Jan Cox Talk 0195

Remember the Squirrels

Audio = Stream from the bar below

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0195 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = None
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below


Summary by TK

Jan Cox Talk # 195, Feb 8, 1986, runtime 1:22

  [More related to "all memory is nothing more than a hardwired foregone conclusion"— all that the ordinary can remember is binary: you remember only what you can remember. Remember: you either do or you don't. Relation to ordinary perception of only 2 forces. Question: how can you see E force if you can't remember it?]
  [All that you can remember is what you do or don't. Digression into the unaccountability of E; examples of the irrelevant. Extraordinary memory required to see E. ]
  [More Masterstroke: Life holds out the illusory potential success of altering the environment to explain and justify life--but in a "rigged" contest. Man is always offered the appearance of potential success where it is truly impossible. Relation to ACBI: Apparently Correct But Impossible. ]
  [Squirrel example of memory (Finding food you put out in backyard --returning for same even if not replaced, and communication to other squirrels who also show up). Question: How is this possible with no Yellow Circuit memory? Second question: Is man that far removed from such "squirrel memory"? Relation to importance of Yellow Circuit memory and the apparent necessary gap between the circuitry of man and squirrel. There is an alteration of molecular circuitry in the squirrel to transfer memory. This is also true for man --it just occurs at the Yellow Circuit level: allows much greater refinement and complexity. Consider the much vaunted "uniqueness" of man's Yellow Circuit memory, yet it is the same as the squirrels' although at a higher level. Always a molecular alteration. 12 day motto: "Remember the squirrels"!]
  [Consider what is really happening in the affairs of men: internal molecules are trying to comprehend/control external molecules. Is this not the ultimate incest? The ultimate nepotism?
]
  [The Few must not try to impress others; but higher yet, must not try to impress The Partner. Ordinary men can only know who they are thru what they think other people think about them. All attempts to impress others are aimed ultimately at the Partnership. If you could live secretly without the need to impress others, including the Partnership, it would be equivalent to your basic salary in the great payoff of This thing. Second stage: if you could be secretly pleased with yourself (no one must know) = bonus (as in say, profit sharing). ]
  [The Forces. If we take the "avant-garde" as C, which must constantly meet resistance head-on to be visible at all, in addition to the overt 0 encountered, it also overruns by necessity the "derrier-gard" (linearly considered) of the previous avant-garde thrust. Such encounter/overrunning produces apparent sequentiality to events and prevents outright full recognition (by the ordinary) of E force, which prevents explosive, uncontrolled growth. Relation to speech: sentences with the word "but". What is the significance of "but"; what use does Life make of mens' speech? Why are `buts' necessary? Consider the biochemical basis for `but'. `But' alters the biochemistry of speaker and speakee.|
  |TASK: Neuralize: what is the use of `but'? ]
  [Comment on questions about the significance of night dreams: ignore utterly. You must first understand that all your ordinary mentation is dreaming too. ]
  [Comments on questions submitted by Group: "Great love" --what is the biochemical basis for it? Attraction in all 3 circuits.]
  [Why are rumors always D based vs. C based? Relation to: all news (of note; noteworthy) is bad news; news isn't news otherwise. ]
  [Reading of ACBI's submitted by Group.


Transcript

REMEMBER THE SQUIRRELS

Document:  195, February 8, 1986
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1986            

        All memory is a hardwired, foregone conclusion.  A person, under ordinary conditions, can only recall what's part of his own mechanical makeup.  People can remember only what they either "do or don't" or "can or can't."  They cannot recall anything beyond their own parameters.

     Everyone is familiar with the many books and courses concerned with improving one's memory.  These are all based upon very mechanical kinds of tricks or series of tricks.  Yet Life is not now arranged for Man to question why his memory is so spotty.  Although I'm sure there have been many attempted, so-called psychological explanations, it's necessary to go back to that great basic guideline, and its variations, "either you do or you don't."  To be remembered, anything has to fall into one of those categories.  It doesn't matter, in a particular instance, which side of the fence you're on.  But only one polarity or the other can be recalled.

     Something that I noted for you before is that if you do not act when appropriate, no amount of thinking about acting will later compensate.  Of course, ordinary people suffer over not having acted. And although they seem to have no trouble in remembering and regretting they don't seem to recall those things about which they had no regret.

     This spottiness is related to the Three Forces necessary for any occurrence.  It is obvious to everyone on this planet, even those who are barely conscious in the Yellow Circuit, that there are two Forces in Life. Everyone realizes, "I have desires, and other people have desires which can conflict with mine."

