbic emotions trigger an instinctive fight-or-flight response. When the animal is rousted out of its cave or jungle lair to defend itself. The response of an animal threatened, not logic comprehending.

Why do my essays tire readers with abstruse philosophizing about irrelevance and impracticality when the enemy is at the gate? Why bother with “mind” and “logic” when it’s action we need? Why am I hunkered down in metaphysics, fussing with what’s beneath the surface of things, instead of answering the call to duty from the front lines?

Centuries of learning and we’re still not getting it right

It seems because my mind is answering another call: the call from Logic. A call I could refuse since it would violate Logic if I couldn’t. But I don’t. The impaired mind that’s behind all our transgressions – world wars, depressions, global warming, and the rest – betrays one compelling attribute: the absence of Logic. Why? Because Logic says in its situation humanity clearly needs guidance and it’s misled. Misled not necessarily by a malevolent guide, though certainly it may seem that way. But by not getting something right about humanity’s situation.

We’ve poured centuries of effort into learning,. Nearly every field of inquiry has made impressive gains. Yet who would argue that the promise of all these gains has been realized? That gains on the horizon will do any more than ease a task or extend life? Logic says humanity will still be misled, that it will need to end its resistance to Logic and open up to possibilities that it so far won’t consider.

Why trouble ourselves?

The essay that follows addresses one possibility: that humanity’s situation is not what it appears to be – literally. Instead of the hard-and-fast reality our senses make of it our situation is an illusion. A dream. A prospect that intrigues more of us privately, I suspect, than we let on publicly. But judging from the general mood most don’t want to go there. See no reason to go there. If humanity’s calamities have so far passed them by; if its situation seems real enough and it hasn’t brought about the end-of-days for everyone – not yet – why trouble ourselves?

If you’re of this opinion my essays won’t trouble you. You’ll neither get what our situation is telling us nor what I’m trying to get across about our situation. That if we change our minds about it; if we are willing to suppose that there’s another Reality that’s Real; that ours isn’t; realizing the difference may bring about the change in humanity’s thinking that its situation calls for.

To open minds to the right guide: to Logic

What it may accomplish is the opening of minds to Logic. To replacing the body-centered guide -- a perversion of ourselves, the caricature I call the Joker – that’s been misleading us with what our situation has needed all along: a mind-centered guide not misled and distracted by our material world of appearances.

The task my thoughts seem intent on is to help replace the wrong guide with the right guide. Will this “solve problems?” If the switch is made Logic tells me it could eventually solve everything. For minds only willing to change if bodies, in a state of discomfort and inflamed limbic emotions, tell them to change, aren’t just blocking progress. They’re threatening the survival of our species. They’re ultimately behind our planet’s Anthropocene mass extinction that may engulf us.

Minds guided by Logic won’t need to wait for existential threats. For narrow self-interests to be catered to before the interests of community come into play,. Won’t need to agonize over insanities and atrocities one after the other, like world wars, depressions, and global warming. Like stupidities that interfere with basic functions of governance that should be taken for granted. When we should pride ourselves on the stability of civilization instead of being mortified by its frailty.

“Dark matter” shouldn’t be a metaphor for “dark ages.” But with Logic still blocked by body-centered thinking; by every field of inquiry still captive to sensory perception; by humanity’s not getting its situation right, that’s where we may be headed. The flip side of the possibility this essay is about.

To marry science to Logic

What follows is hard on physics. Not because it hasn’t acquitted itself well but because it has. It doesn’t seem to realize just how well. Its brilliant discoveries put humanity on the threshold of a new paradigm, one that finally grasps the illusory nature of its physical surroundings and their inherent illogic. So that a mind-centered reflective humanity, duly aware of its precarious situation, can finally adjust its inquiries, its expectations, and priorities, in philosophy, psychology, and theology, to a new Reality. To understanding that ends ambiguity, ends ambivalence, and promises a more hopeful outcome.

I love science. But I also love Logic. What, then, is this and other essays trying to accomplish? What is my book in progress, The Story of the Child, trying to accomplish? To bring them together. To change minds so that, finally, in this generation or the next, or maybe the one after that, we can solve problems. Without waiting for bodies and limbic emotions to get around to it. When it’s too late.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Is Dark Matter Telling Us?

The invincibility of sensory perception is no more

Dark matter is credited by physics with holding the universe together and making life possible. And yet it’s undetectable. Undetectable by our bodies' senses that all of science and mainstream philosophy, psychology, and theology swear by to distinguish between what’s real and what’s speculation. This is why dark matter is “dark”: to science it’s indisputably real and yet it isn’t. So are quanta, microscopic particles that aren’t always detectable, sometimes “entangled,” flouting the laws of physics with “superposition.” “Spooky” to Einstein rather than dark, but still a mystery that needs to be explained.

Dark matter is telling us that sensory perception is not the authority that it’s made out to be on what’s real. Its reputation is undeserved, its invincibility shattered. What’s real is no longer automatically assumed to be that which can be “proven” by senses. The door is now open to Mind. To Logic and Intuition where Logic has its home in the human mind.

Contradictory realities are not a logical possibility

Dark matter is telling us that our world and its universe are unreal. Because the only possible explanation for the unquestioned “reality” of something undetectable and therefore logically unreal, in a universe of appearances assumed to be real, is that the universe of appearances is unreal. A reality of un-appearance within a universe of appearance logically contradicts the reality of appearance. Only one can be real.

Contradictory realities are not a logical possibility. Either undetectable dark matter is real or detectable appearances are real, but not both. If the Logic of physics absolutely requires that undetectable dark matter be real then it must concede that detectable appearances are not real.

The universe of appearances along with its contradictory anti-matter / dark matter must be an illusion, its pose of reality undone by the logical necessity of reconciling opposites: matter and anti-matter. By acknowledging the rule of Logic that governs everything: everything has an implied opposite and of two opposites whose existence contradicts the other only one can be real. Everything that Is must have an implied opposite that isn’t. If anti-matter or its altered-state “dark matter” that’s undetectable can’t “exist” without contradicting a reality that must consist of detectable appearances, then either dark matter or appearances must go.

The challenge that dark matter presents to science is by no means unique or unprecedented. Quantum mechanics presents the same challenge on the same scale, because every corner of the universe of spacetime and matter that harbors dark matter is flooded with mysterious quanta, too. But while our minds can ignore microscopic particle behavior, they can’t ignore a cosmos in full view every night that fascinates. And now “dark matter” that’s woven into the very fabric of perception, essential to who we are and every living thing, is present and yet not present. A state that, for a field of inquiry that prides itself on rigorous “realism,” must be disconcerting if not intolerable.

Absent Now, absent Reality

As obvious as it must be that our universe of quantum mechanics and dark matter is an illusion it can’t compare with the evidence of Einstein’s special relativity. His stunning insight that, here, in this strange place, it is never Now. We occupy a bizarre category of time: “an ‘intermediate zone,’ an ‘extended present’; a zone that is neither past nor future.”

