Jan Cox Talk 0257

Who or What Defines Your Reality


Video = no you tube
Audio = not yet
Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0257 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = none
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = 113?
Transcript = See Below


Summary by TK

Jan Cox Talk #257 Apr 23, 1987 – 1:53

  [Conspiracy, power/control/new information, revolution (con't). In order to be powerless, you must be accepting of others' definition of reality, ie., fragmented. The powerless must believe and accept others' designated 'enemies' as pressing and real. Further, they must believe there is freedom of choice from a plurality of information. Question: Who/what is feeding you their version of reality? Who/ what is the source of your reality? The definer of reality is in control. It seems to man that such control takes place behind appearances; sub rosa. The powers in control even manipulate revolutionaries by defining them, giving them reality. Revolution cannot define itself. Religious aside: note that established religions always support the established power structure; there are no 'left wing' churches. Re: rebellion: The Few must not become distracted by the small movements of evolution; moderation is not sufficient. There is a kind of violence that is truly liberating. It is self directing, i.e., not violence directed at 'other forces' --enemies. Revenge is never satisfying; there is never a lasting peace, never a final victory in the horizontal world. This is not moral edict, but a molecular fact. The Few should view their own consciousness as a kind of powerful tyrant, but a dictatorship forever under the threat of imminent assassination-overthrow. This impartial awareness of consciousness as a controlling tyrant is prerequisite to real rebellion. Another religious aside: religions speak out against the 'enemy' of the church --rebuke and curse it. The Few however would have a 'clinical affection' for their enemies (on those very rare occasions when such is even spoken of). The ordinary world calls for opposing camps occupying the same land (occupier vs. occupied) to "live as neighbors": the impossible. The Few must actually accomplish this; enforce an unnatural lateral peace in the Partnership. Without same there isn't the horizontal space to explore above the horizontal line. The enforced lateral peace is the foundation for proper rebellion. A third religious aside: Established religions do hold out hope for a lateral peace.]
  [More aspects of "control". Fear, dependence and scarcity are the primary factors of control. Relation to circuitry and historical time: Fear generated from the need of sustenance of food and water; red circuit. Dependence arises from control of land by landlord; scarcity/control of information (Yellow Circuit domain) is the modern aspect of control. Control thru information/energy circulation at an ever increasing rate. Info controls reality today; no one is going to die of starvation or thirst. New information fuels revolution and it must be threatening,dangerous. If the new info can be reasonably debated or amended, it is not new or was stillborn. New info never prevails by converting or attacking the opposing forces to become the new occupying force. Real Revolution is non-ending: This Thing is the ultimate rebellion. In spite of the enforced peace at line level, you should constantly be straining at the limits. ]
  [Another aside: on the surface what is the most decent, just, system of political reality for man? Socialism. But socialism is not new; has not been a success. What does Life accomplish in this way? All 'isms' are the unknowing attempt to reduce and/or divert the courses of energy; an attempt to establish an unnatural balance, a lateral peace where it is inappropriate. ]
  [The new info of This Thing would make a reasonably astute observer say: "If this be true, then I'm a dead man"]
  [There is a true need for The Few to conserve stuffs and energies. Do not make Life employ unnecessary steps of energy processing. Your hardwired predisposition to waste is holding you back. This includes not acquiring what is not necessary for you; what you cannot reasonably use. Not to waste produces the proper context for revolution.


Transcript

WHO/WHAT DEFINES YOUR REALITY

Document:  257,   April 23, 1987
Copyright(c) Jan M. Cox, 1987              

     Many of you feel you are involved in a Line level struggle.  You feel you are continually attempting to hold your sanity and hold back your partnership's judgement.  You find yourself continually struggling with whether I am talking about something externally real, which I obviously am, or whether I am not, which certainly could be true.  To remain passively powerless, you have to accept another's definition of reality.  You have to accept the externally provided fragmented information.  By "others" I am referring to the time honored belief in conspiratorial theories, i.e., that there is someone or some group in control, feeding you their definition of reality.  They feed you the information necessary for you to live your life, and the reality they feed you is fragmented, which matches the way in which you read, the way in which you hear, the way in which you are conscious.

     Neuralize on your own whether information is put out in fragments because it is the only way consciousness can hear it, or whether it's fragmented because the mechanism of perception produces the fragments.  Or you can face the fact that no matter how it works, it all works just fine.

