Jan Cox Talk 0233

"What Do You Believe In?"  "Everything."

Audio = Stream the audio from the bar below.

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0233 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = none
Summary = See Below

Diagrams = See Below
Transcript = See Below

Diagram # 100 illustration

Diagram # 100 illustration

 

Summary by TK

Tape 233, Nov 6, 1986, runtime 1:31

Life uses humanity as a mechanism as you use your liver and spleen. Men's concerns over eliminating dissention and conflict is absolutely mechanical and forced. Including moanings over 'paradise lost'. Life has its own Partnership and it is articulated thru men in their conflict and contentions: foe situation. Ordinary consciousness takes words/ideas/statements/sentences as perforce intrinsically positive or negatively charged, i.e., good or bad. But in reality, words have no charge whatever ...man supplies this. All ordinary knowledge is 'non-informative'; lacks 1/3 of its wholeness even in optimum conditions (see diagram). The 1/3 lacking is what allows C and D room to dance; sets up conflict. The word 'god' was a very primitive name for E force. A super force attributed with human like consciousness --a reflection of human limitations.]
  [Everything that happens in material and 'non-material' world is true. Every opinion etc. is true. A pickle for new made-up religion: giving smiling affirmation to everything, based upon everything being true. No humor involved. Not related to mere tolerance; you believe in everything. Tolerance is ignorance --there is nothing to have to be tolerant of. Human consciousness provides the room for conflict in Life's own bloodstream. The Few cannot be an ordinary foe --but note that this removed the natural ready foe in your own partnership. This amounts to a kind of transcendence of the molecular structure of ordinary consciousness. Note: no religion has a god that is unopposed. All such worship of a god is worship to only 1/3 of a true deity--i.e., the C third of the circle.]
  [No internal foe= 2 times the room for conflict/dance --the size of the playing field is doubled. Consider the implications of this.]
  [Neuralization bombs. 1. Do The Few have no history, or too much history? Relation to the genetic code of The Few: more alive; greater memory capacity; high strung, sensitive.     2. Consider what difference, if any, there is between: "if you're not for us, you're against us!" and "if you're not actively against us, you're for us". The non-negative vs. the positive --which has more power? ]
  [Possible small hobby--Re: the flow of the known history of man (a place in Life's body) has a great black hole in it unnoticed by all. A glaring hole, there for a reason. What is it? Maybe Life has forgotten it for a reason. No ordinary means will suffice, of course, in your investigation. ]
  [1:23 Epilog task: Using mainly human activity flood your area with EVOTECK. Quantity more important than quality for the present.


Transcript

"WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN?"      "EVERYTHING."

Document:  233,  November 6, 1986
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1986                                    

     Humanity has always been forced to talk seriously about the absolute necessity of eradicating conflict.  People believe that humanity as a whole is going to kill itself.  Moral, political, and philosophical leaders continue to point out, "We seem to be making some progress.  The super powers on this planet seem to be getting closer to overcoming their conflicts and their childish prejudices toward one another."  They are apparently conveying some message that has real validity.  If you think that Life does not use humanity in the same repetitious, mechanical, habitual way that use your spleen, then you are missing the point.  Men and women have been saying the same thing since the dawn of written history right up into last week, and nothing has really changed.

     This is not an attack on humanity.  I'm telling you that Life has a purpose in having man continually decry conflict that he perceives on every hand.  Humanity calls for greater intellectual and moral enlightenment to bring to an end this constant warring over religious and political ideas.  Yet, conflict shows no sign of disappearing overnight.  Ordinary consciousness cannot see that Life requires conflict.

     Those who call for an end to conflict never see that they are mouthing words that are at least two thousand years old.  Every generation that comes along in the genetic race of man is forced to play out a role of restating the obvious, but no one sees that it is a forced role.  From Life's viewpoint, it would not be expedient for man to realize this.