“Just now” does not exist. . . . In physics . . . “spacetime” (is) the set of all past and future events, but also those that are “neither-past-nor-future”; these do not form a single instant: they have a duration. . . . The present is like the flatness of Earth: an illusion. . . . saying “here and now” makes sense, but. . . saying “now” to designate events “happening now” throughout the universe makes no sense. (Carlo Rovelli, Reality Is Not What It Seems (2017, pp. 71-76)

Our “intermediate zone” is a twilight zone. if we could occupy “now” it would transplant us into a Reality and state of mind wholly unlike ours. That physics has sat on this discovery for over a century without acknowledging the doubt it casts on the reality of spacetime and matter is as stunning as the discovery itself. Compelling affirmation for DNA scientist James D. Watson’s admission that “a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.” (The Double Helix (1968, p. 14)

Does physics not stand face-to-face with revelation without recognizing what it’s looking at? Without minds being changed? If it’s not Now then we occupy a dream, an Alice-in-Wonderland where all manner of strange things happen. Where we go about our business as though, as Ivan Karamazov would put it, “everything is lawful.” Dostoevsky’s character ended his part in The Brothers Karamazov with “brain fever.” Fitting diagnosis for a physics taking its cues from Rod Serling in its Twilight Zone.

“The stuff that dreams are made of”

Rovelli observes that Einstein’s general relativity offers “a glimpse of reality . . . that seems to be made of the same stuff our dreams are made of but is nevertheless more real than our clouded daily dreaming.” (op cit. p. 90) If so, dark matter must account for a very large part of the stuff. Is it a stretch to carry the thought one step farther? To theorize that it is a dream?

What could possibly explain it if the “reality” of physics can’t? What supplies Logic when the logic of matter can’t explain matter that won’t meet the definition of matter? How and why is the rationale for physics falling short? Where is the flaw in its Logic? Because circumstantial evidence for the existence of dark matter is irrefutable. It’s there. What could explain it if physics can’t? What premise of physics’ “realism” is leading our thinking astray? How did physics come to be unrealistic?

Where matter ends, Mind has always been there

One theoretical possibility is that our universe of spacetime and matter is not real. It’s the stuff that dreams are made of because it may be a dream. A premise we won’t hear from physics because an entire profession, an entire field of inquiry going back to classical antiquity, is conscience-bound to deny it. Trapped by the boundaries of its context, Immobilized by limitations placed on logic, and unable to navigate. Stuck in the finiteness of its own making and of no further use in this phase of our journey. That requires another mind that thinks, another logic that navigates, another vision that can see. With no less rigor and discipline than minds guided by the senses but now minds guided by thought. By everything that Logic is and does.

If the universe is a dream and dark matter proves it, what then explains it? What is its logic? What produces dreams? Minds do. Minds that are unconscious. Asleep. How and why did our universe – and maybe many more – come to be the subject of a dream by an unconscious Mind? What other explanation could there be for what preceded the Big Bang? The physicist Roger Penrose (Cycles of Time, 2010) has postulated that the universe was preceded by an earlier universe and questioned assumptions about singularities, the Big Bang, and the need for quantum gravity. But even if he’s right, where did all this stuff that dreams are made of come from?

Physics that leaves off where matter leaves off can’t answer by definition. The laws of science take us to the brink and leave off just as they do with the origin of what we experience as life. Where matter ends Mind must have been there all along. Not just before the universe of spacetime and matter appears but all the while that we, our bodies’ senses, have been witnessing it. Our senses assuring us that, yes, it’s happening, it’s real, when all they’re attesting to is themselves. Matter on the witness stand testifying to its own presence, as if this were enough. As if this were not a conflict of interest. Circular reasoning. A logical absurdity.

Mind and its miscreation that made unreality real

So who is this Mind and what is its story? How did it lose consciousness? Why would it project itself into a dream of physics so bizarre that physics itself can’t make sense of it? If it ever was in possession of its senses how did it conjure a dream so senseless, so disfigured by grotesque contradictions, as our world? If it was ever in a safe place how did it come to imagine itself in a place so precarious, savage, and depraved, as ours?

The answer that human speculation has assumed over the ages is that something went wrong. Dark suspicions that it was our fault, rooted in our wounded psyches, have insinuated themselves into our culture, contaminated our souls, and condemned us to lives on the cross of victimhood. As though what happened there must be of the same ambiguity and profanity as what happens here. In the “dark matter” of the human mind. As though the “laws” that produce chaos and entropy here must rule there.

The “story” of the Mind that’s dreaming, that the dream itself has so far produced, alienates the scientific mind for a reason. It’s nuts. Why admit philosophy, psychology, and theology into physics if they can’t do any better than this?

The story, once it’s cut free from the dream, once it’s freed from the laws of chaos and is allowed to access Logic, makes sense. It’s plausible, supported by the implications of Logic going all the way back to the beginning. To where there was Logic and human thought and feeling can go no farther. And, yes, something did go wrong. It wasn’t anticipated or intentional because logically it couldn’t Be.

Venturing into the unknown, into the unexpected, is ingrained in the Worth of Creation. And if something went wrong, a circumstance unanticipated or unintended, then the result wouldn’t be wrongdoing; it would be miscreation. Miscreation that could throw Mind out of the Reality of Creation into another reality, by rendering it unconscious. To prevent the Force of consciousness that animates new life from animating what doesn’t belong. It’s a state of mind familiar to us. But since we’re conditioned to associate bodies with matter instead of mind we miss its significance: its capacity to dream. To make unreality seem very real.

Who can help fix what went wrong?

Our world is plausibly the result of miscreation caused by Mind rendered unconscious by the nature of Creation. By circumstances that are part of its normal process and structure. Miscreation that carries no trace of wrongdoing, by commission or omission. A circumstance or event that caused an unintended effect, no more than an unavoidable gap in Knowledge. Logical within the context of what was known and so not an intentional violation of Logic. A gap in Knowledge, in Awareness, that isn’t and can’t be “all-knowing,” but is evolving. If it has any part in Creation how could it be otherwise?

The gap in Knowledge quite logically may be our privilege, our honor, to help fix. Instead of milling about aimlessly in our primordial soup of amino acids, waiting for a bolt of lightning to save us, maybe we have a purpose. And maybe it isn’t beyond comprehension. Maybe we have a job to do, to get us back to the job Mind was about before something went wrong. That is, if we can ever break free from the tyranny of appearances, of sensory perception.

Another take on sensory perception from dark matter

What does it imply about dark matter if our universe isn’t real? If it actually is a dream? Two opposite states can’t co-exist in Reality. If the existence of one thing implies the existence of its opposite the Logic of Governance decrees that only one can be real. Reality-Creation wouldn’t be governable, couldn’t hold together, otherwise.