     I must remind you that the many are powerless.  They are born powerless, live powerless, and die powerless.  Hence, the core of belief in grand conspiratorial theories.  For you to remain passive, to know that you are powerless, and to remain that way, you have to accept others' definition of reality, whoever the "others" may be.  You have to accept the flow of information/energy given you, and it is always fragmented.

     To remain passively powerless, you have to believe in an enemy who is named and designated by others.  You are not born with an intrinsic fear and hatred of communism, fascism, or yankeeism.  You have to accept the enemy pointed out to you.  But at the same time, Man believes he has freedom of choice.  He must believe that a plurality of information and choices is available to him.

     Now this is different from the fragmented information.  Man must believe in freedom of choice in his actions, and in the realm of thinking of action.  He has to believe that truly conflicting views, conflicting sources of information about the same subject exist.  And he must fear real change, continually embracing the known and the expected.

     Now let me ask you, who/what or what/who defines your fragmented information regarding the very nature of living?  Is it your Yellow Circuit, your partnership?  Is it your Red Circuit, your angers and fears?  Is it your own ignorance?  Where do you get your definition of reality?  What is the source of your information?  Were you born with it or did you get it from your parents, school, your church, or community?  Is it a combination of these?  Could it be that simple?  You don't believe everything your parents told you or everything your religion said.  You seem to have had "original thoughts on your own".  Somewhere along the line, you rejected parts of what your parents told you as being improper; you rejected or denied part of what your religion taught.  So, by who/what's definition of reality are you living?

     Neuralize conspiracy in the light of an unconscious mind being part of the conspiracy.  We can say that whoever or whatever defines Yellow Circuit reality is in control.  It is simply a fact that in Yellow Circuit beings like us, something is in control, something defines Yellow Circuit reality.  But there is also something else; something that matches the external notion of a conspiratorial theory.  Consider the concept of the subconscious, the pervasive human feeling that something's going on inside -- or out there -- that you can't see.  There seems to be a shadow player, a something occurring that is not up front.  The reasonable, horizontal observer points to a subconscious mind, to latent motivations, because nothing else makes any sense.

     Consciousness cannot ordinarily look upon individual life or the life of humanity and find any visible reason, logic or purpose.  Things simply cannot be merely as they appear.  You cannot explain the insanities of history, the dead ends humanity seems to take, much less your own life.  So, you have all the seeds for conspiratorial theories.  The actors in history, including yourself and others on a larger scale, cannot be seen as the true source of what is occurring.  Everyone suspects there is an unseen control.

     Reality equals control.  Who or what defines your reality is in control.  It sounds simple, but is in fact quite subtle.  Consider this example:  the controlling forces in any situation will be the first to define potential rebellion.  It is the controlling forces, not the renegades, not the insurrectionists, who are the first to name the revolutionary group.  The revolutionaries may save their money and quit smoking and drinking to buy two or three hand grenades and rocket launchers.  They paint a sign saying, "We're here and we're not going to take this anymore.  Viva la revolusion!"  They can make as much noise as they please, but until those in power take note of them, the revolutionary group does not exist.  It is the controlling forces who actually define the revolutionaries, and indeed the revolution, itself.  Now we come to the heart of the matter:  the controlling forces are in control of the would-be revolution from the onset, and no one recognizes it.  The revolution cannot define itself.

     Consciousness itself cannot force a description of itself.  All the situations, the flows of energy, the circumstances, would have to be just right in a 3-D world for this to happen.  Would-be revolutions are going on all the time.  Children try to rebel against their parents; offshoots of religions rebel against the governing body; dissenting factions splinter within political organizations.  I have been using the extreme example of external political rebellion going on in some area of Life's body, but no matter the players, no matter the specific situation, or the names they give themselves, all rebellions are based on one thing:  those who are not in power want to be in power.

     It has nothing to do with specifics, with communism and fascism, or the labor party and the socialists.  When you have a rebellion, or a potential rebellion, you have two groups:  those who have power, and those who want to take it away from them.  The names change, the uniforms change, but the dance remains the same.  Somewhere a group of people are trying to take power.  The revolutionaries paint a new sign that says, "Power to the people.  Land reform."  All the people that don't have land say, "Yeah!  How do we do it?"  If the controlling forces in that area pay no attention, if they ignore it, that's as far as it will go.  You'll never see this revolution on the news.  At most, it will be a passing human interest story, "The One Day Revolution".