     The great difficulty lurking behind my description of the Three Forces is that of perceiving what "E" Force might be.  How can anyone know what "E" is when it can't be remembered?  People, as I previously noted, recall only what they either "do or don't."  You should be able to see these two possibilities as "C" and "D."  No one recalls "E."

     People accept some validity to what I said about "E," and they suspect that they perceive it at times. And they say, "Well, I cannot see "E."  I cannot come up with any clear definition of what "E" is."  How are you going to know anything if you can't remember it?  All people ordinarily remember is what they're wired up to;  and then there is everything which is not a part of anyone's hard-wired system.  Right there -- in the area of everything else -- is the place to start trying to perceive the reality of "E."  If you can remember only the obvious, and not the irrelevant, you will miss the fascination and intrigue in This Thing.  Will you spend your entire life going to movies and depending upon me to be stimulating?

     If all that is seen and remembered remains within the confines of a person's hardwired self, if the view is of only "C" or "D," nothing else will ever become visible.  It would be as if you were continually introduced to someone, and each time you glanced away, you couldn't remember his name.  "Here he is, this is Chaucer the Elder."  And you turn away and turn back and say, "Who's that?"  And then you remember it's Chaucer the Elder.  Then you look down and say, "Well, I've got to go.  Goodbye, sir.  What was your name?"  That is every hardwired relationship with "E."

     Almost all religions and most would-be mystical cults that derive from them have some notion of a trinity. Christianity has  a trinity godhead, and there are variations in the Hindu scriptures.  The western world attempts to deal with the idea of the three headed god as the father, the son, and the holy spirit. Everyone worldwide is familiar with some variation of god the father.  And all religions have a prophet of some sort. But in the area of the holy spirit, there is a breakdown of understanding.  Everyone talks about it, but nobody can tell you what the "holy spirit" really is.

     In all religions that wrestle with the concept of three gods, they always have in some form the creator and the destroyer, the anti-god.  They're speaking of "C" and "D."  When they arrive at the third area -- which is the reality of the "E" force -- they have no rationale for it.  People just accept the concept.  The Yellow Circuit, in a linear way, can make no sense of it.  The Hindus, at least, made statues of "E" gods; but no one was certain what the statues were about.  So they covered themselves:  They made more than one statue.

     Religious thinkers just give up when it involves "E" -- their concept of the holy spirit.  They always fall back upon, "Well, it says so here in our holy scriptures and so it must be true."  But there is more to it than that.  This idea would not have survived thousands of years in diverse cultures, with no basis in reason, had there not been more to it.  They leave in the concept of "E" although nobody can describe it, and nobody knows what it means.  It just seems right, so everyone just recites it.

     The difficulty in dealing at Line-level consciousness with what seems to be a third force or god, is simply that you are functioning at the binary, three-dimensional level and attempting to perceive beyond binary limits.  And that's impossible.  It is not through some great cosmic or spiritual mystery that the gods have clouded Men's minds.  All that three dimensional binary consciousness can see is either "this or that"; either "you do" or "you don't."  So Line-level consciousness already knows the first two gods:  one of them obviously does and one obviously doesn't.  Well, what about the third?  Everything that does not fit into "either you do or you don't" is the domain of the "E" god.  But nobody can remember him or her.  "I told you, it's Chaucer the Elder.  You just met the man."  "Oh, okay.  Who is he?  And what was his name again?  What does he look like?  Have I seen him before?"

     Now I'm going to expand some other areas I've previously mentioned.  Everyone today is accustomed to this scenario:  you are viewing a full length movie.  One of the characters is a homicidal maniac who appears to have almost no redeeming features.  He is a person seemingly devoid of any ordinary human emotion and compassion.  Towards the latter half of the film, in a ninety second scene, the character exposes the harsh conditions of his earlier life.  He speaks of the insane behavior of his father.  And his dissertation gives one the strong indication that environment is responsible for his present condition.

     At Line level it is true and always has been true that environment affects people's circumstances.  But if someone can See, the opposite is equally true.  The maniac said, "My father was insane."  And everyone assumes that environment has shaped the son's circumstance.  Everything is arranged to give man the appearance of potential success in what is actually a rigged game.  As part of the masterstroke, Life leads people to believe that if the environment is changed, everything can be remedied.  And further -- that if anything's broken, the environment broke it.  This is not a trick perpetrated by people in Hollywood or New York.