When matter and anti-matter showed up at the beginning of our universe, only one could be real. Thus the mystery of what became of anti-matter. Thus speculation that there are other universes where anti-matter may dominate instead of matter. Anti-matter here became unreal. And yet, as we’ve all learned about opposites, they may only be shadows but they don’t go away.

How does something unreal fit into the logic, the nature, of an environment that’s already unreal? That’s made up of appearances. By disappearing. By breaking with unreality’s general rule that if a thing is to exist it must be part of appearances. Must be part of the illusion, the dream. Anti-matter forced into a state of unreality within a state that’s already unreal, logically had to become invisible. To become undetectable to the body’s senses.

For it’s sensory perception that’s relied upon to certify the “reality” of matter and to exclude all else. The same source that physics relies upon to certify the reality of matter cancels the reality of anti-matter by making it undetectable. And in so doing gives dark matter the only place it can occupy logically in an unreal universe: the darkness of undetectability.

In the other Reality creations are made real by the Consciousness of Mind – by Mind’s Awareness – relying on the Authority of Logic responsible for governance. In our world, matter that’s unreal is made real by minds relying on the body’s senses. Anti-matter could not register with sensory perception, be made real, and still occupy a place in the universe alongside matter. Two opposites cannot co-exist. Anti-matter had to yield, and where it’s to be accounted for is dark matter – unreality in an unreal universe.

Another take on physics from dark matter

Everything is defined by Logic according to what it is and what it does. Its central attribute is its use in the Reality of Creation. Because Creation itself is use: the purpose and meaning of its context, to take a stand for Worth. When its logical opposite is worthlessness, synonym for nothingness, statelessness. To be part of the Reality of Creation is to be put to work creating, affirming, and reciprocating Worth. The Worth of Being-Life and therefore the Worth of Creation itself. Is to have a role defined and assigned by the Logic of Governance to a place in the interconnected network of roles and relationships that make up Reality. That Create.

Physics defines dark matter by what it does. It has a use. But physics so far has no idea of what it is. It won’t consider the possibility that it’s anti-matter made unreal and therefore undetectable because to do so would expose the unreality of physics. The fact that by its sacred and inviolate premise, that matter is real, it makes of itself one part science and one part religion. Like the universe: one part sanity, the other spooky. An inquisition in the form of bodies’ senses condemning doubters with verdicts of blasphemy, with heresy that warrants excommunication.

Hypotheses to rescue physics from its cloud

Physics might understand dark matter, quantum mechanics, and maybe even quantum gravity with only one change in its process; if it allowed itself to hypothesize that matter is unreal. To hypothesize that the universe is the stuff that dreams are made of because it may be a dream. More “real” certainly than “our clouded daily dreaming,” but, for all its vastness and seeming consequence, still a cloud. Physics might also do well with another hypothesis: that matter is relational to Mind.

The science, Logic, and limits of hypothesizing

Science distances itself from philosophy, psychology, and theology because they’re perceived to be casual with facts and Logic compared to the rigor and discipline of science. To its “iron rule” extolled by Michael Strevens in The Knowledge Machine (2020). Their comfort with different hypothesized realities is perceived to be unprofessional and inexcusable, hardly less so than the “alternate facts” of politics.

What reality does science recognize as inalterably fixed in place if not that which answers to its self-interest? If not captive to bodies whose minds can and do question it.

Physics’ premise that matter must be real puts an artificial limit on its ability to hypothesize. Its premise that it must not yield to philosophy, the field of inquiry concerned with reality, limits its ability to interpret. Its premise that metaphysics, the search beyond appearances to their essence, is similarly non-grata, deprives if of the very attribute that its subject – appearances – demands. Insisting that its subject is real while depriving itself of the ability to consider another point of view is unscientific. It’s not just advocacy for self-interest, the usual pitfall for human logic. Given the lofty aims of science’s “quest for knowledge,” it’s unjustifiable.

Hypothesizing that matter isn’t real, that our universe is an illusion, needn’t be motivated by an alien cause when it’s amply justified by physics’ own discoveries. What is dark matter telling us? It may not be telling so much as mocking. The mask of the Joker, our opposite self, looking back at us with wry amusement because, by our own instrument of measurement, our bodies’ senses, the force of nature we put our faith in to hold the universe together and make life possible – dark matter – is nothing. The Joker's signature. The universe is a cup only half full, and what to make of it? That the cosmos is divinity as Plato thought, and maybe the deist Einstein, too? Or a fraud: something promised that can never deliver, like the simplicity and elegance of a calculation that eluded Einstein to the end. The unifying theory of quantum gravity that eludes physicists still.

Where and when does Reason take over and rationalizing end?

The implications of Logic are to be followed, not controlled

Who defines Reality? Is it science? Theology? Philosophy? Psychology? Or would it be Logic itself? Are we not dependent on Logic’s big picture to guide us, since not one of us has the big picture? Can our self-interests take precedence over the roles and relationships that Logic manages with its definitions and implications? Over the self-interest of Being, the stance of Life? The harmony that is the Reality of Creation?

Would the implications of Logic ever go along to get along and yet remain “logical”? Would they yield to the influence of their patrons? Are they ready to perform tricks at the crack of a whip? Is science that’s baffled by quantum mechanics and dark matter not pleased with the tricks its domesticated and trained “logic” performs? Is further domestication and training the remedy? Can matter already enshrined in reality be domesticated and trained some other way? Appeased? Placated?

Or has the time come for science, philosophy, psychology, and theology all to seriously consider a different Truth, the one their cramped self-interest has been avoiding? The Truth that the implications of Logic, the Free Spirit of Inquiry, are to be followed, not controlled.

If quantum mechanics and dark matter imply that matter may not be real, that there may some better, more logical theory to explain the universe and life than the one that’s failing us, then this is a fact that we had best acknowledge. If we don’t acknowledge it, this becomes another fact with its own implications that must be acknowledged. The more we misperceive, the more we will misjudge.

Logic governs us or we are not governed. We don't define Logic: it defines us. Build this reality into our self-interest and see what happens to misperceptions and misjudgments. Not when matter changes to fit our paradigms but when minds change to fit Logic.

The self-interest of Logic is infinitely inclusive

The geologic forces uplifting democracy and the Truth are more powerful by far than the forces that would suppress them. Logic’s definitions write the rules. Reality and Creation require Governance. Governance from the bottom up. Governance that derives its meaning, purpose, and motivation from circumstances on the ground, from ever-changing contexts that form the process and structure of evolution. From Creation, the extension and expansion of Life. The Choice, affirmation, and reciprocation of Worth. All of it driven by inexorable force: the Implications of Logic that can never end, that will find a way through and around any insane, illusory obstacle placed in their path. The force of ever-changing contexts and the implications of Logic called upon to manage and govern the Reality of Creation.

The implications of Logic can’t be set in motion toward Reality and Truth by insisting that motion begin with an arbitrarily exclusive self-interest. If Logic has self-interest it would be infinitely inclusive; its evolution through Creation would encompass Everything now and Everything to come.

