Jan Cox Talk 0245

Two, Two, Two Responses in One


Video = no video ( tape destroyed by mold )
Audio = not yet
Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0245 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = none
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below


Summary by TK

#245 Jan 28, 1987 - 1:29

The world is full of people who think they know everything. The paradox is they know nothing and can't know even that there are people who really know everything. The Few should find this interesting.]
  [J. could have used 'corporation' rather than 'partnership' for internal binary process; legal entity connotation applicable. Must realize that for every event or idea there are two possible responses or positions for you to take internally. The Few should be continuously aware of this; they can have the awareness of same by virtue of extraordinary wiring system, whereas for the many this awareness is thought to be impossibly difficult. This awareness of two fold response possibility is a 'cosmic monkey wrench' in the works of what's going on; seriously dilutes the seriousness of everything. Consider the alternative name, 'corporation' vs. 'partnership'. The corporation is a legal entity, independent and more or less competently functional in the affairs of man. Comprised of many owners (thereby sharing financial risk) who, under the corporate legal shield, are not held accountable personally for the doings of the corporate entity. In reality it is a fiction per se. Consider the parallel to a 'self', the 'I': fictitious yet nevertheless having functional purpose in the scheme of things; but the 'individual' voices/'I' share no real responsibility. ]
  [The next further step after the awareness of binary response structure of consciousness is the seeing that Life itself is a direct contradiction; a living in direct conflict with itself, which begets a chuckle from The Few. But The Few must realize, will realize, that such amusement is unbearable to the many, and requires toning down, retreat sub rosa so as not to attract undue attention. ]
  [None see that language hides the topography of Reality. Example of a blanket imputation/judgment as to artistic merits of an artist by one who has no artistic talent himself. Or the statement re: learning disorders in children being of "partial chemical influence" —but how can anything involving the human process be out of the realm of organic chemistry? None see that the obvious truth is that there is nothing invisible, secret, occult in man. The Few can see this and ask themselves: How can this be so? It's obvious, but then again it's not, since none but The Few are aware of it. How is it Life lets The Few see? ]
  [ What would be the most frightening words for the Partnership to hear? Probably a medical prognosis of terminal disease. But what should be the most frightening words to that non-partnership possibility of you?]
  [Reference to an observation by Group member about strongest circuit being therefore the weakest --yes, from some viewpoint, but opposite is true from another. Must remember that any satisfying answer or map will slay you. ]
  [Re: "the unavoidable is the necessary" as applied to Group: not necessarily so. The Few cannot sit in judgment of each other (let alone anything else!). ]
  [1:15 TASKS: 1. Consider what should be the most frightening words to that non-partnership part of you? 2. Pretend you are another type of person; write down a question that they would have, proper to them. Also: pretend you are a famous historical figure and write down their question. ]
  [Comments to group re: 'blind' questions arriving from J. out of the blue. Do not take lightly; do not suspect 'fifth column' activities.

 


Transcript

TWO, TWO, TWO RESPONSES IN ONE

Document:  245,  January 28, 1987
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987                            

     First let me ask you if you realize how strange it is that I know everything that everyone else says they want to know, and yet, they can't know that I know it.  Everyone, through the pursuit of such interests as psychology, religion, and science, is trying to find out what I know; everyone wants to know what's going on, what Life is about, what people are about.  There are always a few people on this planet, at any one time, who know this stuff.  And yet all of those who say that they want to know this information can't know that these people know it.  That's just the way it is, and you should find it interesting.

     I have used "the Partnership" as one useful description of ordinary consciousness and if you give it any Real Consideration on your own, you'll see that there is a reality behind my calling it that.  You will begin to have the distinct impression that there are two possible separate voices in you and in everyone else.  I have used this description, in part, to drag your attention away from what you're already wired up to call it, for example, the conscious and unconscious mind, your spiritual self and your carnal self.  You might also find it interesting that in the Western world, primarily speaking of the United States, every state defines a partnership in its civil code.  It is a real legal entity.  That is not the reason I used that description, but there is a validity to the ordinary use of this concept that immediately struck me when I thought of it.  And it is something you should find curious.