     This reliance upon environment to explain behavior is almost as old as Man's Yellow Circuit.  Homer's Odyssey offers the tale of a young prince, who upon the death of his father, seizes power.  The prince's father, over the course of his forty year reign had become a bloodthirsty tyrant.  The young king, within six months, quickly acquires his father's reputation.  From an ordinary viewpoint, due to the young king's environment, this behavior was to be expected.  And along with the acceptance of that explanation comes the belief that man has a potential to change.  People think, "All that we've got to do now is to prevent unfit parents from raising children.  Well, maybe we can't stop them from having children, but we've got to do something to...."  And so the process continues.  People expect that changing the environment will cure Life.

     In the case of the homicidal maniac and his equally crazy father, ordinary consciousness just cannot perceive that the opposite of the environment factor is also true.  Consider that if the great guideline of "either you do or you don't" could be accepted at the binary level, it'd break the back of the ordinary, because it would be construed as the ultimate fatalism.  Ordinary consciousness cannot see beyond "fatalism" nor can it see that there is no environment; there is nothing separate from you.

     As long as the appearance of potential success hovers in consciousness' purview, humanity continues to claw and scratch and run the great race.  And then there are those who fall into the ditch and remain there because remember, "you either do or you don't."  Some must fall in the ditch and give up; others must keep attempting to run harder and harder.  But Humanity as a whole continues to live by the hope of success.  So it is that each individual continues to ply the binary Yellow Circuit for answers and satisfaction.

     Parenthetically, you also observe that over time, success is achieved.  Life is not going down hill.  Although binary consciousness tells you otherwise, Life is improving.  You must Remember this with a passion.

     A person need only turn on the radio or T.V. and hear someone stating fervently, "I'm telling you, if something is not immediately done about the terribly nonnutritious food served to our school children, we will be destroying not just one generation, but all of humanity.  And furthermore, we're killing ourselves; we're poisoning the environment; we have more than enough bombs to blow up the planet."  All you've got to do is hear a bit of that and everything in your system from Line level down agrees.

     If someone had the least bit of ability to be Conscious, it would be apparent that life is not going down hill.  If the person in our previous example were approached and asked, "Sir, how long did your parents and grandparents live?  Do you have any children?  How much taller and stronger are they in comparison to you?  On the basis of his answers, we would find proof of Life's continued good health and growth.

     Man continues to fool around with the illusionary problem of environment, never realizing that he is not separate from it.  The weather in the sky is not separate from the ocean's weather.  But what better way to spur on the great herd of dumb rats to which we all belong, than by that promise of future success?  Man attempts to change that which is not a problem.

     Here is a physical example.  (Don't become engaged in thinking that I'm speaking about the fields of biology or physiology.)  If food is placed in a specific area of a yard, squirrels will shortly find it, although they have never been to that spot before.  And if the food is consistently set out for a few days, the squirrels will keep returning to the same spot, looking for it.  Squirrels have no Yellow Circuit; they cannot transfer memory verbally; they are hardwired  simply to be squirrels.  And although they are wonderful, furry, cuddly little creatures, they are not known for their intelligence.  It is not common to find seeing eye squirrels or attack squirrels.  So how is it possible that creatures with no Yellow Circuit memory can return to a formerly unknown spot in search of food?  And how far is man removed from this same basic molecular phenomenon?

     I have correctly pointed out to you that one of the uses Life has made of the Yellow Circuit is memory.  It is glaringly obvious, once glimpsed, that without the Yellow Circuit Humanity could not function at its present level.  But for the Yellow Circuit Man would not have the language essential to transfer verbal information.  There would be no ability to instruct others in particular areas essential to the advancement of technology.

     It would seem that Humankind's memory would be far removed from that of a squirrel.  But let me pose the question of how far removed is it actually from a very basic and much older molecular memory?  How can one explain that a squirrel, which is not wired up to approach humans or their habitats, will do so?  He may have never before tasted the sort of food which was offered.  But he came up and tried it and was back again the following day.  And after five minutes, another squirrel joined him.  Information has been transferred without language.  And for this entire process to occur, something has been altered in the molecular structure of the squirrel below his non-existing yellow circuit.

     There is some food for Neuralizing here.  It would seem that the Yellow Circuit in Man must be unique and that its action would be completely different from the life-perpetuating process in the squirrel.  But is that true?  Is it certain that human memory is so far removed in this particular instance?  You might take as a short term motto:  "Remember the squirrels!"

