Jan Cox Talk 0262

Donuts Make Your Clothes Shrink


Video = no you tube

Audio = Stream the audio below in two parts. ( includes the reading of Kyroots for 31 minutes, which you can read on the AKS/News gallery as you listen.

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0262 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = Gallery
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below


Summary by TK

#262 May 28, 1987 - 1:48

 [Reading of Kyroot to :31.]

[The utter predictability of the tendency to take criticism personally--e.g., your name attacked in print vs. a pseudonym attacked in say, a theatrical review. "It's not the same pain if it's not the same name". The 'rebirth' of renaming is a biochemical rearrangement. Questions: is it possible that "all error arises from misnaming?" Is it possible for anything to be considered 'sacred' if it has not been specifically named/identified as such? Internal application--consider: is 'I' your real name? Is 'I' anybody's real name? Is 'I' everybody's real name? Or is 'I' a mutually, commonly held pseudonym? Consider the non-use of your real name to and for yourself--what could this accomplish?]

  [A splendid example of 3-D consciousness--"eating donuts makes your clothes shrink!" 3-D consciousness has the same feel/taste as that of your foot being asleep. The Few have got to reshape,reprogram, remake themselves from the inside-out/outside-in; reform your own genetic basis. Understand psychological quirks vs. biological necessity.]
  ["If you're not interested in alternate reality, it won't be interested in you."]
  [Non-stop neural activity as a kind of interplanetary travel (as between synapses) and for the ordinary it is a visit to a familiar planet whereas for The Few it must be "where no man has ever gone before".]
  [Consider:what could be thought, or written by a Real Revolutionary that would not threaten the peace?]
  [Realize that even the harshest conditions of tyranny is freely supported by some. This is true internally too.]
  [Everybody knows the 'truth' once--but it is only good for 5 minutes. Out of this arises the cry of the impossibility of 'knowing the truth'.]
  [Once the revolutionary info of This Thing occurs in a person in any locale, it drastically reduces the chances of it occurring in another such in that locale.]
  ["It has been proven: you can have fun and not be sober."]
  [1:35 Comments on last task. Subtask: how is it possible for your feigned passion in a foreign activity to fit into the 3 categories of emotion? Where does it fit?


Transcript

THE NAME OF THE NAME OF THE GAME

Document 262, May 28, 1987
Copyright(c) Jan M. Cox 1987                     

     Some time ago we were offering public programs and you people were writing and putting on skits, plays and presenting music.  You informed the media and people came out to do reviews.  It turned out, as you might expect, that there was some criticism of what you did, negative criticism -- negative comments about certain actors and actresses or whoever wrote the piece, whoever directed it, whoever did the lighting, etc.  The first time this happened I spoke to several of you about it.  Now, I am going to use it as an example and a partial introduction to certain areas that I am going to update.  What I mentioned to those few of you was the fact that it was not at all unusual or unexpected for anyone at line level, for anyone's own hard wired so-called personality, to have a real potential to take this personally.  Who wants to read something about themselves like:  "The play wasn't too bad until John Smith came out and the whole thing fell apart, etc.," or, "It was interesting that a woman directed this play and even though I'm in favor of women entering new areas, being the enlightened critic that I am, this woman went into the wrong area.  She should have tried veterinary medicine."  And they refer to you by name.  There it is in print. You people, the same as everyone else, in your non-revolutionary self, your good old conservative self, would be expected to take umbrage with this.  Some of you might have gone into a closet and wanted to cry.  Some of you might have wanted to punch the critic.  "How could a man be so dull witted.  How could he be such a boor not to realize the allegorical, the metaphysical intent of what I wrote, produced, and the way in which I acted this part?  I was intending to be dull and he didn't realize it.  He didn't understand I was doing a satire of a bad actress."  And so on.

