I have often come across the modern mind, in all its obtuse, innocent (ignorant), “well-meaning”, pseudo-altruistic glory. Its ability to compartmentalize concepts so as to use one rational standard in one area and a different, often contradictory one, in another, can be easily understood even if it can be frustrating. I have, on many occasions, come across the politically-correct culturally indoctrinated, institutionalized weak mind. It denies all categorizations based on outer appearances when dealing with human beings but has no problem in utilizing the very practices it denies as generalizations when trying to understand nature or the cosmos. It talks about concepts in ambiguous ways never delving, or wanting to for fear of what it might see there, any deeper than is necessary to find contentment or belonging. It can talk about ‘self’ or ‘love’ or ‘selflessness’ or ‘world’ or ‘object’ as if their reality was self-evident, but attack its basic, culturally determined, beliefs and it will rile against you as a bigoted over-generalizing fascist or an infidel destined for hell or a life of misery. For instance categorizing species using their outer appearances and behaviors is not immoral, for such a mind, whereas doing so with human beings is. Gender roles in animals are a matter concerning their nature and their procreative strategies, whereas with human beings it is a prejudiced exaggeration or a social construct or a biased generalization. You see human beings, even for the secular culturally indoctrinated mind, are special; they are free-willed and rational in their actions and behaviors. Reason is presupposed as a defining aspect of all human activity. All human beings are equally endowed with rational power. The mind is separate from the body. One cannot affect or reflect on the other. Mankind is mind whereas mankind’s physical appearance is accidental, or a product of nurturing or environmentally determined but with no deeper implications. The religious mind calls it a soul, the secular mind calls it free-will or, sometimes, reason. Whether religious or secular the institutionalization is no different. A religious mind accepts the beliefs of its parent and of its peers in no different a way than a secular mind accepts the science of its time and place or the current moral and social ‘truths’. In one area color is superficial and insignificant whereas shape, smell, taste, sound is not. The eyes only perceive the insignificant whereas taste might not. I mean if a person’s skin color says nothing about them then why does what he sound like, what he says, matter more? If these simpletons followed through with their reasoning then taste, smell, form should be just as superficial and meaningless as color is or as sex is. This is a compartmentalization or double-standard reasoning no different than the one exhibited in faith. The religious mind has no problem in remaining skeptical or in understanding reality using common sense and logic when it comes to the mundane and everyday or when its immediate self-interests are in question (when it suits it), but it then throws all of it out the door when constructing an opinion on the unknown or the divine or the transcending or essence, when its psychological well-being might be threatened. Here ‘truth’ or ‘reality” and preference, taste and happiness are equated. It is not surprising then that such minds would seek out the hidden motive the underlying self-interest in any expression of opinion concerning ‘truth’ and ‘reality’. They reason, mostly subconsciously, that since they believe in what most benefits them or sooths them personally that this is also true for everyone (even if it is so for the majority of mediocre minds). They then seek for the other’s advantage in believing in what he does. This is called by them: objectivity. Reality must come ready made and be automatically beneficial to them. It isn’t that reality must be perceived as it is and then dealt with or overcome or coped with, but that all hints of the negative must be eradicated to begin with. In both the culturally indoctrinated and the religiously indoctrinated the mind has submitted, for selfish and emotional reasons, to a common, self-evident dogma - a popular, communal belief. This acceptance of an absolute certainty forces such minds to display different reasoning methods in different situations. Their reason is not consistent, but it changes in accordance to what is in question. The hidden goal is to maintain personal well-being and psychological stability and social viability. These different reasoning methods often contradict one another and this is dealt with through a kind of denial or forgetfulness or a reliance on the blind belief of the absurd which is called faith.