     I could also have described each person as being a corporation.  Again, every state legally defines and has laws governing corporations.  A corporation is not the same thing as a partnership.  Corporations and partnerships do have similarities in the law, but for now, I am using the distinct description of you as being an internal Partnership.  It is a Partnership with two partners; that is, you feel there is a you, and then there is something else.  At times you feel as though the Partnership is you, whatever "you" is, and that this other something is what is in conflict with it.  It is a reflection of the Partnership.  Sometimes the Partnership appears to be you and your desires, and at other times the Partnership appears to be the one causing the problems.  But I want you now to Consider that for every inquiry, for every statement, for every idea to which you are exposed, there are two very distinct possible responses in you.  There are always two.  Whenever something comes to your attention, for anything you're wired up to notice or be interested in, there are always two possible responses.

     Under ordinary conditions, no one ever notices this.  Humanity is not wired up to notice it.  It is not in Life's self-interest for people to notice this.  People would feel as though they were coming apart, that they were on the verge of some sort of mental collapse.  But you should be aware of the fact that for everything that catches your attention, for anything you hear, anything you see, for any idea that catches your fancy, there are always two possible internal responses.  Always, always, always and sometimes even all the time.  But most definitely always, always.

     Without a continuing knowledge of this you have missed something.  Without a continuing awareness of this you have attempted to jump over a bridge you haven't even gotten to yet.  For one thing, you're missing out on a great deal of fun.  I say it's fun, because if you are seriously involved in This, the awareness of two responses will start to play havoc with the ordinary workings of you.  You cannot maintain this awareness and take yourself seriously.  You can't continue to treat the Partnership in a civil manner, instead of the familiarly humorous and crude way I have encouraged you to treat yourself.  Because if you have some awareness of what the Partnership is, not just in you but in everybody, your reaction should be somewhere between humor and disbelief.  When you run off at a right angle to ordinary seriousness, humor and disbelief are not that far apart.  If you catch the Partnership in operation -- if it says something, or it thinks something and you're aware that, "I was treating it civilly, I was being polite to it," -- if you catch it in a certain way, you can say, "It was humorous."  And at other times you could say, "It's almost just unbelievable."  Those two responses almost sit on the same stool.

     Under ordinary conditions people are aware of only one distinct voice.  They feel as though, "My main voice tells me that I agree with this, my primary desire tells me that I want to do this and yet something in me, probably something unconscious, in my past, tries to hold me back."  Everybody in this day and time believes that, "No matter what I want to do, no matter what I think I think, no matter what I think I feel, there is a part of me way down in my subconscious that is in conflict."  To say that you have that sort of awareness is to say nothing.  Your Aunt Elmer can do that.  You knew that before you got here.  You must have a distinct awareness that, "Inside of me there are two responses to what I just heard."  Not theoretically.  You do not need a psychiatrist, a rabbi, a priest, or an automobile mechanic to be aware of this fact.  It is right there inside you.  There's no where else to look.  You don't need to discuss it with anyone.  If you have got this strange wiring system -- if you are properly attracted to This -- all you have to do, once I point it out, is to look inside.  Once you hear it you should have the absolute certainty that, "Yeah, that's true."  (When I say once, I am not dealing with horizontal time, because it does not happen immediately.)  Even if you don't yet understand why it's true, you should hear that it's true.  This is not simply faith, it is not because I said it.  Beyond all that, you hear it and it strikes you that, "Maybe I can't do it right now; it's irrational and I don't have any basis for believing it.  But, yeah, it's true."  In a strange kind of 5-D logic, it should strike you that, "Alright, as weird as it sounds, if I can't be aware that there are always two possible responses in me, if I can't be aware of what's going on in me, then all my dreams about reading minds, and living after I die, of being a good person and loving my enemies -- they're duck squat.  If I can't even look at what's here, how can I dream of miracles?"  There is no one simple trick to This.  Those who have understood it in the past came up with a method and description for their own time and place.  And all the descriptions are couched, at least in historical memory, in religious terms.  Then little offshoots fall into so-called metaphysical ideas.