     I pointed out to one or two people at that time that it's not unexpected to have that reaction.  But why not take my suggestion to use pseudonyms?  Pick out a stage name, or a pseudonym if you're writing.  I asked the one or two people that I mentioned this to, "Would it be the same if instead of your own name, you were listed as Alonzo P. Gruntwrapper?"  For example, "The play wasn't half bad until Mr. Gruntwrapper appeared.  Until that point I wondered whether this play was actually going to get off the ground, but once he came out, there was no question.  It died like a man in a carp suit attacking Pearl Harbor."  I asked then, would this have had the same affect on you?  At least one or two people I mentioned this to said, "Ah ha."  And I didn't have to say any more.  It wouldn't be exactly the same. Although you knew it was you being criticized.  If you wrote it under a pseudonym and somebody tore it apart, compared you unfavorably to the better parts of "Mein Kampf", pointed out that the depth of your writing made "Valley of the Dolls" look like serious literature, and you knew it was you.  You knew you wrote it, but you looked down at the program and it's not your name.  It's "Julio Hirshfield", let's say, and you know that's you.  But would it be the same as if your own name were used?  The non-verbal suggestion I tried to leave with the people when a few of them said, "Ah ha," was:  "Isn't that curious?"  That you know it's you but it's not your name printed there.  It's a pseudonym.  Is that not interesting?  It's not the same pain without the same name.

     Now, following that introduction, let's try to get into paragraph one, if I haven't stepped into it already.  It is a fairly common practice in life for a person to take a pseudonym.  One likely candidate is the would-be religious convert.  Another smaller group consists of revolutionary figures, people who take on what amounts to a terrorist name.  Some terrorist leaders whose names everybody knows will adopt a pseudonym.  Someone named Abdula Jones will become "Mediterranian-Face the Terrible".  In South America, two are three would-be revolutionary figures who are well known by face and background have picked out a name which in Spanish or Portuguese means something like "the fire-headed revolutionary". Then reports of his activities will use his pseudonym then in parentheses refer to "the former Julio Hirshfield".

     Why?  What is the point?  The prophets, these would-be spiritual people, are probably better known to you.  It is very common throughout the world, throughout history, in connection with an apparent or hoped for spiritual epiphany for someone to take an assumed name in place of their own.  In that case Life would have most ordinary people say, "This represents in some way the birth of a new person.  The person has undergone a spiritual rebirth so complete that they wanted to differentiate the new self from the old self.  And so they call the new self 'Saint Alonzo the Beautiful', 'Saint Francine the Fairly Attractive'."  But I am suggesting to you that there is more afoot.  Only ordinary people would be driven by Life to say, "Sam Jones, after he converted to this religion and had a miraculous experience, renamed himself "Sam the quasi Mystical".  Ordinary people would assume that this has a spiritual or at least a psychological basis -- that to him it represents a shift in his attitude, a change in his very being, etc.  But we're past that stage. We must remember that we're actually describing molecules being agitated by sound.  Up to a certain moment, the man was known as Sam Jones; he called himself Sam Jones, and answered to "Sam Jones". Sound activating a molecular structure in him and in other people is the process that is known as "his name".  Now he is "Sam the quasi Mystical".

     Forget the idea that there is a psychological basis for this, a spiritual reality, a motivation behind it, or a different meaning.  It is a different sound.  "Sam the Quasi-mystical" creates a different molecular reaction that "Sam Jones".  The idea that a new name, a terrorist's new name, or a spiritual new name, represents something beyond the molecular level is, I suggest to you, childish.  It misses the point.  It explains everything and you understand nothing from it.  There is something else afoot, I am suggesting to you, in changing one's name.

     A philosopher, (a would-be philosopher at least) once said that the prime source of error in Life is in misnaming things.  Is that possible?  Believe it or not, we're still under a sub-section of paragraph one, for those of you keeping notes.  Can anything be truly said to be sacred until it has been so named? Whatever religious background you may believe you have, or whatever milieu you're trying to fit this into -- can anything be said to be sacred, holy, unless it has been verbally so identified?  I suggest that part of your erstwhile hard wired consciousness would think otherwise.  It would think that some things are sacred: some places, some person, some occurrence, some rock, some building, some tree, some locale.  But let me ask you this:  do you know one such thing that has never been labeled sacred?  (If you do you can drop me a card or letter.)  Do you know a sacred place that has never been so identified?

