692. Concerning our acknowledgment of the I, it cannot be denied that it belongs to a field of experience that for many human beings belongs to the mental distant zone of their sensory area. Since they cannot therefore experience the I, and have no knowledge of the mental perspectives, they flatly deny its existence and thus make themselves spokesmen for an assertion that they would never dare to put forward if it concerned an equivalent physical issue. They do not assert that the sun does not exist during the night even though it cannot be seen, since this factor is so prominently in the near zone of their field of experience that it is a fact to them that its invisibility at night is due merely to a perspectivistic relationship. These beings do not understand that there are human beings for whom the I can be so much in their mental near zone that its existence is just as incontestable a fact as the existence of the sun. They therefore look upon these beings' acknowledgment of the I as superstition.
      From the secondary analyses that we have gone through, we have gained a vague notion that mental or spiritual experiences also depend on perspectivistic relationships, and that here, just as much as in the state of physical experience, there is a near zone and a distant zone and that the details in the distant zone naturally cannot be as clear and accessible to the senses as those in the near zone. Beings who wish to know about things that are in the distant zone of their mental area have therefore no other logical alternative than to study the points of contact that the distant things might possibly have within their near zone. The logic displayed by these points of contact is the only fail-proof means of eliciting the correct perception of the distant things. And we are now in the process of carrying out such an experiment with reference to the perception of the I.