     But the idea that a person can in some way have an awareness of what's going on has always struck humanity as being an unattainable goal.  It is the whole idea dragged from Grecian times of "know thyself."  Humanity has always regarded it as some sort of life long effort; perhaps the gods would shower knowledge upon you, perhaps not.  Perhaps through a rigorous ascetic existence you could attain such heights of understanding.  And with ordinary people, the fact that it is an unattainable goal is a boon.  Because if ordinary consciousness could "know itself," it would never be the same.  So the search for the unattainable properly continues under the name of various religions, metaphysical systems, sciences and philosophies.  And people would admit, in all honesty, that it seems to be almost a losing battle.  No one would admit that he had ever reached the place where he felt that he knew himself, but at least he has a hero.  Everyone has a teacher who, 200 or two thousand years ago, did know himself.  And they all feel as though it is potentially attainable.  And even if it isn't, it is at least a worthwhile endeavor.  So for those people, the idea of "knowing thyself" is a miraculous, questionably attainable, eternally elusive goal.

     Now, back to a handful of people.  Namely you people.  Whether I can guarantee it for each and every other person is a question for S&H green stamps.  But for the right people this self knowledge is not a far away thing.  You don't have to move to the desert and ride a camel, change religions, or change your hairdo.  Because it's right inside you, there for the looking.  It is simply a fact that, "Hey, all of this is going on inside of me and all I've got to do is look in a particular way."  It does take effort.  It takes all kinds of effort.  First of all, you have to remember to do it.  Some of you have to want to do it.  You've got to be wired up to start hearing some of This and to want to do it.  And then it strikes you, not to please me, not to bow to some threat I make, not to just fall for some enticement I might verbalize, but it strikes you that, "Hey, this could be worthwhile."  Or even more important, "Hey, this could be fun!"  Then you find out that all you have to do is remember, all you have to do is want to, and you start seeing what's going on. 

     You must have a continuing awareness that there are always two possible internal responses.  It is the continuing awareness that this Partnership does not operate under a single-headed manifesto.  It is the awareness that both Partners always have a response to everything they hear, see, and feel.  They've got two responses.  You've got to know that.  To know that, as I said, from one viewpoint, is the ultimate fun. Because to know that is to understand that the Partnership does not collectively know anything.  You're not bound by it.  Legally, there are technical responsibilities in a partnership.  But when you begin to see this Partnership, you realize one thing, "I'm not responsible for the debts of either of these two suckers." That is the ultimate happiness.

     You can have a spasmodic, slap in the face awareness that this Partnership does not speak for you. Alright, when you get really good, if you want it this way, you say, "Hey, it may be speaking for me but I don't care."  That's when you have transcended all ordinary notions about what is truth and what are lies. But you must first understand and see for yourself that there are two internal responses.  And forget all ideas about hidden, dark recesses of an unconscious or subconscious mind.  Under ordinary conditions, there are two possible responses to everything that touches you.  Every transfer of energy, from something you read, an idea you hear, a picture you see on a billboard, to an aroma you smell in the air elicit two responses continually.  In the attempt to see the two you find yourself continually observing one thing.  It is the ordinary operation of the system to chop up reality.  You hear a certain song, a certain idea, a certain phrase, and you observe what appears to be, "My personal response.  It is what I think about this.  It is what I feel about this." 

     You must have some real feeling for the fact that to hear only one response in you is like having your foot nailed to the floor.  From now until you run out your statistical time table, from now until the age of 70 or 75, you may get to where you can run on one leg faster and faster.  But you've got to have some notion of the fact that all you're doing is running around in circles.  What passes for ordinary consciousness, ordinary thought, ordinary feeling, has never gotten you anywhere.  You have had your whole life of reading books, pondering ideas, trying to figure things out, to realize this.

     You must be aware of the two responses.  You must have this awareness.  It puts a serious, cosmic monkey wrench in the seriousness of it all.  And it doesn't matter what the particular responses are.  It isn't necessary that you even verbalize the two responses.  That is not the defining aspect of it.  You must have an awareness, a continuing awareness that in regard to whatever is going on, you have, as people express it in the Western world, an ambivalence of thought, an ambivalence of feeling.  Except you have an awareness that it is not isolated to one situation.  And you must realize that there is no struggle; there is no contest between the two.  It is not that, "One of my feelings is good one and the other is bad."  And this includes your expressed ambivalence of feeling.  All that falls into the realm of useless predicates. You don't need that.  All you need is an awareness of the subject matter.  There is no need to predicate it. Even a spasmodic awareness has the serious effect of diluting what appears to the strength and seriousness of the Partnership, at the very least.  And at the very most or, the very worst, it turns it all into somewhat of a laughing matter.