     Now, how might all of this relate to one's own sense of "moi", of good old "I"?  I've got four questions that I humbly believe should be interesting.  One is:  "Is 'I' your real name?"  Number two is:  "Is 'I' anybody's real name?"  Number three:  "Is 'I' everybody's real name?"  Lastly, "Is 'I' a commonly held pseudonym?"

     Now remember, I started this by saying that a few people I had occasion to mention this to found it interesting, and heard a little something when I pointed out that if you were being criticized for doing something publicly, a piece of creative work, acting, writing, etc., and were panned in print under your own name.  Then would it have been the same if you had used a pseudonym?  Suppose the critic used the pseudonym instead of your name, but the negative criticism remained?  You read it, and of course, you know it's you, and you know that a few other people know it's you, but would the apparent pain, the apparent molecular reaction to it be the same?  I suggest that if you've got anything going for you, you realize that it wouldn't.  Isn't that interesting?  Remember, that one man said that the prime source of error was misnaming things, and I asked, "Is that possible?"  Then I asked, "Is it possible for anything to be sacred, special in some way, unless it is verbally identified as such?"  Then I asked these last four questions.  (So please note:  I have not left the neighborhood yet.  I have not left the original map for tonight.)  Is your "I", is "I" itself your real name?  Is "I" anyone's real name?  Is "I" everyone's real name? Or is "I" a mutually held, a commonly held, that is, a pseudonym that everyone has in common?  If it's the latter, then what are people hiding?

     Now, back to what you should find to be the interesting part.  That it would not seem to be the pain, the same potential upset if you were criticized, panned royally, but under your pseudonym.  Now, as always, to have any value, let's take all of this apparently internally.  Could you see any benefit, any possible use of this, such as:  what if you never thought of, silently said, or otherwise referred to yourself by your real name?  By your real name, I don't mean anything mystical.  I mean, if your name is Sam Jones or Mary Smith, what if you continually used a pseudonym in your own apparent reference to yourself?  How about just en passant, not only individuals, but organizations, these groups of would-be unusual people throughout history, where the whole group either refuses to ever say their name once they joined, or the organization, the monastery, for example, tells them, "Don't ever say your name again.  We'll never call your name.  From now on you're Brother X or Brother Y, or Brother Z."  Or the whole group takes on pseudonyms.  If they tried to explain it, they would say that it had something to do with humility that they never referred to themselves in the first person.  This change of names has occurred throughout the history of man, and attempted descriptions have characterized it as being spiritual, a psychological trick, an allegorical attempt to define a change in their attitude, and attempted change in the course of their life, etc.  I'm still suggesting to you that there is something else more basic afoot which has a real effect that people continue to pursue.