     In spite of the doom-sayers, people have not blown up the planet.  Large segments of people do kill off one another periodically, but they do not destroy the planet.  Although history seems to run in a kind of staggered fashion, things are moving in a manner that, by any definition, is progressive.  Humanity is better off now than it was two thousand years ago, or 100 years ago.  The feeling that things are otherwise is not a matter of a "paradise lost."  It is a matter that something in the molecular structure of human consciousness smells its own, and Life's, incompleteness.  But on the ordinary level, it surfaces as humanity being forced to note that dissension will "tear humanity asunder, and something must be done about it."

     No one sees that Life has its own partnership that is working via humanity.  Conflicting opinions, different sects and races against one another, the nationalistic feelings that give rise to conflicts -- these are seen as being childish, feral forms of behavior that must be eradicated.  And it is simply not true.

     All these apparent sources of conflict are reflections of Life's own partnership.  Life has its own partnership in the same way that you seem to be two people, or two possible modes of consciousness. Nearly everyone today will state that Man has a conscious and an unconscious mind; everyone generally accepts the idea of an internal, conflicting, division in Man.  But human consciousness can not look upon Life -- what seems to be "out there" -- and see that there is a similar arrangement.  No one can see that humanity, operating as a total organism, has its own partnership, as it must.  And there must be conflict. There must be a foe situation within any partnership.  Once you begin to get a glimpse of that, all notions of opposing political ideologies or feelings that there should be a more enlightened, humane attitude (as opposed to the kind of narrow, prejudicial conflicts that apparently now prevail) begin to erode.  Expecting an end to conflict is tantamount to expecting Life's own partnership arrangement to commit partial suicide. Men expect that everything will suddenly be unopposed, and it's not possible.  If it were possible then all growth would stop, and very shortly, all breathing would stop.  Life would stop.  Anything that lives and grows requires conflict and resistance if it is to survive for long.  And that is as true for Life as it is for you.

     I want to connect this to something else for you to Neuralize:  at Line level all words, in and of themselves, have either a positive or negative charge.  There might be some examples of "E" type words -- things that you're not interested in -- but other than such cases of hard-wired disinterest, as far as consciousness is concerned, all words strung together to make ideas have an inherent positive or negative charge.  For example:  a father calls his family together and tells them, "I have just spoken with my doctor; I am dying."  One son or daughter might suddenly collapse -- weeping and hugging the old man.  We could say that they obviously find the statement, "I am dying," to be negative.  We might look just two feet away and find another son looking off in a calculating manner, wondering how long the old man can hang on, and how he will spend his share of the will.  In other words, he may literally find the statement, "I am dying," to be positive.

     I didn't go through all that just to point out that everything is relative, but ordinary consciousness can't even go that far.  That's not the way things are arranged.  Consciousness ordinarily takes statements, that is, words put together in ideas, as being intrinsically charged one way or the other.  Ordinary consciousness simply accepts that there are negative and positive statements; "If someone I loved told me they were dying, that's a negative statement; or, if there was something in which I had an interest, say I wanted a loan for a new business, and the people to whom I applied for the loan said, 'No, you can't have a loan,' the words, the idea is negative."  It is not.  It is only true for someone operating with one dimension missing.

     Let me see if I can drag you a little further.  If you have knowledge of only two axes, the "C" and the "D" force, the knowledge you have is, ultimately, non-informative.  It is non-expansive, because there is nowhere you can go with it.  If you could, no one would be seeking to be religious.  No one would be seeking some extraordinary journey.  No one would be trying to do This kind of Thing, because everything would be self evident.  There would be no questions.  If the information available regarding two of the forces were self-explanatory, it would be satisfying, and it is not.  Can you see any connection between that and what seem to be this partnership arrangement in you and in Life?

     The two forces can be arranged in any given situation as taking up to two thirds of the possibilities all the way down to some kind of minimum influence for you or anyone else to just be conscious of an activity.

     With "C" and "D" force operating at two thirds of the possibilities of all reality, it's always calamity time. To ordinary consciousness, everything is serious business.  You are talking about a doctor who just told you, "You're going to die next week."  Your broker just called and said, "Are you in a tall building, if so, get away from the windows.  You have just lost everything."