     The revolutionary forces cannot define themselves.  They cannot define themselves and make the definition stick with the powerful.  To make this a little more complicated, I'm going to make a distinction between those in control, and those who are truly powerful.  The powerful and the powerless are two groups that can never meet.  Nobody can move from the powerless to the powerful.  The powerless are at least 93% of everybody.  Control may occur within a spectrum of those two groups.  In other words, those in political control may or may not be part of the powerful.  In fact, there are people apparently in political control all over the world, who are not part of the powerful.  So those in control and those who are powerful are really two different things.

     The would-be revolutionaries cannot define themselves.  And they cannot take the truth of what they hope to be and force it upon the consciousness of those in control, much less upon the powerful.  The trick I started out to show you is how things are arranged.  Forget about some group of secret bankers as being the grand conspiracy.  Just look at the reality behind the ideas of conspiracy.  If there is a potential revolution that threatens to overthrow those in control, those in control do one immediate thing:  they define the revolution before anyone -- the newspapers or the group itself -- can define itself.  They say, "Here, my friends, is the very kind of uncivilized, unprofitable foment that we in power will protect you against."  They may not be able to do anything that fast, but as soon as those in control define the would-be revolutionaries as the source of the rebellion, they have them.  They have them from the beginning, because those in control define the reality of the people -- of the forces involved.

     Now go back to paragraph one right quick.  Who/what is defining your reality?  Religions -- established religions -- those that survive more than a generation always support the established control.  Sometime back, I pointed out there is no such thing as a left wing general.  There are no liberal generals and no established powerful left wing religions.  Think about it:  can you imagine a left wing fundamentalist?

     Religions that control groups of people, established religions, religions that apparently have power, are always supporters of the established power.  What is Life indicating and what can you learn from such information?  And for a subquestion, try this:  What is Life indicating about creativity?  You have to learn how to deal with the fragmented information available.  Religions support the prevailing control; Life has no choice in the 3-D world.  I must remind you that this statement about religions should not be the end of your considerations.  Through everything we can talk about, everything you can Neuralize, you are still talking about only three-fourths of another reality.  But on this level, those who are the shepherds, the spiritual channels for individual growth, support the established control.  Does this smack of conspiracy or what?

     I am going to bring the individual activity and participation of people like you in This, into the area of rebellion and revolution.  Let me point out, that the struggle to become a revolutionary against whatever forces there may be -- those that seem to hamper individual choice, freedom, and internal movement -- in This struggle, evolution is not sufficient.  It must be an individual revolution.  You cannot be distracted by small movements of ordinary evolution, which does occur in the 3-D world.  Evolution is not sufficient.  This small, timely evolution takes place with or without your notice or participation.  You have to turn your eyesight on the big change of revolution.  Regardless of what may have been said in the past, moderation is not sufficient for individual revolution.

     Let me note for you that there is a kind of violence that is truly liberating.  Before you think I'm talking about an external political reality, the violence I speak of is self-directed.  That's the trick the Few have to understand.  If you were to take such information to a third world country, do you think they would say, "Wow, we got it!", and turn the guns on themselves?  More likely they would turn the guns on you.  Who's going to believe that the true liberation in violence must be self-directed?  "No, no, somebody is holding me back.  It's conspirators and forces, it's others.  But it's certainly not me.  Give me a gun and the chance and I'll show them."  If you believe this is a liberating form of violence, then you still believe in ordinary, fragmented information.  To turn your guns against an externally forced reality, whether political, economic, religious, or whatever, accomplishes nothing.  In crude 3-D terms, such horizontal revolutions are never over because the victor never sleeps.  He knows he is victorious for how long?  Two weeks?  Maybe a month?  As soon as a victory is declared, a reasonable, astute victor begins to worry.  Before the ink dries on the surrender document, before the parties shake hands, or pour a drink, the victor is already looking over his shoulder.  There is no peace, there can be no stable victor, and the violence I am speaking of is not external.