     Is it not curious that the molecules which comprise the brain, the seat of consciousness in Man, are the very same molecules comprising everything outside the brain?  So the molecules known as Man's brain are attempting to study the same molecules outside of itself.  But you don't want to confront the idea of real incest, do you?

     Some time ago, I mentioned the subject of not trying to impress other people.  What if the ultimate rule regarding that should be, "Do not attempt to ever impress the partnership."  It seems at Line level that self knowledge is limited to whatever others seem to think of you.  So it would appear that the constantly running ticker tape, best known as the partnership -- the incessant commentary running through everyone -- is indeed only reporting what other people perceive.  But that is a "D-lusion."  It does not report what is going on outside your own system: it merely reports the partnership's impressions of "out there."  So the question should be:  What does an ordinary man know of himself besides what he thinks others think of him?

     At Line level, part of what motivates Life is the desire to impress others.  To confirm this, one need only look down in his own nervous system.  The running thought is, "If I could correctly impress people, I would undoubtedly be a much happier person."

     Along with this desire to impress, Life has allowed the notion to seep out, throughout history, that we as spiritual people should be guarding ourselves against vanity.  We should not be trying to impress others. This idea survives because it has a certain ring, a certain vibration that affects many.  You've all been affected by it.  You've thought that humility would be essential in order to get in touch with some great mystical brotherhood.  Some variation of this has probably occurred, such as, "I would be so proud of myself if I could be that humble.  If I could be as humble as I'd like to, I'd probably be very well known for my humility."  You have all thought it, and it's always good for a certain kind of chuckle:  "My greatest claim to fame is that I'm best known for being so humble."

     As with everything else, trying to impress others falls within the realm of "either you do or you don't." Whether someone is trying to impress others or trying not to impress others, the results never seem satisfactory.  Someone may be wired up to think, "No matter how hard I try to impress people, no matter how many nose jobs, hair transplants, weight loss programs and speech classes I pay for, I never get the satisfaction I expect."  Of course, there are those whose voices always boil down to this:  "I don't care what people think of me.  The whole world is full of snotty smart alecs anyway.  I ain't got time for all that.  Just gimme a beer."

     The question is, can one avert his attention from the natural direction of the Voices saying, "I am either trying to impress other people or, for some imagined spiritual reason, I am trying to resist the urge to impress others?"  As mentioned previously, what if the highest rule regarding impressing people, were to cease attempting to impress the partnership?  If one were able to succeed in this, you'd no longer be a slave to the mechanical wiring of "either you do or you don't."  Consider that you might be free to explore other possibilities and to use your energy for something new.  It might be possible to glimpse that at the ordinary level, Man is not trying to impress others; he is trying to impress the partnership.

     Many of you still serve the partnership's nominal preoccupation with worry over other people's opinions. There is validity to the old idea that Humanity should somehow be freed from that concern.  At the crude level of ordinary religion, nobody can actually DO it, and everyone's left with grasping at "faith," or, "I'm working on it.  I am humiliating myself.  I go around and drop my pants in the middle of any religious group I see.  Then I surely won't care when they all look at me."  People have been attempting to "work on it" at this level since the origins of the Yellow Circuit.

     What if one were secretly not attempting to impress other people?  It would have to be a secret, though, particularly from the partnership. But of course there are times when one would need to act at impressing; other people would expect it.

     If the first level beyond the worldwide, mechanical need to impress others is simply freedom from this hardwired compulsion, then the second level beyond the ordinary would be to secretly become pleased with yourself; secretly, privately, non-verbally, you would be pleased to be alive, and you would be pleased with the life you live.  Consider that the first level -- freedom from what others think of you -- is analogous to receiving a salary to cover your basic needs, and the second level -- your private pleasure with your life -- is analogous to receiving constant cash bonuses.

     Let me capture your attention with some more about the forces.  Each time I mention anything of a creative nature, or anything that seems potentially positive or for the good, people assume that I'm referring to "C."  Remember that "C" does not always fit that description.  But let's say for the current approach that the avant-garde would fit into what I've been generally describing as "C."

     The avant-garde continually encounters resistance head-on.  If this were not so, no one would recognize it as the avant-garde; it'd be relegated to the shadowy realm of "E."  But beyond that, you overlook an interesting and enlightening aspect of the avant-garde as it functions in Life.  If the avant-garde is to survive, it will not only directly confront resistance, but it will also eventually run into the rear forces of what ever preceded it in the linear world.  By its very definition, the avant-garde must encounter the "derriere-garde" of the troops preceding it.  And although this encounter is more subtle than with the head-on resistance, the two types of encounter can still be confused with each other.  Specifically, one discernible difference explains a lot which you cannot now see.  One of the purposes of the interaction of the Forces in the linear world is to divide and separate life into sequential events.  It keeps everything from merging together.