     I've already mentioned that I could have described this situation as the Corporation instead of the Partnership.  A corporation is one of those curious parallels, legally, that Life seems to have expressed through humanity.  Both a corporation and a partnership are fictitious entities.  At the ordinary level, there are two general bases for the notion of this fictitious entity called a corporation.  The first and primary basis is that it enables people to raise money; through a corporation, you can sell shares of your business; you sell pieces of your idea.  That, in the ordinary world, is the prime importance of it.  It is the idea of being able to cut up a corporation and sell shares of it, little pieces of it.  People can own parts of your business, your idea, or your service and not really have to participate.  They don't have to be there with you.  They just own a piece of it.

     The other purpose corporations serve is to shield people from individual responsibility.  The people involved in the corporation, the principles, those running the corporation, can do things in the name of this fictitious beast, the corporation, and not be held personally responsible.  For example, if your car blows up, you can sue the manufacturer.  But you cannot collect from anyone personally.  You cannot collect from the president or from the design engineers who produced the car, even if a jury finds that the design was in fact faulty.  All you can do is sue the corporation, not the people involved.  A corporation is a protection against individual liability.  There is in fact, no such thing as a corporation; there is only property that the corporation owns, the people in its employ.  But there is, literally, no such thing as the corporation. For reasons that Life found agreeable, humanity devised this fictitious entity so that commerce could expand at the rate in which it has.  Life would not have grown in the exact way that it did without this fiction of a corporation.

     Can you see a curious parallel between a corporation and what seems to be your own ordinary sense of self?  You are not responsible.  You are the "Me Corporation" and you are not personally responsible.  You can say to your internal voices, "Yeah, sure I hang around here, I may have a part time job, I may own some stock, stock my parents left me, but I'm not personally responsible and you can't get diddly squat from me, I know my rights."  Even though I may still continue to refer to the Partnership, you can look upon what seems to be your own sense of "me, myself, and I" as a Corporation.  Everyone can hide behind the Corporate veil, the Corporate shell.  They can hide behind the fiction of themselves.  Can you see that Life may not see a great deal of difference between a fictitious, legal entity, a corporation, and the fiction of an "I"?  The sense of individual isolation or separation, which I've described in the equation I + Not I = Everything, this feeling that, "I am an individual with my own unique thoughts and my own singular feelings," can be properly seen as a fictitious entity like a corporation.  It is one of Life's master strokes. An individual may own property, he may have employees, he may be in debt, may have others in debt to him, just as in a corporation.  But there is no such thing as a corporation, and can you be sure there is such a thing as an individual "I"?

     Let me make another suggestion.  After you begin to have an awareness of the two responses you develop the ability to see Life as a direct contradiction.  This is one of the next steps.  It is always a corollary.  You see that there are two responses to everything in you, and then comes the awareness that ordinary existence, that Life itself, is a direct contradiction.  This is an expansion of the awareness that you personally have two responses to everything.  It is a right angle, Life-sized expansion of what you see in yourself.  If you expand this awareness beyond the lateral level, into another dimension, off at a right angle, you can see that Life itself, as it appears to the Partnership, to ordinary consciousness, is a direct contradiction.  It is a sight that introduces you to another level of humor.

     You may, in fact, find Life to be an inordinate chuckle; you may find the insights that occur with This exciting, and for seemingly no reason.  You might be sitting in your car in a traffic jam or in a coffee shop having lunch, and suddenly, it comes upon you that Life is so exciting, and so humorous in this unusual way that others could neither hear it or bear it.  You might also have the feeling that, "I almost can't stand it myself.  I've got to pull back."  But I can definitely tell you, when you find yourself in those places, there is a way to handle it.  All you have to do is remember, "I, too, can behave in a serious manner."  You may find that, at times, you'll have to cut back on the visible display of excitement you feel in This, on the visible confession that you find it all to be funny.  And funny is not the right word, because in ordinary life all humor has a hostility to it, a tension to it.  The "funniness" you find in This is a supernatural, four-dimensional humor.  And you've got to be aware that there is a very, very low tolerance built into Life, that is, in other people, for the display of this particular humor or excitement.  The only sense ordinary people can make of it is to think you are bonkers.  To them, only an idiot would be sitting somewhere and seem to be that happy.  Or, only someone with serious mental problems would find all of what we're talking about to be humorous.  Because, at the ordinary level, it is not.