     This is what lies at the heart of the fact that you can't get revenge.  The thing about revenge is, somebody apparently mistreated you, and you wait a day or a month to do something to get them back. Then you wait until they figure out it was you, and even if they don't, you worry about it the rest of your life.  For example, there are the stories of some religion where the monks are supposed to be totally celibate, and have nothing to do with women.  Two of the followers are walking along and see a woman fall in the ditch.  One goes over to help.  When they get back to the monastery, the second one says, "You know we're not supposed to touch women.  How could you do it?"  And the first one says, "I let go of her two hours ago, and still you're carrying her around."  It's the same with revenge.  It has nothing to do with anything moralistic; it's simply that you can't get revenge and be satisfied.  Those who can hear, hear the correctness of the fact that revenge never tastes right.  You may feel good for a few seconds, but how long is that going to last?  Revenge is not sweet for one reason:  because in the 3-D world, there is no total victory.

     The desire for revenge is a necessary dynamic in Life's body.  The ordinary, mechanical memory of someone saying, "How in the world could you have done something like that?", is necessary to keep certain kinds of energy in circulation.  But you cannot deal with revenge.  To say it's a waste of time and doesn't taste right is to say nothing.  You simply have to See that it is, rather than a moral flaw or lesson, an unending, unsatisfiable process.

     Individually, there is a particular way in which you can look upon your own consciousness as a tyrant, a dictator tempered by the constant possibility of assassination.  But you must first have a colorless, cold awareness of the first part of the sentence:  your own consciousness -- wherever it came from, whatever has been responsible for your definition of reality -- is a powerful tyranny.  It is your consciousness, your sense of yourself; it is the Yellow Circuit's function, it is the brain's ultimate function in man in the 3-D world.

     What you find yourself with is a powerful tyranny.  I say that it is tempered by the continual possibility of assassination, but there is no such possibility, there is no hope for such a rebellious act until you have a clinical knowledge of the first part.  Consciousness is a tyrant, it is a powerful established government, it feeds you fragmented information, it defines your enemies, it defines your reality.  He who defines reality is he who controls, whether it's a political organization "out there", or your own organization "in here".

     I started by pointing out that what it takes to remain passively powerless, to remain under control, is to accept others' definition of reality.  That is what consciousness does.  It makes you believe in its named enemies, whether it be uncouth behavior, people of different religions, races, sex or other countries.  And at the same time, it makes you believe in freedom of choice.  Where did you get the idea there is a plurality of information?  We are indeed overloaded with computers, encyclopedias, and periodicals, but all it takes is a certain kind of clear-eyed clinical look and you'll See there are no pluralities of information.  If there were, there would be conflicting realities and there are not.  You may find slight variations on this planet, but they are becoming less and less distinct as we become more and more homogenized.

     In history you find mention of occupied lands, the situation of one people overpowering another and occupying the homeland of the latter.  The historical notation I am about to quote concerning occupied lands is, "The two people must not only live side by side, they must learn to live as neighbors."  Think about it.  Can any of you apply it immediately, internally?  Can any of you see its possible validity, the useful validity to your own partnership, and in regard to your own fragmented state of consciousness?

     What it amounts to is this:  there can be no lasting peace in the land of the living.  I know it's complicated to See the practical validity of such a comment.  When you're dealing with occupied lands, the two peoples are forced, living side by side in the same territory, to learn to live as neighbors.  If they don't, there will be no end to the hostilities, and no end to the problems.  Now transpose this to an internal usefulness:  in a sense, what you are trying to do is establish an unnatural lateral, enforced peace.

     If there were a suitable description, it would be that you take all the Line level energies, all the conflicting opinions, all the fragmented information that, at 3-D level, forms an illogical contradictory picture, and have them live together.  The conflicting forces now occupy the same land, not as the occupier and the occupied, not in a continuing, simmering state of hostility, but as neighbors.  For the Few who would actually pursue an individual course of revolution, you have to have a kind of lateral peace to have the time, the energy, and even the horizontal space, to open and explore new territories above Line-level consciousness.  As long as you are part of either the occupying or the occupied force (and it can shift back and forth) your government is tied down, and you do not have the available energies for exploration.

     I could take an historical bend here and point out to you a kind of three dimensional long range progression, some of which has been visible in your lifetime.  Control can be divided into threes:  control by fear, control by independence, and control by scarcity.  Control by fear relates to the life sustaining basics:  the need for food and water.  The second description, control by independence, could relate to land.  Once humanity began to settle into communities and quit running around, foraging for food and moving herds, what became important was land.  The controlling forces went from trying to control food and water to land -- making you pay rent.  Now what about scarcity?  What example could I use for control by scarcity?