     The great world of words also has a place in this process of dividing Life.  A word of special interest is the illustrious word "but."  And now that it is mentioned, you'll notice how many sentences contain this word.

     At the ordinary level, we are all in the habit of accepting the use of the word "but."  What, however, is going on biologically when this word is used?  Why is the word necessary?  Does it not strike you, even superficially, that the word seems to be a less efficient use of one's tongue and time than to bypass it and simply state two separate ideas?

     The great rabbis, the great priests have said, "The gods have told man to do so and so, but...."  Or maybe Humanity gathered in one place and thought, "We must do what the great spirits dictate.  We can live no other way; it is unprofitable.  We have seen the error of our ways.  The gods have sent down the plagues and pestilences and politicians.  We will henceforth do that which is best, but....."  I am suggesting that something very basic biochemically is represented by the word but.  I'm not speaking of the field of linguistics; there is something quite real and quite molecular going on behind this word.

     I'm going to now touch briefly upon some areas of Life with which people are often concerned.  People wonder about the significance of dreams.  Does it not strike you as curious that Humanity has devoted so much time to the study of nighttime dreams while people are dreaming constantly during their so-called waking hours?  It is an unprofitable and even dangerous hobby to analyze dreams until you know what is going on with yourself during the day.  You must realize that your own teletype machine dreams constantly and you accept it as being you.  Nighttime dreams are just different in sensation from those of the waking hours.

     People often wonder what is occurring biochemically between two people who seem to have an extraordinarily real communication; there seems to be a tremendous caring and sexual compatibility which is rarely found between people of opposite sexes.  In the past, this sort of connection would have been called great romantic love.  People in the midst of it often refer to themselves as being "madly in love."

     There is a biochemical basis for this sort of relationship.  One can view it through the Circuitry while remaining aware that there are not three separate Circuits.  A person is a totality, a continuum; one Circuit does not just end and another begin, nor does a man end at the top of his head.  There are different sorts of attractions among people.  A one Circuit attraction is short lived and not very satisfying.  There is also what would seem to be a two circuit attraction.  But the oft-lauded relationship called "true love" is a three Circuit, mechanical, magnetic attraction.  The people involved seem to be totally compatible.  They are both best friends and lovers.  It's very satisfying and a lot of fun.

     Another area of wide interest is in the development of the senses.  This Thing, in a given time or place, has always attempted to develop unnecessary consciousness of an additional sense.  I am not referring to ESP or a seventh sense that would enable you to look in someone's face and know how much money he has in the bank.  But with a lateral expansion of the system itself, with a development of the senses which you already possess, a fourth circuit would begin to develop.  It is not a necessary Circuit for Humanity at the present time.

     The expansion of all of the Circuitry must take place before anything new can occur within Man.  One cannot feel as if he is a stranger to Life, nor a wandering exile.  One cannot believe, "I am so fragile and so touched by cosmic muses that here in Life I am among the Philistines and wart hogs."  Anyone who still believes that needs a turbaned leader, and probably a good laxative.  Lateral expansion is a necessary and correct basis for doing This Thing.  Becoming very strange at the ordinary level has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

     Someone mentioned that he wondered if a rumor could exist  based in the C Flow.  Is it possible to have a good rumor?  Everyone should be aware that if you attempt to pass along absolutely positive information about a third person, no one is interested.  All news is bad news; any news must be "D" based to be worthy of recollection; to even be identified as "news."

     As has been said repeatedly, ordinary memory only recalls things on an "either you do or you don't " basis.  "E" is never news.  Nobody can see it.  Imagine a group of news people deciding on a whim to report an "E" based story.  They might get together and say, "Let's pick out one thing that nobody is interested in, not even us, and present it at the tail end of the news."  (Of course, this is not possible.)  If they could come up with such a story and air it, as soon as it was over, no one would know that he had seen anything.  The news anchorman would have to return and say, "You just met Mr. Chaucer the Elder."

     This Thing has operated in various guises and by widely divergent methods throughout history.  And as a result, people involved in This have led lifestyles suitable to their own time and locale.  People sometimes wonder how it is possible to maintain a sense of the extraordinary in This, while being involved in Life's everyday affairs.  But what is more extraordinary than extraordinary people performing the ordinary, and being secretly pleased by it?