Physics cannot legitimately aim its inquiries in a logical direction if self-interest demands that an open philosophical issue – the reality of matter, the body’s senses and its sensed environment -- be excluded. Can’t succeed if one profession is contented with things the way they are, sees no reason to inquire further, and doesn’t want to be inconvenienced. Isn’t open to questioning the Logic behind its shaky premises, the source of its confusion.

Logic doesn’t limit itself in its questioning. It doesn’t question only that which won’t inconvenience the questioner. It’s a free spirit whose implications must be followed wherever they lead.

Parting with Logic is parting with Reality

If energy that produces particles isn’t under the direction of Mind, if Force isn’t an agent rather than its own source, then there can be no order, structure, or discipline to Reality-Creation. There would be no purpose, meaning, or sense to it. There would be no Logic, no Governance.

The object of metaphysics is to establish not only provenance but intent. Without intent there is no order, no point; nothing is accomplished. The “quest for knowledge” is the quest for intent that can only come from Mind.

Walling off the free spirit of inquiry walls off both Mind and Logic. Logic is Free. To get it right its practitioners must follow wherever it leads. Is physics following where dark matter’s implications lead? Parting with Logic is parting with Reality.

Force turned against Logic by Mind that’s unconscious

The exhortations of physics to remain disciplined in its premises would be laudable if its search for answers didn’t call its premises into question. The mind that imagines:

• that Logic is its agent and will do what it’s told
• that it may only accept premises, posit hypotheses, weigh considerations, and present findings that meet its host’s definition of what’s practical, useful, relevant, and “realistic” rather than its own
• that the spirit of inquiry must be denied its freedom lest it uncover inconvenient truths

must be a mind that’s unconscious and dreaming, in mortal conflict with itself. It must be mindless. For it denies itself the most elementary understanding of Logic:

• that it can be no one’s agent
• that all thought, all feeling, begins with Logic
• that its implications must lead where they will or fail to lead at all
• that its source must connect of its own will to what it delivers
• that cause must connect of its own will to effect or it can be neither source nor cause.

Logic cannot be owned, possessed, controlled, or dominated by any influence and still Be the purpose and meaning that is its own source, its own Logic.

Energy in service to Logic -- Force that gives thoughts their consequences, causes their effects, implications their interconnections -- cannot be turned against Logic by Mind whose thoughts and feelings align with Logic, seek harmony, and Create with the protection, support, and authority of its Governance. By a mind that’s Conscious: thinking, feeling, evaluating, and judging.

Force can only be turned against Logic by a mind that’s not conscious. By a mind that’s unconscious. By mind corrupted by the thought of separation, by the act of projection, by the insanity that produced the dream: the insane hallucination that is our incomprehensible body-sensed world. A world seeming to make sense on a human scale that degenerates into bizarre nonsense on any other scale.

The false innocence of victimhood in a shared world

Force can only be turned against Logic by the endless conflict that is our tormented internal world. Why do our minds not see this? Why do they refuse to see it? Because the unconscious mind that projected them has deluded itself. Imagines that Logic is dead, replaced by a substitute more favorable to its interests because it can be controlled. Because instead of divining purpose and meaning from circumstances with Logic, from the bottom up, it can get by with a formula imposed from the top down. Mindlessly -- without thought or feeling, without mind or Logic at all. Because if Logic is dead mind and all its functions must be unnecessary. It must be dead as well.

This would be the “governing” agent of our incomprehensible, tormented world: corrupted mind that has taken dead aim at Logic. At Governance itself. Mindlessness. This is the mind of science that imagines that it can be and do whatever it wants because it owns its subject. Because the source, protection, and authority that should be its guide has been made its captive, possessed. A state logically impossible either for the free spirit of Inquiry or for the free spirit of Love.

And so neither is with us. Neither Love nor Logic nor the reciprocity that holds Interconnectedness in place -- the Reality and Creation, the Home, that unconscious mind, a stranger to the Truth, yearns to return to. Home that it will never find until it lets go of delusion. Lets go of the insanity of ownership, possession, control, and dominance, the false innocence of victimhood, in a shared world. Until it chooses of its own free will to be guided by Logic. Until it regains Consciousness and sanity.

Two Necessities of Logic

Parents in the other Reality function within the Necessity of its Logic: that opposites must be unreal. Therefore, they cannot make unreality real. Necessity also requires that they do everything to preserve their Child’s Free Will. Why? Because it’s essential to Creation’s affirmation of Worth. Essential because the Worth of anything can’t be determined without its being freely chosen. By a stakeholder invested in it. Because Creation is Worth and its opposite is worthlessness, gravity that pulls all of us and our universe into the black hole of the void.

Another Necessity of Logic: to be free, choice must be conscious of a range of possibilities, those that are known, available, and not arbitrarily excluded. The Child may not share the Parents’ power of Consciousness to make Creations Real because its unconsciousness is a possibility. The consequences of unconsciousness can’t be anticipated or known to Reality-Consciousness because they are unreal.

Two Necessities are thus built into Logic’s definition of who the Child’s Parents are and what they do:

(1) Do not make unreality real, therefore do not be Conscious of opposites or their possibility.
(2) Preserve and protect the Child’s Free Will.

These are givens in Reality. But within the Child’s state of unconsciousness and compromised Free Will, where we appear to be, they are not.

Two corresponding imperatives are implied by their unreality-opposites:

(1) Make unreality real
(2) Compromise free will by taking Child-mind captive.

Two forces that block human progress

There can be no tension between Being and non-being over conflicting imperatives in the harmony of Reality governed by Logic. But in the unreality that is our world, corrupted by the dream of opposites made real by an unconscious mind, the tension is constant and, at times, unbearable. It is the fallout of Logic’s rule that opposites must be unreal, the price to be paid by an unconscious Child for a logical impossibility: Being without the shadow code of non-being, its illusory opposite.

Forces that block human progress are mainly those that (1) make unreality real and (2) compromise the Child’s / humanity’s Free Will. What are dark matter, quantum mechanics, and never-Now telling us?

(1) that science that insists that spacetime-matter is real in the face of evidence to the contrary is deluded by Being’s shadow code opposite. By the Joker. “Questing for knowledge” instead of searching for Reality and Truth is making unreality real.

(2) that science that disrupts the free flow of Logic’s implications, that attempts to control the Free Spirit of Logic that is the source of the Child’s Free Will, is undermining Free Choice essential to the Creation, Affirmation, and Reciprocation of Worth, the purpose of Creation. It is compromising the Child’s and humanity’s Free Will.

Harsh lesson from a “wonderful world”

Physics hypothesizing that the universe may be unreal can make better sense of particle superposition, never-Now, dark matter, and other strangeness by assuming that the “other Reality” is governed by Logic and our unreality is not. By assuming that our world is ruled instead by Logic’s opposite: a reverse mirror-image caricature of everything that makes sense. In other words, the two worlds are exact opposites and it’s ours that bears the face of the Joker, not the other.

