A pure fact is one without the blemishes of translation and interpretation such as those perpetually plaguing poor fact. Pure fact is 100% accurate and precise. Poor fact is not. For convenience, we refer to pure fact as data and poor fact as information. We seek to investigate whether or not such contradictory natures of fact are indeed mutually exclusive propositions. If they are, then the battle for supreme control of the mind is lost by both sides of the war between the exclusive conscious mind visiting the library and the all-inclusive subliminal mind of the librarian. Such a library exists in the minds of all who experience waking and dreaming, always hoping yet always fearing. The main question becomes one of communication between the library patron and the librarian, and this is answered affirmatively when data and information are not mutually exclusive propositions.
In the win-win scenario of there being linked the exclusive conscious mind to the inclusive subliminal awareness there is ironic conflict as the self seeks to select what is “best” of all available alternatives of given situations and challenges. Though both the conscious mind and the subconscious mind benefit from their mutual synergy, their differing sign and symbol modes used for contact and communication often confuse each other, and error is the result, usually of some anticipated outcome. To complicate this, inherent in having differing symbol semiotics is the implication of contradiction in priorities between the conscious mind and the subliminal mind, undermining the synergy from which both mental processes benefit by successful adaptation, among other things. The library patron and the librarian may speak the same language, but they don’t always make sense to each other because they tend to do things in opposite ways. The library patron is only looking for and, therefore, paying attention to only one particular idea to the total exclusion of all other ideas available in the library on any particular visit. The librarian is primarily concerned about keeping all the books in order, remembering the best to keep while trying to forget the bad ones thrown out, where references are and so on.
The subconscious mind absorbs all sensory input and files it away for future reference in terms of efficient simplicity, hence the profusion of various basic and primitive forms of “shorthand” symbolism to cue memory and motivation. While the methods and functions of the old subliminal mind are ancient, the modern conscious mind uses the sharp clarity of reason and logic to sort memories and synthesize facts into useful predictions. So much effort in consciousness requires a daily dose of sleep, during which time the mind is no longer sufficiently aware to support vivid thought or concept. While the subconscious mind remains active our dreams become somewhat amorphous, but sometimes we awaken to remember dreams. In such instances another link is established between the conscious and unconscious mind.
A fact is only really completely known when all contingencies of such fact are known a priori. This requires knowledge of all facts because all facts are mutually contingent upon each other. Due to the exclusive nature of conscious thought and memory, it seems doubtful that we consciously know anything at all, and evidence of this lies in the fact of there not being any form of a perfect textbook, on any subject. On the other hand, due to the inclusive nature of subliminal thought and memory, it is plausible that we do know everything subconsciously. However, such modern sophistication as language, word or number is far too complicated to be handled by the subconscious in a manner which is obvious to the conscious mind.
It has been said that telling the truth during times of mass deception is an act of revolution, but if we have never seen beyond deceptive illusions, then we have probably never told the truth, so none of us has yet really been revolutionary. The deceptions have primarily concerned pretentions of the true significance and perspective of ego. Anything larger than a Euclidean point in describing the size or volume of true ego is exaggeration. Anything regarded as more significant than its relations to other such points is superfluous. Ego is substantial only in context with other egos. In and of itself, ego is without relation, hence devoid of any and all true meaning, or intellectually legitimate validation.
If we’re hardly, if ever really right, then why aren’t we happy, as Slartibartfast implied so limited to be our choice, with his clever, or empty, rhetoric, to be legitimately or plausibly of common avail? Indeed, what always, inevitably must just turn any and all so-called “absolute” into “obsolete”?
“History doesn’t really repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” Mark Twain