     Information that is limited to two forces, at Life's level and at the ordinary level, is non-informative.  It answers nothing.  It satisfies nothing.  What the partnership arrangement never sees is the missing one third of the possibilities -- the "E" force -- that gives room for the other two to dance.  If they do not have room to dance, everything would be frozen.  It would be like two gears with no tolerance that have locked up due to lack of room.  Nothing can be transferred.  Motion and energy cannot move.  And yet, ordinary consciousness believes that the purpose in Life, especially the purpose of non material activity -- religious or philosophical activity -- is to overcome this dance, to overcome conflict.  And it's not.  It is the blank space where the dance moves (what I've been calling "E") that determines the relative position and what's going on with the other two forces.  The two forces by themselves don't tell you anything.  That's why no ordinary knowledge is satisfying.  But it is also, in part, why consciousness feels that this conflict must be overcome.  "If we could overcome religious differences, racial differences, nationalistic differences, the basic uncivilized differences between humans, then there would be some kind of heaven.  There would be the final resting place, the ultimate Arcadia of humanity.  We would have found our Camelot."  It's not true, because there is always the third part missing.  Line-level consciousness can not understand that there has to be a place for the two forces to fight it out, to dance it out.  But at the ordinary level, because of the missing third, the "E" force, it all appears to be non-beneficial conflict, something to be done away with. And it's not.

Diagram # 100 illustration

Diagram # 100 illustration

     Let me connect this to something else: initially the idea of "god" was a very early name for the "E" force.  Many people still have such sounds in their own wiring systems; the electrochemical activities make the word "god" ring in their heads, but what's ringing is an unanswered call from "E" force. Consciousness attempts to conceive of it in a crude way as a place, an area, where everything is finally rectified.  "E" would be the omnipresent, omnipotent place where all childish human conflicts would be brought together under the super force, under the super chief.  They call it "god", but I'm telling you that it was a very early name for "E" force.  Humanity still has that resounding and reverberating in its consciousness.

     That's not the only purpose of the idea of "god", but it's one you should attempt to Neuralize specifically.  There is a lot more to it than that.  If you can get away from your wired up ideas of an "old man sky god" who exists apart from everything, you should try to Neuralize what has been operating in the genes of Man.  What is it that comes out with the idea of a "god" -- of a super, ultimate force -- always giving it human consciousness, always reflecting the limitations of Man and Man's own consciousness?

     Ordinarily, all you are seeing, at best, is two thirds of what is going on.  But keeping that in mind, I want you to see that every opinion, every religious idea, every philosophical idea -- everything is true.  If you can begin to see this, then you can begin to do something else which will expand your nervous system, and that is to continually give smiling affirmation to all you hear; never voice any criticism of Life.  The partnership can't do it, because the partnership deals with what appears to be conflicts.  For example:  you hear someone say, "There is no doubt about it, I have studied the bible, and all my brethren agree that secular humanism and liberal attitudes are the work of the devil."  Now, let us say that your partnership is wired up in such a way that as soon as you hear that, if you are just being conscious at Line level, there are immediate reverberations in your nervous system to the effect:  "Well, you fat old fool, when people like you die out, maybe there will be a chance for some progress."  But you make a mistake to react in such a manner -- not a religious or moral mistake -- you are missing the opportunity to give smiling affirmation to everything you hear.  You've got to know how to do it.  You are not agreeing, it is simply that everything is true.

     You should be able to have a kind of joyful feeling toward everything which Life produces.  Picture it thusly:  if some kind of cosmic force were to jump out of the bushes and ask you what you believe in -- if such an impossibility occurred -- you should be able to look them dead in the eye (assuming that forces have eyes) and say, "I believe in everything," -- and mean it.  You have to be able to stop any pre-wired responses from your partnership, no matter what they may be.  You must be in favor of everything and believe in everything.

