The bitter taste of an aversive experience leaves a state of perturbation in the individual that experiences such antipathetic phenomenon. Such agitation is generated both from being placed in painful mental state and the anxiety created from the possibility of the recurrence of the aversive phenomenon. If this agitation gets transformed into a verbal account the perturbation can be expurgated providing the individual with catharsis. I shall call this verbal account explanation. Strong perturbations control consciousness. The stronger the perturbation, the more cognitions will be directly related to the perturbation. If the perturbation is allowed to fester and aggrandize, then eventually the individual will verbally manifest this perturbation to another individual in the form of explanation. The inevitable conclusion to this outpouring is a release from this mental perturbation allowing consciousness to consist of cognitions other then those related to the perturbation. At that moment the individual feels a great release acquiring a cathartic effect. In this way, individuals use explanation simply as a means to eliminate the mental perturbation they are feeling. Thus, explanation is a form of controlling consciousness that the individual invokes to return to tranquility when their awareness is in a state of perturbation. Moralist are very sensitive to when an individual is in a state of perturbation mainly because the individual does not behave typically while perturbed and this causes mild perturbation for the moralist. The moralist will broach a conversation inquiring about the change in behavior. This prompts the perturbed individual to verbally manifest the perturbation into an explanation allowing them to acquire a cathartic effect. Such an interaction strengthens the relationship between the two. During this type of interaction the moralist is bound to give an explanation as to the cause of this person's perturbation. This is done chiefly as a means to prevent the individual from falling back into this sate of perturbation, subsequently causing change in their behavior and causing that perturbation for the moralist. Effectively the moralist will 'explain' the cause of the individuals perturbation in effect to prevent themselves from being perturbed. Surprisingly, practically every moralist will attribute the 'discovery' of the cause as the source of the individual's catharsis never realizing its actually the simple act of the individual verbally manifesting the perturbation that leads to expurgation. The moralist will the begin to apply the principle of change attempting to 'change' the person by taking action against the 'cause' of the perturbation. Practically in every case, the explanation the moralist gives as the cause for the perturbation, is not even close to the actual cause (assuming one even exists). Furthermore, since the cause of the cathartic effect is the simple act of verbal manifestation, the fact that the moralist is talking prevents the individual from verbally manifesting and thereby hindering the process of expurgation and diminishing the overall cathartic effect the individual acquires. Making matters worse is the subsequent application of the principle of change. In demanding the individual to adhere to a rubric in attempting to quell the forthcoming mental perturbation, the moralist unfairly demands the individual to make changes the individual is not capable of making. More importantly, such changes have no 'actual' bearing on the cause of the mental perturbation. Ironically, over time the principle of change causes the individual of those perturbation to acquire new perturbations concerning the moralist resulting in avoidance. Explanation via verbal manifestation holds the power to abolish a perturbed sate. Another way to remove a perturbed state is time and distraction. What is meant here is that an individual's mental state can not maintain permanent perturbance, and in time they will return to a normal state. Its not clear if this is because over time the brain is unable to maintain the neural energy necessary to maintain a mental perturbation or because other mental phenomenon occur that form new states that eventually overrun the perturbed state. More likely is a combination of both, where over time the brain becomes exhausted with the mental perturbation, diminishing its force and making other mental phenomenon more likely to express themselves in consciousness. In any case. a perturbed state can only be abolished through the acquisition of a cathartic effect, time, distraction or some combination of the three. One can control a perturbed state by cathartic effect via explanation, or through time and distraction. In fact, these are the only two methods that can control perturbation by abolishing it. However, this is not the only way a perturbed state can be controlled, if one finds a 'cause' for the perturbed state then one is able to prevent future occurrence of that perturbed state. The term 'cause' must be employed carefully, and in this sense means only a cognition that anticipates a subsequent mental perturbation and results in action able to prevent the perturbation. In this definition, a cause of mental perturbation, is a cognition expressed in awareness that anticipates the perturbation and leads to action that avoids it. Defining cause in this way still enables the individual to 'control' the perturbation, because the anticipatory cognition will lead to action that will prevent perturbation. Hence the individual is able to control the manifestation of that perturbation. However, defining cause this way also protects against the conclusion that the explanation is the 'true' characterization of the cause and effect relationship that leads to perturbation. The definition's only necessary requirement is the evasion of perturbation, and the actual characterization of the cause and effect relation that leads to perturbation. To make this more clear, suppose two individuals experience mental perturbations in the presence of an indigent and develop an explanation through verbal manifestation which leads to a characterization of the cause effect event that they believe causes the perturbation. Suppose that one believes their mental perturbation is 'caused' by being greedy, and the other believes its 'caused' by being excessively generous. In subsequent events dealing with the beggar, the cognitive thought occurs in one individual to give, while the other individual is prompted to refrain from giving. In both cases the individuals are able to control the same mental perturbation but use different, and in this case contradictory explanations to accomplish this prevention. Or consider two individuals that experience the loss of their child to a heinous crime. In attempting to control the mental perturbation they demand from their pastor why God has taking their child. The pastor gives them identical answers: the lord moves in mysterious ways. One individual is able to apply that in anticipatory way. When he begins to feel perturbation generated from his loss, he applies this explanation as a way to prevent the occurrence of the perturbation. Returning him to a state of equanimity. However, the other individual finds that this explanation to be inadequate in preventing the perturbation generated when the loss of his child enters his mind and he begins looking for other explanations. The necessary requirement for an explanation to be considered 'true' is not that its a fair characterization of the cause effect relationship that leads to perturbation, but instead an explanation is 'true' when prior to a perturbation an explanation has the capacity to cease the soon to manifest perturbation. Perturbation can be abolished through explanation, time or distraction. It can be controlled in these ways or in applying an explanation that leads to action that prevents a supposed subsequent perturbation. In this way, explanation can function in two ways. It can either be used to acquire a cathartic effect evaluated as a function in its ability to give catharsis. An explanation can also function by preventing perturbation which then is evaluated based on its ability to evade the perturbation. Ultimately, though, only the fool and the moralist think the explanation is a true characterization of the cause effect relationship that leads to perturbation.