Jan Cox Talk 0012
The Ever Complete
Video = none
Audio = Stream or Download from black bar below
AKS/News Items = none
Summary = pending
Diagrams = See Below #5
Transcript = See Below
THE EVER COMPLETE
Document: 12, February 25, 1982
Copyright(c) Jan M. Cox, 1982
All of you have had glimpses of Seeing something, whether they were periodic, inexplicable, or like nervous silly putty running up your back. And in spite of the fact that it has been a swampy trek through some sort of maze -- with mirrors instead of moss on trees, with your imagination instead of alligators snipping at your toes -- in spite of all that, it now occasionally all seems so clean and simple.
Now I ask this question for your Neuralization: How would you try to describe the reality of This Thing to others? What might be their reaction to these descriptions that come closer and closer to an ultimate map?
Through my maps and descriptions I have taken you all the way to a point that nobody has ever seen before. No one has ever before had the need to see the physical description of the nervous system wherein energy, in a constant pulsation, flows in the base of the spine (small circle), continues up to the brain (large circle) and dissipates in the frayed ends of the nervous system at the Horizontal ceiling of consciousness. Nor has anyone previously had the need to consider ideas of This Thing in this physical context or to consider, for example, what might be the basis of man's imagination about, say, the gods. But it is all physically where I draw it. This Thing exists, and has always existed, right above the Horizontal Line of Consciousness -- right above everything man presently understands.
And it all keeps shifting. Somebody might say, "Well, I don't believe in the sky god of my forefathers. I believe in the expansion of psychological understanding." But if it is below that Horizontal Line of Consciousness, it is all the same thing -- even when it appears to be something else. Suppose we went back five or ten thousand years, and I said, "Alright, here's the ordinary level of consciousness, and here's the wise man or the religious figure of the time." Everything that wise man understood was above the Line of that time. Everything he called "enlightenment" lay above that day's Line of ordinary consciousness. But all that he understood is below what can be seen by a ditch digger living at the lower end of the nervous system today.
All of people's dreams -- all the books they read, all the fevers they run up, all their expectations about the person who will deliver the secret and tell them exactly what to eat, what to do, how to exercise -- all these dreams have the same value. They are all on the same level. The dreams about becoming one with the gods, or being a man among men, or having extraordinary powers and being hot stuff -- they're all the same as anything else at the Line-Level of consciousness.
What if I announced that I had learned I'm going to die in one month? So I decided to gather everyone together to tell them "The Secret": "Here it is. The Secret."
What could I tell them?
This is, of course, a variation of the story about the old sky god coming down in a flying saucer to reveal The Truth. Everyone shows up to hear the sky god, or whomever it might be, pronounce the satisfying answer -- the kind of answer that would put an end to all their searching about. If there was a satisfying answer, though -- a finality -- and the sky god did reveal it, it would kill everybody. It would cap off all the searching nerve endings, halt all movement seeking growth.
The only decent thing the sky god could do is not tell the truth, assuming there is a truth to be told. Assuming also that the sky god was everything people supposed him to be -- such as compassionate and intelligent -- it would occur to him beforehand: "All right, if I go out there and tell them what it is they think they're waiting for, that's the end of it." So he would not do it. But what would he do? He would either have to tell them a lie or tell them something other than that which they think they want to hear, i.e., something other than, "Satisfy me." Because if he really satisfies them, it's all over, mass destruction.
Recently I have been referring to the fact that nothing can be satisfying. Let's look at two ways this natural state of dissatisfaction can be Considered. The first involves the triple-pronged area of a man attempting to study himself, attempting to study Life, then attempting to study This Thing as it now addresses itself to him. Ordinarily people try to "study themselves" and the nature of their "I". They look at what appears to be "my ordinary life." They wonder about all the other "I's." But this takes place on an absolutely necessary and unsatisfying basis. Even the gods themselves could not satisfy these people without killing them. Or, if the gods did satisfy them without physically killing them, it could only be by returning them to a lower level of life, a closed-system/fait accompli/finished product existence. On that level there is satisfaction. There is no unfinished business because at the end of the nervous system, where humans ordinarily have loose nervous system wires waving in the breeze and seeking completion, there would be nothing.
The second way to Neuralize that nothing can be satisfying is to see further than just "unfinished" and "unsatisfying." It is also a matter of the ever incomplete. From your own experience, Neuralize what happens in the nature of ordinary life. Man dreams about getting everything in his life, from his business affairs to his relationships, into a condition of being totally straightened up, so that he could just freeze frame them and make them stay that way. But Neuralize that everything which
takes place below Line-Level consciousness is a matter of the ever incomplete.