     Now, what if you had some knowledge of this, clinical, scientific knowledge, and what if you could use it?  What if you refused to refer to yourself by your real name?  Suppose that you're kicking a vending machine as if the owner of the company were inside.  But then, you see a little sticker on the machine which says, "If this machine is out of order please call John Smith, and don't beat on the machine, because he's not inside it."  And the name "John Smith" was a pseudonym.  The phone number is correct, so, you can get in touch with him.  You call him up and you holler, "Damn!  Is this John Smith?"  He says, "Yes."  "You're the one who owns these Smith vending machines that stole my money?"  He says, "Yes."  But the truth is, his name is not John Smith; it's Bill Jones.  You curse, you holler at him, you tell him that you used to do business with another man named Smith who cheated you.  Your little sister married somebody named Smith and he was a deadbeat.  If you had known that a Smith owned this machine, you'd never have put your quarter in there to start with."  He says, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah," to all that.  Finally he says, "All right, give me your address, and I'll mail you your quarter back."  You say, "Well, that's OK, but I still don't like you.  I don't like anybody named Smith."  He says, "That's fine, OK.  Sorry you feel that way," and hangs up.  Do you not sense a part of you that could "hang up" on the newspaper criticism?  You could "hang up" on the panning review of you, but it's not your name.  Now, what if you could do that to yourself?  Too strange?  Too weird?  What if the apparent kicking that is inherent along with ordinary existence, the banging on one's own machine, hollering about, "Who's in there, who's in charge?  I know you're in there, so darn it, do something, repair this machine!"  What I was trying to leave you with last week was a very strong suggestion.  The rhetorical questions I was asking suggested that everyone is full of self-criticism, kicking their own vending machine as though the owner were inside, and responsible for keeping it working properly.  Even if we put aside that great delusion that there is an inside and an outside, that there is a responsible owner inside my machine, can you see any possible use of just changing the name of the apparently responsible party until you discover if indeed the owner is inside?  But how about if you just dealt with him on the basis that you ask, "What's your name?"  And he says, "Oh, my name is Alonzo."  "Sounds foreign to me, sounds like the kind of person I wouldn't like anyway.  But anyway, on with it.  OK, Alonzo."  And, of course, your name is not Alonzo.  You know it.  Does anyone think that is stranger than the original question I asked.

     How about the ordinary sense of one's so-called "I", the ordinary sense that my name is "me"?  My name is "I".  And "I" am conscious.  I am conscious of the fact that I am "I".  I tried four or five ways to get you to look at what passes at the ordinary level for consciousness.  To the degree that you can get free from it, you are not locked into the grid, the flow, the passing of energy from everybody else to you, the transforming of it, and the passing of it to someone else.  Another characterization of Three Dimensional consciousness is this:  being actually involved in a four dimensional loop, (and I am reducing it to just four to simplify it) but being unable to perceive one of the dimensions, or get hold of any information about it. Another splendid example of 3-D consciousness living a 3 dimensional life:  it is a partial reflection of what's really going on.  What's always been referred to as the spirit world, the unseen, the invisible world of the gods, etc. -- there is a reality to that, but the time has passed for at least a few of you to be caught in that position.  You are dealing with a multidimensional reality, and ordinary consciousness can only perceive three.  My example for this week of living on that basis, driven and supported only by 3-dimensional consciousness, is this:  3-D reasoning would make a person give up doughnuts on the basis that eating them makes your clothes shrink.

     Another way we could describe three dimensional consciousness is that the taste of it has the same feel as your foot being asleep.

     In a quite real fashion, you have to remake yourself -- you have to reform your own programming, you have to reshape the actual genetic basis of your own existence, comma, from the inside out; parentheses, obviously, end of parentheses, comma, or from the outside in; parentheses, what?!, end of parentheses. These verbally inserted parentheses of mine were the expected responses of some of you to what I was saying.  Some of you might go on to say, "I almost followed you up to the last part.  That, obviously, any sort of so-called unusual effort, any kind of metaphysical undertaking, any kind of spiritual flim flam in which one might get one's self involved is to lead, obviously, to some kind of ...oh... some kind of new way of living, I guess, sort of.  And so all you were doing was sort of expanding on it, about remaking yourself, reshaping your own programming."  No.  People can get involved with This, and stay involved to a profitable degree for the rest of their lives, and in a sense, never get to a place that would really qualify as remaking themselves, as reshaping their own genetic background.  That is a pretty drastic step.  There are graduations of it between here and there, but you, and quite ordinary people who have dreamed of a spiritual quest, imagine that the payoff comes in a moment of epiphany, of instantaneous enlightenment. They think, "Suddenly, probably overnight, I'll lose twenty pounds, my hair will grow back in front, I'll lose all desire to smoke and drink, and I won't have any more lustful -- wait, let's not go too far -- I'll be a new person.  It'll just sort of happen, because that's what all this is about.  If I'm going to get in touch with great spirits, or vice versa, it's going to just happen."

