“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

What is perfectly clear to one portion of that world brain may not be perceived at all by the other side, and vice versa. For the purposes of this discussion, we must simplify, so we will say that generally speaking your own country aligns itself with the world of reason, while in the same fashion Iran allies itself with the world of emotion. Both react, again, by exhibiting exaggerated versions of the characteristics involved, however. The same applies in any personality who attempts to separate the intellect and the emotions from their necessary unity within psychological structure. In either case, you end up with the need for negotiators, who attempt to bring the two sides into at least some alignment, or to correct the vision and perception of each side until the situation of the other side is at least perceived with some clarity.

Many of the methods used to find solutions actually involve the setup of negotiations on the part of nations—the third party or parties—who in the beginning can communicate with each side, explaining one side’s viewpoint to the other. The setting up of communication with individuals, communication between the various portions of the self, is highly desirable then. This is often accomplished quite automatically as other portions of the self form themselves into negotiative postures, inserting various thoughts and ideas and feelings to the opposing psychological camp.

One side will be unable to see or understand the behavior of the other side. Each will seem foreign to the other. The American response—generally, now, speaking—to Iranian emotionalism is to become still more self-righteously reasonable, cooler, more superior. The Iranian’s response to the Americans’ reason involves new outbursts of emotionalism and behavior that appear utterly irrational to the American view. So we are often indeed faced with a lack of communication between various portions of the self, or between various portions of the world.