Remember the scenario I described of two people standing outside, chatting about the weather. One says, "It looks like rain." The other answers, "Well, I don't know." Observe in this example that if anything is happening -- that is, if any energy is being transferred between the two people -- it is unsatisfying. If the response were absolutely satisfying, there wouldn't be a response and nothing would have happened.
We're not speaking of two people engaged in heated, controversial debate. They are engaged in simple conversation. Now a cocktail psychologist might say that this is merely social lubrication and that they really mean: "Hey, I'm still here and I'm OK and I'm glad you're here, too." And that's true. But it's an observation for children. It's irrelevant.
Look at these two people again and listen to what they're saying: "Looks like rain." The statement ends with a period. It has no question mark, no comma, and the mind tells you that is the end of the matter. But you can see for yourselves that everything in an ordinary person's "I" -- that is, from Line-Level consciousness down -- will want to respond to this statement. The first person's comment concluded with a period, and the quotation marks closed the statement. That was the end of it, right? Wrong. Somebody says, "Looks like rain." But it's not complete. And the proof of the incompleteness is that the second person will always respond.
An ordinary nervous system "I" psychiatrist or psychologist could say that the observations I've stated here are pretty ridiculous. He might argue that the first person's statement is complete. It represented his feelings about the matter at that moment, based upon his background, his total personality development, and his feel for the weather. He simply said, "Looks like rain." Period. And the other person then responded, "I'm not sure." This second statement within its own context was also complete, he would maintain.
But you should observe for yourself that the only time a conversation stops is when the energy ceases to be transferred. To illustrate this, I can fatten up the example:
"Looks like rain."
"I'm not sure."
Somebody else walks up and says, "Well, I heard on the news that it might even snow."
And the first person responds, "Did you hear that on the late news?"
"Well, I heard it coming over here. It must have been a couple of hours ago."
The exchange is ever-incomplete. The only time that something apparently stops is when that particular transfer of energy concludes itself. And, of course, to have to state it that way is a lie. But -- the fact remains -- there is no such thing as that which is complete.
Even what I'm telling you is incomplete. I have used an example to point out that conversation is one observable instance (among many) of the transfer of energy between the loose wires of nervous systems. But look beyond my incomplete statements about this conversation. You can see that what I referred to as conversation also manifests itself as action. Suppose that in my example, at some unspoken cue, the people act as if they've been told, "Hmm, let's eat." And at the same time, without anything being said, they all pick up and walk inside for dinner.
You might be inclined to say, "Well, the conversation regarding the weather, no matter how ludicrous, no matter how ill-founded it may have been, is now at least finished." But it's not finished. It's not over.
If any example could represent a true completion, it would be simply a smaller version of the sky god coming down and making it snipsville -- all the loose ends of consciousness would be cut, and that would be it -- the end. It would be as if humanity had progressed to the point that the age-old request for satisfaction had changed into a more intellectual form: rather than "We want to be satisfied," it would be "We want to be completed." And the sky god would say, "OK, I'll put a finality to this so that everybody can simply go out, lead the good life, and have fun."
He couldn't do it. It would just be snipsville. The loose ends would be cut.
Now Neuralize all of this from another perspective. (And this is as complete as anything else.) Remember all the loose ends of consciousness, and how they never rise above the Horizontal Line. Below the Line they wave about in any manner. But they can't go up; they can't rise above the Line. In this context, Consider the Three Forces -- that which would appear Creative, Destructive, or Neutral -- and look at the biological self. The biological self operates as a stable background and cannot in any real sense be altered. It is the past. It exists in the lower part of the circuitry where certain bumps and lumps, or characteristics, are built into it during development in a very short period of time. As it is formed, it determines what will become habits -- not only one's stature and weight, but also how adroit one will be, how demonstrative, and so on. All of these manifestations are, for all practical purposes, unalterable. They give a stable biological background to a person's life. I usually refer to this stabilizing background as Force Number Three.
It is literally a background upon which something operates, much the same as the background layout upon which cartoons are played out. There must be a background upon which the action can change slightly, frame by frame in a progression, so that a figure can march among the trees and hills and play out the cartoon story. This background stability must exist so that something can happen. In the case of man this biological background exists like a Third Force insuring a man's biological survival until his death. It dies, of course, when the body dies.
At this point in mankind's development, the intellectual level is where each individual's development, although unfinished, is culminated. So let's ask this question: at that culmination, where man is finally left unfinished, where is the background? What of the fact that there is no ultimate separation between the body and mind? Consider again, in all these years that you have been trying to observe "I", what is it you thought you were observing?