     What I was describing in this three dimensional arbitrary fashion from fear to independence to scarcity -- what is in scarce supply now?  It is less and less a matter of food, to wit:  none of you are going to starve to death while you're hearing this.  You are not going to thirst to death.  You can always go to a service station or public fountain and drink, you can get food stamps and live in a shelter.  The sustenance of physical life itself is no longer the controlling factor.  98% of the powerless own land.  No, the scarcity now is information.  Information/energy -- as it should always appear in your brain -- because what we're talking about is the necessary circulation of energy within Life's body.  To use the 3-D descriptions, it is now energy as information, not as food, not as water, not as the energies in the land of oil, gas, and solar energy.  What is now the critical factor, at an ever increasing rate, is the control of energy as information.  Whoever -- or whatever -- defines reality, controls 3-D reality.  And reality is defined by information.

     The revolution has to have new information.  Information that doesn't threaten someone is not new.  It's not even information.  To fuel Real Change, information must be new, and it must be threatening.  The revolution requires new information, which means dangerous information.  Take a look at the horizontal ordinary world, the body politic, and note that all the influential organizations, both religious and political, initially  frightened the established controllers of the day.  Look at the revolution of your forefathers, and consider how they looked to the British Crown.  Once the controlling force -- the crown -- recognized them as being potentially revolutionary, it was frightened.  It was threatened, and then it was enraged.  Of course, the step after being enraged is -- attack!  For new knowledge to indeed be the kind of fuel a revolution needs, it has to be dangerous to somebody.

     If indeed you can hear four dimensionally, the information, the energies that are of most consequence to the body of Life no longer concern territorial disputes.  No longer is it a matter of one group threatening to take over and control all the non-replenishable energy sources.  Any visible 3-D revolution now involves control of information, of new ideas and concepts (although they don't have to meet our definition of truly new) which weren't available yesterday.  These kinds of concepts, if they are not seen by the controlling powers as being dangerous, are not seen at all.  If the information doesn't last a generation, it is a fad; a one shot deal on the nightly news.  In other words, it is a short lived phenomenon without any lasting multi-generational impact.  Now shift again to the internal level -- as if we'd ever left the internal level.  The revolution is what you're attempting to do in your own lifetime.  And the new information to fuel it must be dangerous and threatening to someone.  And if it can be reasonably debated or amended, it is not new.  Or it was stillborn.  I won't give you a few seconds to think of any possible exceptions because there are none.

     Revolutionary ideas, revolutionary knowledge does not prevail by converting the enemy or the opposition.  And I don't care who you think the opposition is -- evil forces, dumb forces, forces with bad habits -- the revolution never prevails by conversion.  Although real revolutionary ideas do not convert, they may ultimately -- beyond the span of one generation, one lifetime -- become the accepted truth of the 3-D world.  A new generation may take what was once a dangerous revolutionary idea as simply reality.  A large portion of the world's population now accepts the Christian idea of reality, though at one time, it was dangerous and threatening.  They talked about conversion then, and they still talk about it.  But what conversion can't accomplish, three dimensional time can.  And to new generations, what was once revolutionary is simply now reality.  What was once revolutionary is now just a description of things as they are.  That's not revolution, though.  Real revolutions are non-ending, and This -- this personal activity would be the ultimate in never-ending revolution.

     Consider how strange all this sounds.  When things are working right, when you're sufficiently astute, you should feel as though you're not sure what I'm talking about.  And, on the other hand, there are times when you think, "Well, that's not all that strange."  It just shows that you are no longer being astute.  When all the circumstances are right, all this is strange.  It is insane, it is, in fact, dangerous.  Something in you -- some consequential body, some established power, some control in you -- feels threatened.