Protests from diehards who prefer Louis Armstrong or Walt Disney rhapsodizing about our “wonderful world” must inevitably account for the calculations of quantum mechanics. Those that unfailingly validate the lack of cooperation from particles -- particles that prefer the permissiveness of Bohr’s stewardship to the strict discipline of Einstein. If particles, time, and dark matter refuse to accommodate wishful thinking about an orderly universe then perhaps it’s time we changed our thinking. Time we paid attention to what they’re trying to tell us, face the possibility of another Truth, and accommodate them.

Would it inconvenience physics? Sure! Did it inconvenience Big Tobacco to resist the truth about its product? Does it inconvenience the fossil fuel industry to come clean about its product? Didn’t the Church eventually have to own up to the harm done by its Inquisition and pedophilia?

Could physics, in the intractability of its own misperceptions sanctified by its “quest for knowledge,” have produced its own demographic of victims needing reparation? A humanity not so much duped by appearances as ignoring them? A humanity facing extinction because it prefers the laws of chaos sanctioned by science to the laws of cause and effect?

The Joker mocking us from dark matter, never-Now, and errant particles may have a harsh lesson to relate. That is, if we would listen.

It was just a polite request:
Make me understand, and you did
With definitions at first, words
That frame a thought and then
We moved on
To the thoughts themselves and where
They come from

Make up a story you said,
And so I did, a fable from out of nowhere
And then a poem
That made them wonder more

Questions I couldn’t leave alone
And what for? And so I moved on
Trailed by my retinue of words
Definitions, thoughts, questions
Skimming the surface unaware
Of what lay below

I thought to get at it that day
My friend and I, Royal Portable, but not now
Just the California sun to caress my soul
The wonder of it all, the life yet to be lived
With nothing yet to say, so the publisher
Was right

Blank again the page and silence its message
Staring back at me when next I tried
In earnest, not content to feel
I would meet you upon this honestly
But who are you? What is it that’s there?

[to be continued]

2

Who and what this is about

“ESFP” herein refers exclusively to a category of Myers-Briggs personality type: Extravert / Sensing / Feeling / Perceptive without Judgment. It does not generally refer to ESFPs with Judgment. They belong firmly in two separate and distinct subcategories. The generalizations herein cannot even apply uncritically to all ESFPs without Judgment because personality types are rife with permutations. The subject is complex and does not lend itself to hard and fast anything. Although it’s an everyday preoccupation the ultimate foundation for its insights is intuition.

This is a reflection on the development of the ESFP without Judgment personality type:
• in relation to its own internal INTJ opposites: Introversion / Intuition / Thinking / Judgment
• in relation to others who belong to its opposite INTJ personality type.

It is based not on formal scholarship but on general observation and specific experience with multiple ESFPs. Its inspiration is Isabel Briggs Myers’ notion, laid out in Gifts Differing (1980), that individuals with opposite personality types can help one another expand their personalities into their opposites. That by doing so they will gain self-awareness, strengthen their innate powers, abilities, and overall character, strengthen their relationships, and thereby meet their obligations and stand up to adversity.

It makes no claim to objectivity since it’s about ESFPs in relation to INTJ opposites and the author is an INTJ. It is, in fact, highly subjective. Its claim to legitimacy rests solely on the implications of logic drawn from what is known about and experienced with these two personality types. In other words, it will either make sense and ring true or it won’t. It will either help reduce friction and make life easier or it won’t.

The frustration of friction

Frustration is evident in these thoughts because of the author’s personal experience with ESFs and the heartbreak of troubled relationships with relatives and friends. Plus there is humanity’s shared experience with demagogues like the former guy who make a career out of troubling relationships. The author’s INTJ type is a distinct minority according to Isabel’s intuition, maybe a quarter of the general population. That’s certainly how it seems. He’s surrounded by pennant-waving, winning-obsessed fans, one for all, all for one, who would give us the shirts off their backs so long as we’re already wearing their team’s shirt. If we’re not, or worse, if we’re just an individual without a team, we’re nobody. We might as well be invisible. This can be frustrating.

The model for these observations is a composite, although the former guy checks off on most everything that annihilates personal friendship, so he qualifies. “ESFP without Judgment” is ESFPs walled off from their INTJ opposites. From INTJ assets that are not only under-utilized they’re treated as aliens not to be trusted. Whether by conscious choice or by being so enamored of type that the ESFPs have forfeited their ability to see or be anything else. Like they’ve given up their free will, which is to say, their minds since all that reason and analysis are really for is to choose. Like they’ve become a personality so set in their type, so rote and inaccessible, that it’s pointless to relate to them except socially on the most superficial level.

So resolute, so intractable is their inaccessibility, that these thoughts can’t really be directed at them. It would be pointless. They’re directed at whatever controls them. And if these thoughts sound like ire so be it: whatever has taken them captive and out of reach is definitely not nice. The problem is, it can’t be a Who. It can’t be anything living. How can a self-respecting INTJ get anywhere with an inaccessible ESFP by raging at a virus? Jesus raging at money lenders defiling a temple made sense. Raging at a PA system blaring inane messages scripted by an absurd movie villain wouldn’t.

Getting to understanding

What could work is an attempt at understanding. Not retaliation with yet another projection of guilt, but understanding that protects both sides with thoughtful analysis. With patient reflection instead of passion. Understanding that clarifies choices and the costs and benefits needed to make them rationally. Costs and benefits that can make a friendship or break it.

Why bother? Maybe it’s because motivation isn’t always for us alone to decide. Maybe others depend on ESFPs and INTJs to get along, to get their acts together, so they attend to business, to shared purpose on behalf of the larger family. On behalf of the larger community that can’t maintain harmony and attend to its business unless all of us do our part. There’s selfishness and rancor in the friction to follow and this may be where it begins: with individuals caught up in their stuff ignoring the bigger picture: those who depend on them.

What then can be done about it? How about striving for understanding to reconcile our personalities on behalf of those who need us, and to serve our families and our communities with loving kindness?

Sensing the Absolute

Obsession with imagery and indulgence in bodily appetites are a form of worship for ESFPs without Judgment. Worship of the Absolute that not only caresses their senses with blessings but reciprocates with their very Worth. Though they may only be preoccupied with appearances there is no overstating the value of appearances. Satisfaction from experience that is both sensuous (aesthetic) and sensual (passions and appetites) is to be effusively praised and thanked. It is to be worshiped to fully affirm and reciprocate the reality and worth of gifts and giver: the body’s senses-appetites and their sensed physical environment of infinite beauty, diversity, fascination, and abundance. Divinity shrouded in the vastness of its incomprehensibility.