The biological self has to have a background. It is the lower nervous system, but it is physically manifested as the body. That is the permanent background, if you call 60 years or so permanent! And you can feel this stability without question. The regions at the upper end of the nervous system also have to have a stabilizing background -- and it is not simply the body. It's tied to it -- you cannot separate them. I only make them seem separable while talking like this. Consider: What is the stabilizing background at the upper end of the nervous system? What is the Third Force in relationship to it?
The Third Force that is required for that which appears to be one's psychological self, has to have the appearance of a stable background, besides the body. It is an illusion, but it's a real illusion: it is "I". There has to be that which appears to be a stable background, but it is an illusion. There is no such "person" as "I", other than the fact that there is. There is the necessary, stable background, and it is not only necessary and stable, but it is also an illusion. It is both. It is stable and it is an illusion.
With ordinary man everything that is called "I" is stable. Forget all the apparently interesting quirks that people talk about, such as, "Sometimes I get nervous and it seems I'm losing my mind." Such comments are simply the itches and twitches of being alive. There must be this Third Force -- this stabilizing background -- that these frayed ends of consciousness live out their lives on. So the "I" is real. It IS sustaining and stable -- except for the fact that it is an illusion.
The physical location for everything man has always talked about using such words as "enlightenment," "finding the gods," "having a mystical experience," exists above the Horizontal Line of Consciousness. Here, a man is above the "I". He is above the background. When one goes above and beyond the background, there is no background to talk about. That is why those who accidentally poke their noses above the Horizontal Line of Consciousness must, upon returning to "I", talk about whatever Life has implanted in them, from the language of their religious upbringing to what they read in so-called mystical literature -- that is all they can talk about. Because from above that Horizontal Line, there is nothing to talk about, there is nothing that can be said.
The part of a man at the upper area of development of ordinary consciousness, however, has much to say, because no matter where and when a man may live, this part of him is unfinished and unsatisfied. The frayed wires -- the constantly open-ended possible growth of the nervous system -- cannot go anywhere, but the awareness that it is unfinished is there. This "unfinished-ness" can move about. It seeks completion via a new car, or a new philosophy. It's as if everybody feels, "Something IS available, has to be available here. Recommend anything to me. I'll try it." But they will never find that satisfying something -- because on the level they search, nothing can be completed. If it was completed, they'd be dead.
Here is something further to Consider regarding the ever incomplete. Man is always fascinated with events that seem to have an inherent completeness. Such events as sports or a musician's improvisation or sex give the appearance of completeness. Whatever seems to be done on the spot -- separate from whatever else happened even minutes before -- produces a feeling of completeness. The clock at the game runs down. The gun goes off. It's over. In any of these examples, there is the fleeting feeling of immediacy. Something seems to be taking place right then and there. It is distinctly different from that which normally just takes place. But, of course, it's not that football games or sex are complete. If so, you'd have sex one good time and that would be it: you'd never want to do it again, or else it's killed you.
If you hear what I'm saying, you will understand that you cannot find anything other than a continuing incompleteness. Even when it appears that something has been concluded, it has not.
And now back to the beautiful justice. What is it that man believes he's after? What is it that seems to be the nature of each person's personality? "I want to get my own desk. I want a desk that is bigger and neater than anybody else's. And I want it filled up with lots of good stuff. Then I want it perfectly straightened out, and I don't want anybody to mess it up." Fine, this is what every man wants. Except the next day new mail comes in, somebody spills coffee all over everything, and eventually he decides (for so it seems), "I've been sitting around and it's kind of boring. I think I'll write a letter." He reaches for paper and pencil. The pencil needs sharpening. He sharpens it. The shavings drop onto the desk. He cleans them up. Now the desk has fingerprints all over it. Then he has to call somebody to take the letter. It's more trouble than it's worth. "Every time I try to have some fun or take up a new hobby, it ruins my desk."
Now Neuralize these various pictures regarding the whole of man and the ever-incomplete. On the one hand you have the sky god coming to end people's frustration with a satisfying answer. And it kills them. On the other, you have people in personality believing they seek that which is complete.
Wherever you turn, in any aspect of life, people reduce their dealings and desires to, "I want to complete this." There is no such thing. But there appears to be, and everybody pursues it. This is not a matter of philosophical theory. All you have to do to See it is to See yourself. What happens? You are always dealing on the basis of, "Here are my demands. I want them met. Do you agree or not?" "Yes, I do." "You do agree? You understand the demands and you agree to them?" "Yes." You shake hands and leave. Then what happens? Part of the real illusion of life is that people continually seek these apparent completions. People even say that such pursuits are the purpose of being alive, or at least required for leading a sane life. But there is also the dim awareness that "I" cannot be satisfied -- that nothing can be complete -- and it lives simultaneously with the desire for a freeze framed clean desk.