     And yet, I chose the words as carefully as I choose any when I said that "in some fashion, you must remake yourself; you must reshape your own programming, you've got to, in a sense, reform your own genetic basis, comma, from the inside out (here is where, when I was playing the other person, I said, "I followed you up to the last part, where it seems to be the place where you said, 'from the inside out'.  How else are you going to remake yourself, how else are you going to change, it's from the inside out, right?"  Except I said, "Comma, or from the outside in."  You can do it a little bit both ways, but, of course, it helps if you start off with some great notion (if not any understanding) that there is no real difference between out there and in here.  If you can't start with that, then somewhere along the line, if you tried to remake yourself in both directions, you might first decide as follows:  "From the inside out, I'm going to do this -- I have horrible thoughts about certain groups of people, and in general about my fellow man.  I'm going to work on that -- I'll take up prayers, I'll fast, I'll chant, I'll stand on my head, I'll bite my tongue, I'll carry a nail and every time I think a naughty thought about somebody, I'll stick it in my armpit.  That way, I'll be making myself better from the inside out."

     You could do a little bit of that, and then try on alternate days, to (don't run the merry-go-round necessarily backwards .paliterally) from apparently "out there" to change something that's going to affect you internally.

     For example, you might decide that constantly listening to the radio or watching TV distracts one from a higher purpose.  Not that television or any other form of entertainment is intrinsically evil, but a person only has so much time.  "At the very time I'm trying to think better thoughts about people, I turn on the TV and every time I see one guy hit another guy, I join right in, "Yeah, hit him, he deserved it, and so does the whole world.  Everybody deserves a good punch in the nose now and then."  You might decide, " I would be better off and have more time to reflect upon higher matters if I put this TV in a closet and forget about it."  You might try that.

     If you were reasonably insane and fictitious enough to be able to pursue such an apparently seesaw course on a continuing basis, you would finally make an unusual observation regarding the apparent difference between out there and in here.  You would come close to the observations and maps that I've drawn for you concerning this apparent difference; you might come to it on your own.

     All the ordinary attempts people make to redo themselves are limited to one or the other.  They do not use my method of apparently starting from inside out and vice versa.  If they heard about it they would say, "No, that is not nearly interesting and exotic enough."  They believe they're involved in high blown spiritual matters in attempting to overcome negative thoughts about other people.  They expect this to turn into something of a very high spiritual nature, rather than seeing it as a continuing molecular activity that simply shows that their neural system is alive.  If this is you, then all it shows is that your neural system just happens to make certain noises, that your own system has been judged to kick at, and want to shake its own machine and say, "No, you shouldn't make noises like that."  Or, on the contrary, there are other people who are apparently giving almost no notice to the apparent internal life.  They work externally to improve their financial standing, their economic status.  They are trying to do better in life vis-a-vis their circumstances.  The world is full of people who are wired up to believe that, "If my circumstances were changed in a certain way, then I would be changed in a beneficial manner."

     Whether it's called "spiritual change" by those who use exclusively religious terminology, or "psychological change" by those who speak nowadays about psychological quirks, you should maintain a steady bead not on that apparent difference, but on biological necessity.  That is the place to begin a revolution.  You cannot begin a revolution in a psychiatrist's office.  Now, of course, I do not mean a psychiatrist's office necessarily externally.  You cannot begin a revolution when you are apparently in a psychiatrist's office in your own mind.  You cannot create a revolution when you're kicking on a candy machine as though the owner were inside, or banging on the pay phone as though Ma Bell is suddenly going to say, "All right, I hear you, don't bang so loud, whatdya want?"