To a worshipful ESFP, the contrary view put forth by Jesus in A Course in Miracles (ACIM) and by the second-century Gnostic teacher Valentinus is blasphemy. It gets no more sympathy than the escapee from Plato’s Cave who tried to enlighten those who remained behind. “Non-dualism,” that holds that between Mind and matter, Heaven and earth, Good and evil, Values and their opposites, only one can be real, is heresy. So say ESFPs. And so says the Church, which went to great lengths to stamp out the heresy of Gnosticism.

Dualing or non-dualing our way to “Reality”

ESFPs’ loyalty to the sensed universe, that rewards bodies with pleasure and them with affirmation, is intransigence. It’s faith posing as “realism” even though physics itself doubts its reality. Posing as “reason” even though physics itself acknowledges the flaw in its circular reasoning. It must be faith because ESFPs make no attempt to support their choice with facts and Logic. They avoid facts and Logic. They rest their case without even feeling obliged to make one. Their reality is real because they say it is. More circular reasoning: QED – quod erat demonstrandum.

The “case” for “god,” an absolute source who shares ESFPs’ body-sensed universe, is a flagrant contradiction. Irrational but nonetheless accepted by humanity’s dominant dualist paradigms with scarcely any thought. Whereas the case for ACIM’s non-dualism, that is thoughtful and carefully reasoned, is held to be blasphemous. The Eleatics school, that Parmenides founded in the late fifth century BCE, held that our material environment is illusory. The school and the field of metaphysics that it founded, based on the pursuit of truth through Reason, was held in high regard. It influenced Plato and, through Plato, all of Western thought.

Aristotle didn’t launch the physical sciences by slamming the door on reasoning based on the Reality of Mind. His acknowledgement that Mind is Real kept it open. Parmenides made Rovelli (Reality Is Not What It Seems 2017) uncomfortable but, strangely, Schroedinger’s calling out physics for circular reasoning didn’t. It was OK if the measurements of matter taken by bodies are measurements of themselves, an obvious conflict of interest. A violation of objectivity that compromises understanding.

Hiding in Plato’s Cave

Yet Schroedinger and Rovelli, two theorists, didn’t look into it, didn’t apply their powerful intellects to correct an obvious flaw in the Logic of their profession. Pointedly stayed away from philosophy when the situation cried out for it. When Schroedinger, a philosopher as well as physicist, might have made a decisive contribution. Why? What kept these two giants in their field from tracing the implications of this flaw? From thinking about it? What were they protecting?

It’s striking how closed minds are on this question. Not just among body-biased ESFPs but among serious INTJ thinkers as well. Ever since Plato the question has been left untouched like a third rail by the dominant paradigms of science, religion, philosophy, and psychology. By the same paradigms that preside over the world’s dysfunctional politics and tribal-racist culture. That ensure that relationships of all kinds break down with regularity, with ruinous consequences not just for humanity but for the entire planet. ESFPs who get their kicks from sensing-feeling and physicists who make a living off of it remain confined to Plato’s Cave, perversely unable and unwilling to use their minds to think or see their way out of it.

Putting faith in the “magic” of pleasure and comfort

The root cause of body-biased ESFPs’ resistance to ACIM’s case for non-dualism – for the reality of Mind and the unreality of matter -- would appear to be an irrational faith-based choice. Their choice of the source of everything implied by body sensing-feeling for their guide: pleasure-gratification from the sensuous and the sensual, from sensed-felt benefits immediate and concrete, from material possessions, and the satisfactions of empowerment and affirmation attained by dominance, winning, and supremacy over the competition.

Taking the “reality” of body sensing-feeling benefits and their source on faith seems to excuse ESFPs and the physics profession both from thinking. From introspecting, reflecting, reasoning, feeling-evaluating, and judging – every INTJ function, every asset. Excuses them from using free will, the power and ability to choose, to question the authority of their guide magic. Their “god” who rules the Cave. They can’t go there because the magician who blesses them with their sacred comfort zones won’t allow it. Because it might depose the magician and deprive them of the ultimate good: their comfort. Dictated by their physical essence, their bodies’ senses-feelings. By the perversion of Plato’s “Good.”

The ultimate transgression isn’t jeopardizing the welfare of those entrusted to the care of ESFPs; it’s hurting ESFPs' own “feelings.” Because their theology, their blind faith in their “god,” is based on the supreme worth of what body senses-feelings deliver: pleasure and comfort. The ultimate validation of their “god’s” divinity, its power, its authority, and worthiness.

Upholding the laws of chaos

Highly attuned to their own feelings ESFPs can be startlingly numb to the feelings of others. Since bodies are their reality, and bodies are isolated and separated, they’re seen as fundamentally in competition with one another. Fertile ground for a win-lose, gain-loss, zero-sum formula for “success.” ESFPs’ formula is ideally suited to their personality type which receives abundant validation from the material world, from social-group behavior, and from the dominant paradigms – the “establishment” -- based on sensory perception.

None challenges ESFP’s faith-based “reality” of selfish-competing bodies getting along by going along, by the pretense of agreeability and social-group non-competition. By the façade, the thin veneer, of belonging-love that’s conditioned on Cave occupants accepting forced conformance with the top-down rule of matter. A condition that, from an INTJ perspective, is blatantly insincere, dishonest, and hypocritical.

But to the ESFP it’s well grounded in the “reality” of fundamentally incompatible bodies-selves. In self-interests competing with one another, dependent on forced pleasantness and agreeability to get along, to achieve “harmony” that ESFPs crave. INTJs’ contrary view seems to them an invitation to chaos, to terminal disharmony in a world of separated bodies ruled by a mindless Cave master, the great inscrutable body in the sky.

Choosing another formula for “success”

ESFPs’ orientation might be changed by one thing. By an awareness of the possibility of an opposite guide whose benefits are mind- and soul-centered instead of body-comfort centered. Who dwells within their own INTJ nature, inside their Intuition. And this would explain their ESFP sensing-god’s abhorrence of it: because it would shine it and its dark Cave away. ESFPs’ orientation might be changed by the choice of Psyche, one among many names for the guide who can speak for Innocence. Because she is Innocence, with no need to project guilt and resort to blame. She also goes by “Christ,” the Christian soul of Innocence: the Child beloved of her Parents. She’s who we are when we aren’t misled by appearances and thrown into chaos by our primitive limbic systems.

The choice of an opposite guide who speaks for Innocence instead of guilt would end the misperception. It would end the obstruction, condemnation, and retaliation that ESFPs’ formula for “success” inflicts on others, particularly INTJs. Confronted with ESFPs’ intransigence INTJs must take on the burden of judging for them on behalf of shared purpose, attending to others entrusted to their care.

ESFPs have a choice. They can choose another guide, another god. They can reconsider their choice on their own by accessing their INTJ assets: by introspecting, reflecting, reasoning, evaluating, and judging. By questioning their judgment against the “benefits” of unquestioned loyalty to their bodies’ feelings instead of the thoughts and feelings that occupy their minds.