     It's neither my job nor my responsibility to point out any shortcomings, flaws, or drawbacks to pursuing This.  If you have to pursue it, you have to pursue it and all the rest is just poppycock and there's no sense really talking about it.  But if there was anything to say, I'd have to say it was -- and I'm not saying there is, remember -- but, if there were I'd have to say it is in having to watch yourself, after a certain point. Because if you don't, people are going to look at you really funny.  You shouldn't worry about it, but you may feel sometimes as though you yourself can't stand much more.  It is a self-regulating mechanism and it will take care of itself.  But you have to be aware of the fact that ordinary people can't really stand much of This.  Life is not arranged for it.  It's not that they're wrong.  And it's not that if you keep This up, people are going to start recognizing you as something special.  They won't.  People will think that your slaw has begun to sour.  They're going to think your mental milk has begun to curdle.  But if there were anything I could call a drawback I'd have to say that it would be in having to keep a lid on your excitement, at least in public.

     These are more of the kinds of things that are said in life that you should hear in a way that makes you curious; things that you should find interesting, or even humorous.  All of you have heard variations of this, you'll read or hear someone -- an art critic, an art patron -- described thusly:  "Without any doubt, Mr. or Mrs. so and so has done more for art than anyone since the Medicis."  Or, "They have done more for art than any person alive today."  Everyone hears it and no one pays particular attention.  But I'm pulling your attention to it.  This man or woman is described as having done more for art, than any other single person in the last four hundred years.  A large number of people agree with it, and now this person is tagged with the description, perhaps until the day they die.  Every time he's written about, he's not just famous and rich; he's the person about whom it was said, "He did more for art than anyone in the last four hundred years."  And it sounds correct, that this person could do so much for art.  But note:  In this example, I'm talking about painting.  And this person "who has done more for art..." does not paint.  He's a critic.  Or a patron.  "This person over here has done more for music, literally, than anyone in the last four hundred years.  He has devoted his life to it."  Yet, this man does not play an instrument, he doesn't compose music, he can't even carry a tune.  How can this be?  How can someone who doesn't paint have done "more for art..."?  How could this person have, "Done more for music in our lifetime than anyone in the last four hundred years," and he neither composes nor performs music?  How can this be?  When you first hear it, it sounds plausible.  "He has written so many books, he's given so much money, he is more knowledgeable about Western music than any man alive."  To say he's done more for art, for music is not really debatable; to everyone else it's just a fact.  But I ask you again:  what's going on that everyone believes such statements without question. 

     Here's another variation of this, although we're still talking about the same thing.  Recently I heard someone talking about learning disabilities in children on the radio.  The person talking had all the right credentials, for example, he was an expert, he was trained in the field.  He stated that there is a possibility that certain learning disorders in children may have a partially chemical basis.  By now, after a certain amount of exposure to all of This, you may chuckle and think, "Of course, how obvious."  But it's not obvious to ordinary people. 

     What other basis is possible with so-called learning disorders?  If I insisted on an answer to that question from an ordinary person, he might say something about the indirect psychological traumas of a deprived childhood, a paucity of artistic, cultural intellectual impressions due to poverty.  That is taken, at the ordinary level of consciousness today, as being an answer.  Learning disorders are ordinarily regarded as being beyond the realm of the chemical world, in some way separate from organic biology.  You could ask the same expert to bring you a part of that child, a part of himself, a part of his mother-in-law, that is not organic.  You could ask him, "Where is the part that you're speaking of that is not biologically organic? What could possibly be going on inside someone that is not chemical?  Where is it?"  You could ask him, but it would do neither of you any good.  And I ask you, why is it yet impossible for people in general to see that there is no other possibility than the organic, the chemical, the biological.  What is going on?  Why is it that in every generation, there is a handful of people that Life lets see things, that Life sees things through a certain number of people?  Why does it give to a few a whole new definition to words such as blatant, salient, obvious?  What is going on that you can say, "It's just obvious and yet I look around at me and everyone else, and I recognize that it is not obvious?"

