these questions were based on the article
"The Conscious, Subconscious, and Unconscious, a New Look at an Old Metaphor"
This Week's Questions
[posed by David A.]
Do you know?
[Question 1] Is there any value in using why logic to figure out why things happen?
On the other hand, the more we consciously witness the many insanely wicked varieties of why logic, the less we tend to get seduced by what is often, an absurdly beautiful "logos" within it. And some of the logic within it is absurdly beautiful, this despite the fact that it is simultaneously and insidiously hateful. For instance, Hitler said that nations should have wars every ten years or so in order to promote national growth by pruning what is outdated. And the Aztecs believed wars should be scheduled and end promptly when each side had acquired enough people to fill their sacrificial requirements. Insane ideas? Without a doubt. But there is also an inhumanly cold but beautiful logic beneath both of these insane ideas.
Finally, know too that in order for this personal knowledge of why logic to be completely useful, one must also have the corresponding compassion in place in order to compliment and complete one's understanding. Translation. Ignorance is not bliss after all. Thus being without a conscious awareness of the horror we humans can possibly perpetrate on each other, and on our world, means we are vulnerable to being seduced into participating in it. This is what makes being conscious of each given life situation in all ten layers the ideal goal for an Emergence Master Teacher.
[Question 2] Can why logic or understanding prevent us from being injured in the first place?
Even so, because why logic (and in fact any experience of the outer layers of personality) does decrease the average visual intensity of what we can see on the screen of our mind, it also decreases our chances for being in the only state in which we can be injured; the state of hyperawareness.
[Question 3] What is a quick fix to the cycle of why logic? Or is there never a quick fix?
[Question 4] When a way of doing something has become "natural" to us (as explained in the discussion of "natural why"), do we still have choices or does this inner programming mean we now have no choices?
Said in other words, each time we emerge from a why logic program, we gain access to a group of previously unseen and unlimited choices, including an unlimited ability to love, at least in this one life area. This means calling "natural whys" an inner "programming" is a misnomer. The word, "programming" implies the lack of choice, while being our natural selves implies a literal and unlimited access to choices including to beautiful choices.
Lastly, beneath these ideas is a very old belief and something Socrates himself taught. He taught that  no one does evil of his or her own free will;  that if one knew the good, one would not hesitate to do it; and  that one commits evil only from ignorance of what the good is. Modern philosophers consider these statements to be a paradox and an obvious falsehood. Ironically, they are wrong only because they do not know the nature of the good. Emergence reveals this nature. Socrates was right.
[Question 5] Is it possible to use our personality theory to help people to know if they are truly compatible as a couple? Or would they not listen anyway?
More important though, it is also entirely possible that even if given the best of advice, the couple should still ignore it. Why? I see falling in love with a person as perhaps the most powerful motive we humans have to grow. In other words, the intensely beautiful desire healthy people feel to connect to those who are our closest counterpoint provokes us into writing some of the best music we write in life.
More over, because we always fall in love most deeply with those who provoke our deepest injuries to the surface, the difficulties all couples experience are never dysfunction. Rather, they are perfectly designed by whomever created us to help us out of our complacency and to move toward personal growth.
As for the first part of your question; "Is it possible to use our personality theory to help people to see if they are truly compatible as a couple?" The truth? I would say everyone who falls in love is compatible, at least to the degree this addiction can lead to a desire for real love and healing. However, this does not mean our theory of personality has no place here. It simply means its place is to guide this growth and healing rather than to prevent it.
[Question 6] I know that fighting is often not logical between a husband and wife or between partners, and that the same dance is often danced again and again and again with no changes for the positive. Is it correct to say it a BLock between two nations, for instance, when they fight the same fight for decades even with many intentions for peace, the same? (Israel-Palestine)
[Question 7] If BLocks exist between nations over decades, how are these wounds passed on from generation to generation?
[Question 8] Is it possible to teach an entire nation that there are choices?
[Question 9] What would this look like if it did happen?
[Question 10] Why is it difficult for most people to choose permanent healing? Is it that people choose to feel less pain or is it that they don't have a choice?
Remember, we must know we have a BLock in order to heal this BLock. We must also know and believe that pain relief is not permanent healing.
In addition, we need also know how to heal our BLocks. Or at least be willing to let a guide who does know assist us in this healing.
My point? Most people do not even know "why logic" relief is temporary, let alone that a permanent healing exists. This makes choosing permanent healing (emergence) an unknown option, and leaves what is the default option, why logic, as the "automatically taken choice." Here too is yet another iteration of Socrates' wisdom;  no one does evil of his or her own free will;  that if one knew the good, one would not hesitate to do it; and  that one commits evil only from ignorance of what the good is.
To not chose healing is evil. But it is not peoples' fault. They literally do not see the choice, each time they experience a BLock.