ESFPs’ cult of specialness

Close examination of the “benefits” of body-dominance suggests an innate selfishness, an insensitivity that borders on cruelty. Its source is an attitude toward others perceived as competing instead of sharing. An attitude so anti-social that, when practiced by ESFPs with the inclination and opportunity to do harm, it’s sociopathic. The body-centered god of ESFPs is all about competition, whereas the guide of INTJs’ Intuition and internal moral compass is all about sharing. ESFPs’ reality is dog-eat-dog. INTJs’ reality is interconnectedness and reciprocity -- giving and giving back -- based on the reality and truth of mind and Psyche, not on the appearance of separated competing bodies.

There’s irony in the dissonance between ESFPs and INTJs over competition against sharing. ESFPs needing harmony from conformance place excessive emphasis on the pretense of agreeability, tact, diplomacy, and politeness, making a show of respect to hide the fundamental divide. INTJs challenging the pretense with the actual harmony of shared purpose are forced into a show of disagreeability to remove the misperception. To shift ESFPs’ blind faith in the divisive god of body-centered values to the God of mind, trust, and intimacy. To stop the transgression. It’s ESFPs, the presumed champions of harmony, togetherness, and agreeability, who in the end break relationships, not INTJs.

Above the figure nailed to the cross it’s inscribed “Loser,” and the figure isn’t a sacrificial stand-in for victims but the ESFP’s own image. A childlike figure labeled elsewhere by astute journalists “clown” and by street protesters parading with the inflated likeness of a Big Baby. A churl elevated to divinity by religion bound to its god not by the miracle of Creation-Life but by the cult of magic-death. Not by ascent to Heaven, light, and fulfillment but by descent into hell, darkness, and defeat. The unmistakable brand not of a proud, self-earned winner but of a pathetic, self-condemned loser. Guilt hiding in the delusion of victimhood innocence. All of it separation-specialness – a sick joke.

The eternal Beauty that lies beyond whatever bodies can detect

For INTJs, Worth comes from mind’s thinking, valuing, and judging, where the principle of sharing and togetherness is the controlling consideration, the consideration that integrates all into one. For ESFPs, it’s very different. Worth comes from bodies’ sensing-feeling where competition and social-group conformance make up the controlling consideration: every man for himself. It’s a separating principle disguised as “liberty” unbound by the fairness of community that makes real freedom possible.

INTJs’ experience of this body-centered world is desiring to connect via mind’s thoughts and love’s feelings but having less success than connecting via bodies’ senses and feelings. Were it not for their abundant companionship, through the creative possibilities of mind’s imagination, INTJs’ experience would be one of unrelieved isolation and loneliness. Their guide, readily accessible through the shared Memory of Intuition, connects with inner selves sharing not competing.

The temporal beauty, abundance, and possibilities of bodies are nothing compared to the eternal beauty, abundance, and possibilities of minds guided by freely-chosen loving sources beyond whatever bodies can detect. That is, when the fear of what’s unknown to bodies is let go, because minds are not unknown. Because minds are intimate, integral to selves, familiar. More so than bodies that come and go. That appear magically from out of nowhere, change beyond recognition, and disappear back to nowhere, can ever be -- “strangers,” in the words of ACIM, “wandering through the house of Truth.”

The Reality and Gift of Comfort

INTJs connect because Mind is the seat of what’s Known, the source of safety and security, of Logic which is Protection. Of Love, which is true companionship, true Relationship, the true source of Comfort -- the comfort and ease that ESFPs crave. Its source can never be isolated-separated bodies in competition with one another, that turn giving into taking, gain into loss, pleasure into pain, love into fear, innocence into guilt, life into death.

For ESFPs all in for body-centered comfort and competition, the supremacy of “winning” is necessarily the highest good. The intelligence at work in their calculations of self-interest makes sense within their insular take on reality. In the alternative reality that’s centered on the comfort of mind and love rather than bodies, it makes no sense at all.

Necessity

You envisioned me getting intimate with the hardass lives of American pioneers, bringing personal aspirations and tragedies to life with storytelling skill. Yet all it really takes is getting old. What did they face that oldness – a state of mind – doesn’t force on us every minute?

Necessity. Their lives were bound by it like planets locked in by gravity. What escapes work for us anymore? I read about other lives and pay attention when they cross my paths, and what strikes me is how the sun rises to motion and sound and then sets and whatever it is is all gone. Nothing really happened and even if it did whatever it was disappeared. What’s left in its wake is a reality I sense is there but, for all my reflecting and philosophizing, I can't figure out what it is.

Companionship of another kind, loneliness of another kind

It’s not malign. It’s not hiding from us. It’s not demanding that we drop everything and pay attention. If it wants anything maybe it’s just to be noticed. Not recognized or known because that’s asking too much. Just so we’re aware. So whatever sensible or senseless business we’re about won’t make us forget. That it’s part of our business? I don’t know. I never paid much attention before but now I feel it. A kind of companionship that comes with a kind of loneliness I’ve never felt before.

I cling. Not to one relationship or to one place. Not to the memory of one event but to all of it. Everything. In a fury of sentiment and despair I cast about for a thing that can be embraced. It was all bodies and limbs, stuff that wound up in piles, so why not? If life slips through our fingers why can’t we retrieve it with fingers? Love and be thankful for it with an embrace, with a caress?

Ridiculous. I’m embarrassed. If it’s hard in this world to change mind what’s really hard is to be mind. The leash I brought to the dog park doesn’t have a dog on it anymore and I can’t adapt. I know I came to the dog park for a reason. Logic keeps telling me Carry on carry on! But something’s not the same, and it’s getting more and more not the same. Can there be motion and sound out of mind? Is this the companion that makes me cling to my life?

Something new under the sun

I complain and the answer I get back is Don’t worry, we’re all clinging. To what? To you. We need you. I guess that makes me feel better. But I want a dog on the end of my leash! A dog I can pet, you know? That loves me and plays with me. A dog I can see. What you’ll see will be much better than a dog. Your body is what’s keeping you from seeing it. From experiencing Life. Maybe what you sense is there when you walk along the bluff, when the sun breaks through the clouds over the ocean, is what’s waiting for you. It’s there. You’ll see it. Through different eyes, that’s all.

Life conditions us to think of ourselves and our surroundings in a certain way and then it fades away, structure and all. And when it does, the ocean comes back into view from the bluff, the sun breaking through the clouds. Pulling me back or forward? I don't know. For now, it's just there. A feeling. Hope and anticipation with moving on. Melancholy and grief with leaving behind. Sobering unfamiliarity, the necessity of the inevitable.

Something new under the sun. Another test, another chance, to adapt. Whatever it wants, whatever it means, it's got my attention.

Getting beyond appearances with Intuition

Isabel Myers believes that just because we get good use out of some elements of our personalities doesn’t mean we can’t get use out of all the elements. If accessing Intuition helps Intuitive Introverts fend off loneliness but Intuition hasn’t been put to much use by Sensing Extraverts, it doesn’t mean they can’t learn to use it. Isabel says so in her book Gifts Differing. Sensing Extraverts have Intuition and can use it to put an end to sadness living alone. Their personality type doesn’t take much interest in people’s internals and it’s time it did.