     Consider that it is the Yellow Circuit in humanity that is the leading edge of development in Life's Nervous System.  Humanity does not need to get bigger and stronger physically to help Life evolve.  If we were speaking three dimensionally, I would say that humanity is getting smarter in order to help Life evolve.  Life does not need to develop in the biceps any longer.  Speaking three dimensionally, it is now developing in the intellect.  So why is it that humanity is growing in this way, and it still cannot see this one simple aspect.  It cannot see that there is no secret, invisible something going on in humanity that needs to be explained?  Humanity no longer needs the explanation, "It's a soul, it's a spark from the gods."  All that served a purpose, at one time.  It was a lower level reflection of what I'm talking about now.  Why can't humanity see it, even if they wouldn't accept it.  What is going on that they can still say, "Well, perhaps some of the learning difficulties in certain .pachildren could have a chemical basis."  If it's not chemical what is it?

     I've got a little something else for the Partnership.  If you were still ordinary, what would be the most frightening words you could ever hear?  Now remember, to the Partnership, to the ordinary arrangement, there are always two possible responses to what you hear -- in this case, a question.  I think we could safely assume that a very common, broad based response from ordinary people would be to hear a medical judgement that they are about to die.  And not only are they about to die, but that their death will be prolonged and agonizing.  It would not be unfair to say that this would be the prime example of the most frightening words the Partnership could hear.  But now I ask you:  what SHOULD be the most frightening words YOU could hear?  What SHOULD it be?

     I've got a couple of questions from people involved in This.  One person writes, "Could the strongest circuit also be the weakest one in that it is the most self-confident of its rightness and, hence, the least adaptable to change?"  From one/some (that's one slash some, which is the same thing), it's always true that the weakest can be seen as the strongest, and vice versa.  To say that the strongest could also be the weakest in that it is the most self-confident of its rightness and hence, the least adaptable to change is, at least, one good verbal description, one verbal view, out of at least 359.  Remember, I have hinted and sung and joked about the fact that any map that is completely satisfying is useless.  Any description you conjure up, that you read or hear and you immediately clasp to your bosom and bosomette, is useless.  You did not clasp a good description; you clasped an asp disguised as a description.  You hugged a viper in map's clothing.  Quite literally, anything you can see from any view, any response to any question, anything that you can see as being the strongest answer, the strongest defense, can be seen as also being the weakest.  All you've got to do is find the other view.  If we were to investigate areas in which you have no natural interest, for example, things to which you would have never naturally responded, you can still see that there are two immediate views.  And you can see, whether it is something you have an interest in or not, that there is always a strong view and a weak view.  You can see the strongest, most valid theory and you can also see that, from another just as valid view, it is also the weakest and the most capricious.

     Another question:  "I have noticed of late, off and on, a gap that seems to still persist between those involved with This activity.  And I can't help but find it, at times, odd and even sad, while remembering that the unavoidable is always necessary."  I know this.  I've tried to cover this and I have given you people some few little rules to go by.  But let me point this out, since the person quoted me, in a sense.  They did it correctly.  They said that they find it somewhat odd and, perhaps, sad, to realize these gaps still seem to persist among you people, and they point it out while remembering that the unavoidable is also the necessary.  That is a fair quotation of me.  Normally the unavoidable is the necessary.  You must remember, you must have the knowledge, if not the understanding, that if it was just a handful of you, I wouldn't be fooling with you.  If the number were less, if the quality was different, if the mix was different, I wouldn't be doing This with you.  This is the one instance, however, that the unavoidable is not necessarily necessary.

     I know some of you people have business dealings together, social dealings, sexual dealings, and that you people continue to disappoint each other.  I know that at times, some of you feel, in your own Partnership, that somebody in this group has misused you or disappointed you and they should know better.  But you're always asking for trouble to believe that everybody knows better, to believe that someone knows better.  I guess you're safe with me because you find out, if I don't know better, then This whole thing is lost anyway.  To believe that anyone should "know better" is to ask for disappointment. You're back in a corporate madhouse.  You're back dealing with the Partnership and treating it as though it knows what it's saying.

     All of you feel a periodic sense of disappointment in somebody in the group.  It could be just that somebody in the group agreed to meet you for lunch and forgot it.  They didn't even call you.  And you expect more of those people.  It feels as though it is a singular cut:  they should have known better.  Of course, I picked out a fairly innocuous example.  There are those of you who are more closely involved as friends, or sexually, and you feel as though the other person let you down in some way and it feels as though it is a deeper cut.  I know how it feels, but you are truly making a mistake to still expect the supernatural, to expect anything out of the ordinary from ANYBODY else.  Unless, of course, you are absolutely immune from being ordinary.