     To some of you, this may sound like some kind of idea of "being tolerant of others", but you are missing the mark.  Tolerance is not the point.  Tolerance fits right into the same scheme of ordinary consciousness, it is the same as believing that conflict and dissension must be overcome.  When people talk about tolerance, what they are saying is that we should all learn how to put up with Life.  There is nothing to put up with, because it's not going to change.  If you say, "We should all be more tolerant and learn to put up with conflicting opinions, even though I know my opinions are closer to the truth.  Other people haven't the benefit, not only of my education, but they haven't had the benefit of being me.  So, I'm trying to be tolerant."  What you're actually saying is, "I hope I can get to where I can be at peace in my own limited consciousness.  I wish I could be dumb enough that I didn't recognize the conflict."

     What this is about is the attempt to go in the other direction, "I wish I could get to the point of Seeing and Understanding that there is no conflict.  There is a dance, there is a wrestling match going on, and if it did not go on, we would all be done for."  If we could make the idea of heaven on earth a reality -- no conflict, no strife, just peace and understanding -- if it came to pass, that would be the end of us.  It would be the closing chapter of humanity as we know it.  Life would be done for.

     When I tell you that everything is true, it's got nothing to do with tolerance.  As humanity's ordinary consciousness would call it, tolerance would be ignorance.  Tolerance would be a diminution of consciousness:  "I wish I could get to the point that I didn't understand that conflict was necessary."  It sounds fine when people talk about it, but being tolerant, trying to put up with Life, won't get you anywhere.  You've got to be in favor of everything.  You've got to understand that there is no real conflict going on -- not between right and wrong ideas, not between goodness and anti-goodness, or justice and injustice.  There are two parts of the universe wrestling and shifting around.  They razzle a while, they dance a while, and they've got to have room to move.  Part of the room they have to move in is human consciousness.  That is part of the purpose we are playing in Life's blood stream, in Life's own nervous system.

     The notion of ordinary tolerance is nothing because there is nothing to be tolerant of -- there is no conflict going on.  It's growth.  There is no battle between a good and an evil, or between a right and a wrong.  From This viewpoint, how can you be tolerant if you're in favor of everything?  No matter what idea you heard expressed, no matter how frivolous, no matter how silly, you should be in smiling affirmation of it.  "No matter what it is, I am in smiling affirmation thereof.  I am in favor of it, I believe it, I support it."  If you ever begin to See what's going on, you will not have to fake this.

     If you can't quite get a handle on any of that, let me put it another way.  You should not be an ordinary foe.  At the ordinary level though, you've got to be a foe, especially to those things that should be opposed -- injustice, hatred, evil, gloom, darkness.  But if you're going to pursue This, if you're ever going to see what's going on, you will be a foe to nothing.  I am not speaking theoretically, and I'm not speaking about tolerance.  There is nothing to warrant opposition.  If you say, "Well, yes, I try to be tolerant of opinions that conflict with mine, that is, opinions I know are not right on the money; I can tolerate that...," you might as well wear a "stupid" bell around your neck so that everyone can hear you coming.  To say, "I am tolerant," you might as well say, "I am exceedingly dumb."  You're saying there are things that you should be tolerant of:  "There are things going awry, but thank god, I'm a little better than some uneducated bricklayer, some savage living in the jungles.  I believe that perhaps we'll get better somewhere down the line, the more educated we get.  But at least I'm to the point that I can tolerate some of this."  You might as well wear a big hat with a sign that has an arrow pointing down that says, "IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR STUPIDITY..."

     If you were to the point that you could affirm and believe in everything, can you see that you have taken away the ready foe in your partnership?  If you truly believed in, supported, and affirmed everything as I was describing -- not tolerance -- but that you could look the gods in the eyes if they asked you, "What do you believe in?" and answer, "Everything!"  If that was the native arrangement of your molecular structure now, do you see that you have taken away the foe in your partnership?  The very thing that keeps this activity you call yourself going is a kind of friction machine.  It is the feeling that there are two things going on:  this me, and then, this not-me.  One thing says, "We ought to do so and so," and the other goes, "No, no, no, no, no, couldn't do that."  That is what keeps you conscious at the ordinary level. If in some way this foe arrangement was snatched out, what do you think would fuel you as you are now? If all the internal conflicts that you feel exist in you, all the ambiguities, the ambivalence of feelings and motivations, if they all were suddenly wiped out, what would you do?  Who would you be?  What would you have to say other than, "I'm in favor of everybody, I'm behind all of you."