Now let me draw out a picture for you. It involves the question, Why, or how -- phrase it any way you like -- could it possibly be that all life on earth -- all of it other than man -- exists in a magnificent balance and order? How could the biology, the ecology, the food chains, all of "nature" simultaneously exist in such harmony, except, apparently, for man? Everywhere you look, including microscopic evidence just now being discovered, you find creatures who carry out a particular activity in an exact location at just the right moment, or a creature that has a perfectly symbiotic relationship with another. It's miracle after miracle; a staggering mosaic. All of it is balanced, and each part of it all feeds off another part of itself. Except man. Every time man looks at himself it's as if everything went awry. It appears as if nature exists in miraculous perfection, while man seems to be some kind of cancer fighting himself. It's as though this whole piece of nature has turned on itself. Within this one group -- man -- they kill each other; they have conflicting opinions; they keep saying, "We've got to get this thing together." And they don't. Well, if a man here and there has any objective potential, he will begin to See -- without any pessimism -- that this is just the nature of it -- that below Line-Level consciousness it seems that man is separate from nature and that he's polluting everything.
It's as if there is a great Mother Nature who has created this complexity of beautiful miracles layered upon each other. There is all the balance of the environment, the weather, the animals and everything else; and then there is this man, like some big object. The thing is attacking itself, and if anything else gets too close it will attack that too. It's like some kind of expanding cancer. The bigger it gets, the worse it gets. It pollutes other parts of nature. But mainly it turns on itself.
It's as if mankind is a huge elephant that constantly whips its trunk against the nearest tree until it's black and blue. This creature tries to remove its own tusks, then goes for a walk and trips over its legs. It starts to eat some food and punches itself in the eye. I'm not simply trying to be funny. This is literally how everyone's personality sees Life. Every personality just has different names for it -- sinning, ignorance, lack of education or sophistication -- but they're all the same. This name calling is accepted and expected in ordinary life. It's part of living at the Horizontal Line of Consciousness. All I'm supplying here is a better description -- as funny as it sounds -- of exactly what you've been thinking all your life -- you and everybody else. If you're still engaged with and caught up in this system below the Line (as it's nearly impossible not to be), you still think that you're dealing with people instead of a form of energy transfer, and you'll still believe in thinking, "Well, if they would just do right, this mess wouldn't happen." There is always somewhere you can point to, whether it's a political party or people in backward countries or murderers on the streets. What all these comments are saying is that here's a creature -- man -- who's always trying to trip himself and kill himself. Below the Line of Consciousness this is true. Of course, the more ordinary you are, and the more you're a physically oriented being, the more you're always hollering, "It's all going down the gutter. Save your food and find a place to hide, because any minute now it'll all explode." When you're below that Horizontal Line, there's no way to see this as I am describing it. It's funny to talk about an elephant reaching for a sandwich and socking itself in the eye, but that is exactly what people are describing. And it's true, except it's not.
Let's go back to my fictitious reasonably insane man. Why is it that even he cannot ask the following question? "Why is it that my life, my so-called problems, even the very nature of Life itself -- why does all of this seem to have but one purpose, to turn on itself?" He cannot ask it because the question itself does not exist below the Line of Horizontal Consciousness. At Line-Level consciousness he is playing out the reality of the question.
This brings us back again to the sky god announcing from his flying saucer whatever it is that would complete everybody. And for all except a very Few of those who hear whatever he announces, it would be stiff city. I will not comment right now on the Few who would still be left desiring more.
Below the Line, voices say that it must matter whether or not it's lies that the sky god offers to mankind. And below the Horizontal Line, they're right. Down there it does matter. On another level though, does it matter?
What I want you to Neuralize from all of this is the fact that there is built into man the absolute desire and passive conviction that it is possible to find completion. This is true on all levels, from the pursuit of "large completes" like the secret of life to the "small completes" such as finding a church that satisfies spiritual needs at that level. Everyone believes and expects completion is possible. It is not possible. So all that one can see of humanity is that it seems to be attacking itself. But humanity's belief that completion is possible, and the fact that it would be fatal were it to happen, exist simultaneously.
Beyond whatever words I may use to describe the situation, it is physically impossible for anything to reach a satisfying finality in human life. When you're involved in Line-Level consciousness it is impossible to see that, because you are part of the dissatisfaction. This is just another description of being a sinner, being ordinary, misguided and deluded.
If you can get away from your own brain stem to where there is no backdrop, you'll find that nobody is responsible for anything, because there is nobody. It's not an explaining-away process; it's not being magnanimous. It's not forgiving your fellow man, because you See that you have no fellow man. You have fellow brain stems, and fellow loose wires, fellow transformers. And you who "hunger" for This Thing have each other -- which humanity in general does not have.