     What would seem to be the most reasonable, the most just answer -- in the external world -- to the pervasive imbalance between those in control and the powerless?  I'll tell you:  it is the reality behind the concept of socialism.  The idea of socialism is not new and, we may note, has not been a roaring success.  Consider what's going on.  Socialism appears to be equitable treatment personified.  Yet, it never succeeds.  I'll start you off with a partial pointing:  those in the practice are unknowingly attempting to diminish the diverse rivers of energy in Life's body.  They attempt in the practice of socialism to mute and divert necessary flows of energy by establishing an unnatural balance between people, men, and molecules in a greater living system.  It is a general, mechanical attempt to establish a lateral peace and it cannot be accepted by Life.  So it never succeeds.  It always becomes twisted from the original 3-D revolutionary concept.  It becomes its own opposite.

     If you ever want an identifying test for new information -- for Real revolutionary, dangerous, threatening info -- if it is real, if it is new, then when a reasonably astute observer hears it, he would say, "If this is true, I'm a dead man."

     I don't normally deal in what appears to be trivialities.  As to why I don't, I will give you one piece of it to Neuralize by yourself.  It has to do with consciousness and how it is controlled.  Consciousness -- indeed whole systems -- are founded in trivialities.  They become almost the raison d'etre for what's going on.  Once the dominant guy points something out, his audience becomes fascinated and the whole thing thrives upon messing around with one or two trivialities.  They get hung there.

     What I am about to tell you may sound trivial.  It may, in fact, sound to consciousness as if its mother were using my voice.  What I'm saying is simply a part of you, part of the genetic background that makes you have red hair, brown hair, blue eyes, male, female.  But if you were nothing more than your genetic destiny, what are you doing here?  Why would you have undergone even the little partial rebellion that has at the least occurred in all of you?  In fact, what I'm about to tell you is not just something you'd be better off if you acted upon -- not to act on it is to cut down the possibility of your revolution starting tomorrow.  It cuts down -- it mutes -- new information.

     There is a need among the Few, for conservation no matter that you may think I'm speaking about something that is fairly ordinary, fairly non-revolutionary.  No matter:  I wouldn't be saying this to you if it were meaningless.  And I am telling you it is not.  For example, you should not walk out of the house and leave the lights on, unless you do it on purpose.  When you walk out of a room, turn off the light.  For the Few, when you waste things -- and energy -- you are ultimately making Life go through an extra process.  You throw away things that aren't broken to buy a new model.  Something comes in a new color and you throw away the old one.  It's dumped into a land fill, the planet earth breaks it down and it gets recycled.  Life reused it, so in a sense, you didn't actually throw it away.  But you made Life go through an unnecessary process.

     I am not your father, nor an ecologist, nor am I a sociologist.  And if that's all you Hear in this, there's nothing more I can tell you right now.  Except that what I'm telling you is of real importance to a Real Revolutionary.  Ordinary people do not waste energies in Life.  Whatever they're doing is what Life needs done.  But you should not be part of the many; you shouldn't be part of the ordinary exchange and recycling of energy.  If you go far enough in the revolution, I'm suggesting that you will come to this necessity for conservation on your own.  You shouldn't waste things.  You should not acquire things you don't need.  When you waste things, eventually you're going to run out of time; and that is another waste.

     You should not waste energy or stuffs.  Some of you can feel it now, and it's not of any great consequence until you can See it, because it is so basic.  It's so basic, it's a blind spot.  And while it won't be fatal to your efforts in This, I'm telling you it is a small personal waste of energy.  You acquire things and you throw them away.  You acquire things and you lose them.  You've got to understand, money is energy.

     I'm not going any further, this is not a sermon, and it is nothing personal.  I'm telling you there is a reality to conservation.  Many, many of you are blind to it.  You think it's meaningless.  It just shows that you don't understand the true need, among the Few, for a kind of conservation.  You should not make Life work overtime.

     Try to look, try to get a feel that you need to be involved with a kind of personal, secret, individual conservation of energies.  If you try, as trivial as it may sound, some of you will find this to be a real benefit, almost immediately.  Some of you can feel it now.  For a few of you, it involves going against your own wiring.  Some of you find the idea irrelevant and meaningless.  "If I turn out the lights I might save a dime a month."  But the waste I'm talking about costs you more than money.  It's like a small blister; it's a small blood letting; it's simply a personal waste.

     I'm telling you that there is a reality to the conservation of energies and things.  For any of you to believe you're involved with This and be wasteful is almost obscene.  Again, I am not making a sociological or ecological comment.  It's a me comment, a Revolutionary comment.  If you waste things, things will eventually waste you.