Sensing Extraverts are gifted with externals. They look outward rather than within to establish what’s real for them, to find Worth and affirm it, and to meet their needs. Sensing types identify with the body rather than with mind which is not matter. They rely on their bodies’ senses to tell them what’s real when they look outward. They do not rely on Intuition. This deprives them of attributes of mind – the inner guidance of Logic, insight, and wisdom – we all need to see beyond appearances. To get at the Truth and Meaning of things that lie behind the distractions and facades imposed on us by our bodies and their physical environment.

Sensing Extraverts get by without concerning themselves with internals, but that changes when they age and social connections dry up. Their internals tell them that this is so. Every time they feel the anguish of loneliness and abandonment, it’s their internals reminding them that they have work to do: to let go of attachments to externals which are only appearances. To get serious about attachments to what aren’t appearances: their real Self, their real Worth, their real companions. Their inner Guide who loves them, wants them to be happy, and will lead them there if they let her know that’s what they truly want of their own Free Will.

"Happiness is an inside job"

If they truly want companionship that will end the anguish of loneliness then they should know that what they truly want is to connect with their Self. With their inner Guide who’s there for them if they choose to connect with her through their own Intuition. In their youth, they may have suspected that “happiness is an inside job.” They may have written it, recited it, without reflecting on it. What it means is when other people can no longer provide companionship, there’s an alternative. An even better source of companionship than other people that Intuitive Introverts are blessed with: the Truth that we are never alone. That no one, including Sensing Extraverts, need ever be alone.

I’ve spoken in the past of the inner Guide that Christianity refers to as the Holy Spirit. I’ve suggested that Sensing Extraverts reach out to their inner Guide – to connect with their Self so they don’t have to be so dependent on others – by putting their thoughts and feelings of the moment into words. By bringing them to the surface and working with them. Teasing implications and meaning out of them by letting their minds reflect on them. Realizing that every thought, every feeling, is led forward by their implications to a deeper understanding of where they’re coming from and what they mean. To the message of Love and Hope they have for us when we delve into them and allow them to speak to us.

Experiencing emotions like grief and abandonment without inquiring into them is missing opportunities. To find and articulate the purpose and meaning of Life. The purpose that Life has for each of us subjectively, individually. Inquiring into feelings means being with them, letting them speak to us of their own accord, unforced, through the spontaneity, the Free Will of our Intuition. Through the Memory that all of humanity shares.

Serving a cause worth living for and not being alone

Where our inner Guide is to be found is not in anything to do with “social.” With professional resumes that detail our service to groups and their agendas. With social connections and the broad sweep of history’s flawed ideologies. With the “broad sweep” of anything. It’s in the specific circumstances of our individual lives in the moment. Accompanied by our most intimate thoughts and feelings. These frame the context Logic needs to answer the questions that trouble us: Where are we and what are we doing here? What is our Purpose? Where is Meaning? How can we turn the pain and despair of loneliness into fulfillment instead of emptiness? Into a sense that we serve a cause worth living for and in doing so we are not alone?

The key to getting started is putting thoughts and feelings into words. Composing sentences that require thought, that open us up to what’s going on inside our minds where the questions are, where the pain is coming from. Letting them lead us forward through their implications to deeper understanding, deeper connections, until there is reciprocation. Until our minds open and become accessible to another Self hearing us, responding to us. Until our awareness is no longer limited to bodies taking up space in rooms but is instead liberated by Mind to explore an expanding universe of possibilities. Our other Self, our Real Self, is there because our Intuition is there. The Sensing Extravert’s Intuition is there.

I describe what Intuition is and what it does. We all have Intuition. Sensing Extraverts’ Intuition hasn’t been exercised much over the years not from negligence but simply because of their personality type. Isabel’s theory is well served by Intuition and it tells us that they can fix that.

Questions of purpose and meaning always begin with circumstances

When Sensing Extraverts write what’s on their minds what they will be bringing to awareness is their circumstances in the moment. They will be examining their lives in all their extraordinariness and banality down to the last detail, as if they were looking at them through a magnifying glass. If they wonder what they would have to say to their typewriters, their computers, this is my answer. Getting at purpose and meaning must begin with where we’re at. Because without context Logic has nothing to work with. The philosophy built on this premise has a name: it’s called “existentialism.”

When Alice B. Toklas asked Gertrude Stein on her deathbed, “What’s the answer?”, Gertrude is said to have answered, “What’s the question?” It’s taken as a joke but it’s right on. Questions of purpose and meaning always begin and end with circumstances. With circumstances that are experienced, i.e. lived. Subjectively not objectively: with personal hopes, fears, desires, ideals, passions, pleasures and hurts, vulnerability and wounds, perceptions and beliefs, rationality and craziness. A point I’ve tried to make in Origin and Meaning: the Logic of Everything (April 4).

It’s hard for Sensing Extraverts to be subjective rather than objective. Being Introspective, self-aware. They can change that by accessing their Introvert. Any Introvert can help.

Our circumstances are raw material for purpose and meaning and there’s plenty of it in every life. Getting a handle on where we want to be headed now begins with being intimate with our situation, the details of our circumstances. With the specifics of what our mind-Logic and our heart-feelings have to say about them. Every observation we put in writing will lead to another observation. We will be led by Logic and by value, what our minds’ reflections produce and by the feelings they evoke.

The dynamic of conversation with our Self

Our individual worlds may seem static at first. Not being used to this Sensing Extraverts may even feel resistance. But as our Intuition opens up, as reflections come of their own accord, there will be movement. Our worlds will expand. They will be less and less anchored to concrete physical reality and more and more attuned to conversation, a dynamic-reciprocal flow of thoughts that won’t let us rest until the points our inner Guide wants us to have are made. Until the gifts of insight that incubate with yearning are brought to life through Intuition.

If I were the inner Guide of a Sensing Extravert suffering with loneliness I would be encouraged. Because I would know that I’m loved. That my host wants to be close. Yearns to connect, to communicate, and be involved with me. Other people fill hearts with love, too. But they come and go, don’t they? They’re not always available. And even when they are they can make us think we’re better off alone.

Our inner Guide is our connection to our Real Self, our Real Parents, our Real Home. She’s always available. My inner Guide has expanded into a spiritual-personal family: spiritual, human, and animal friends inhabiting a Temenos of soaring moonlit clouds, lakes, mountains, forests and streams. Lighthouses and great trees all connecting me with Mind and Love. Aligning my thoughts with Logic that leads me purposefully, joyfully back Home.

Feeling better

Want to feel better? That’s what our inner Guide is all about. It’s her whole purpose. So if you’re a lonely Sensing Extravert get to work! Your Intuition is waiting. She’s waiting.