     I'm telling you the truth, as far as words go, in saying that everything is true, everything.  No matter what it is that you can think of, no matter how blasphemous it might appear to everything you believe, it's a fact.  And if you don't think it's a fact, try and find a "dumb" bell to hang around your neck, so that you can warn off decent people when they hear you coming.  It is all true.  Just because something conflicts with what you know to be a fact, doesn't mean it's not true.  It means you're just dumb; it means you are only seeing two thirds of the totality of any given scenario.

     If you could remember that everything is true while it exists, you would have taken away the ready foe from your own ordinary internal arrangement.  You would have expanded the ability to perceive reality beyond the two thirds of ordinary perception.  There would be no internal foe.  I might suggest, almost parenthetically, that the notions people have about great religious leaders and prophets -- about how serene and decent they were -- a more accurate description would be that they seemed to be without internal conflict.  Although such serenity has always been looked upon as a supernatural, spiritual gift, I suggest to you that it would be a kind of transcending of the mechanical, molecular arrangement of the partnership that makes up human consciousness.

     It is also this partnership which sees only two thirds of reality, that gives rise to the notion of faith in religion:  "We can't understand why evil seems to triumph over good, or why religion does not seem to be all powerful.  That is, we can't understand why all people do not agree with us when we obviously know the truth.  We've just got to have faith."

     In this same area, you should note, it is not possible at the ordinary level to have a religion that has gods who have no foes.  Throughout history and throughout humanity, in every example you can find of any kind of religion, there is a god, or gods, and then there is the foe of the god.  This is not some sort of unconscious reflection of the breakdown of Man's mind or his soul; it is the nature of consciousness itself. It is the chemical, electrical nature of consciousness itself that projects the idea of gods, and simultaneously at every place on this planet, the god's foe.  Nobody has ever noticed this.  You should find that curious, to say the very least.

     Another angle:  within ordinary religions, the only possible object of worship is an idea that is just one third of a real deity because the second third of the triad is the god's foe.  So out of the whole possibility, they are limited to "worshiping" an idea that is literally one third of a real deity.  And yet, that's all that has ever been necessary for humanity.  No one under ordinary conditions ever has any perception of this; no one ever says, "Hey, what kind of gods have we got if they are not really in charge?  We refer to our gods as omnipresent, omnipotent, and they're not, because all of them have a foe.  What's going on here?"

     Let me try something else on you.  If you altered your molecular structure so that internally you had no foe, can you see that you would then have twice as much room for the triad to operate in?  If human consciousness is this kind of duality -- of C and D force apparently being in continual conflict with each other -- then even though at the ordinary level you don't perceive it, there is always the E force.  That's where the partnership is wrestling.  That's the only way your partnership continues to operate, or the whole machinery of so-called consciousness would freeze up, if it didn't have room to dance and to fight. These feelings of, "I should stop doing something I'm doing," and then you don't stop it -- you don't see, at the ordinary level of consciousness, that there is a third force holding everything together.

     E is the place the other two forces are apparently conflicting in you.  It's the place they go to fight.  If you had no such foe arrangement, do you understand that C and D would not just have E to dance in, they would have twice as much room to move and operate.  As to what that might mean to you, in the spirit of good cheer, brotherhood, and further education, I'll leave it to you to discover.  Or, if that doesn't give you any encouragement, how about this:  at your present ordinary level, your feeling is that internally, "I've got no room to maneuver.  If I did, I would be able to stop some of my bad habits.  I could do better.  I could make progressive change, but I can't seem to get a grip on things.  I can't seem to make any movement. It's always something.  There's just no room."  There's room alright, or you wouldn't be alive.  But you would have twice as much room if you had no foe.