     Where are you going to bang?  Are you going to rattle the cage as though the bars are outside of you?  Are you going to kick on a machine as though the owner of the machine, or whoever's responsible for your "psychological quirks" is inside it, and he's going to answer.  The voice from the vending machine is going to say, "Who are you?"  And you give them your real name and they say, "Wait a minute," and you hear the sound of word processing or computing going on.  Then the machine says, "Oh, you, what do you want?" and you tell it, and it says, "Maybe I'll consider your claim, maybe I won't.  Maybe I'll help, maybe I won't."  Or are you going to apparently look internally and claim that, "All my problems arise from in here," whether you're still calling them spiritual (which god forbid that I even entertain the possibility that any of you would do that) or calling it a strictly psychological quirk on your part.  "My problems are the reflection, the hold over, of some trauma and I've got to work it out."  In other words, either you say, "The cage I must rattle is 'out there' and I can kick on the bars and get somebody's attention who can help me," or you say, "The prison bars, the limitations, the broken machinery is in me."  It always seems to be a matter of one or the other, to most people.

     If you're not interested in expanded circuits -- alternate possibilities, higher forces, and parallel realities -- they won't be interested in you.

     Out of the great universe known to each person as their neuromuscular self, the neural activity could be seen as a kind of internal, interplanetary travel.  I refer to the connections between the synapses, the replaying of the programming that passes for any individual's thought process, from their day .padreams to their apparently more complex philosophies of life, understanding of matters spiritual, etc.

     You could truly look upon this nonstop neural activity as a form of interplanetary travel.  Instead of planets, we're talking about synapses.  But let me point out two differences.  I'm about to steal a title from a Broadway show of several decades ago, but I cannot think of a perfect match for it to label my second observation, other than one of the opening lines of a certain TV show.  But at any rate, that beats what all your professors used to say and what all politicians say when caught, "Wait a minute, you're trying to compare apples and oranges."  At least I've beaten that with my TV shows and Broadway productions. Where were we?

     I hope I didn't frighten anybody with this thing about your foot going to sleep lest some of you believe that your consciousness has gone to sleep.  But remember, with your foot, all you have to do is keep shaking it, or slap it, and it finally recovers.  I don't take responsibility for keeping this consciousness up in your head awake.  That's up to you.

     A neural activity is a kind of interplanetary travel.  Now, with ordinary people, this interplanetary travel would be a matter of, to paraphrase the Broadway play title, "A Visit to A Familiar Planet", whereas for the true revolutionary, and for a few other people, their interplanetary travel would be a matter of "to go where no man has gone before".  You sure as hell have got to go where you have never been before.  Although neural activity could be seen as a form of interplanetary travel and adventure, it is no adventure if it is always a matter of simply a visit to a familiar planet, which it is if you keep going to the same place.  Of course, you can have the sensation that, "I am moving."  You certainly have the sensation that "I am alive." You have the sensation that vis-a-vis the yellow systems, "I am conscious because right now something's going on."  "Don't bother to question me about the validity of it or how serious it is, that's not the point.  The thing is I'm alive.  Something's going on up here."

     I was pretty subtle in my hints over the last several weeks when I talked about the fictitious revolutionist's handbook.  Let me ask you, what could be thought, said, or written that would really be new, fresh, and liberating, that would not threaten the peace?  What would be the real duty of a real revolutionist other than to introduce fresh ideas, detail new alternatives, and thereby raise hell?

     If revolutionary ideas, true new information, flowed through the system we call human life, then in a certain way, these ideas would amount to "intellectual felonies".  They must threaten the peace.  Now, let's jump back from apparently "out there" (and all of you realize that I am not talking about revolutions, or even merely upsetting ordinary people) to "in here" internally, to what seems to be your relationship to this vending machine, and to what seems to be the vending machine's relationship to those "out there" who want to kick on it and demand more of it than the machine can produce at this particular moment, and to this internal universe that you and the partnership inhabit.  To yourself, what can you produce, what can you seem to bring into play that is new, that is fresh, that seems to offer some possibility of liberation, that does not threaten your own peace?  If it does not threaten your own peace, I suggest to you that the internal, all pervasive, judicial system will never indict you for intellectual felonies.  Some people could receive this kind of potentially revolutionary info/energy as if they were watching television, having what ordinary people would call a vicarious thrill -- seeing car chases, people fall off buildings, and have guns drawn on them in the middle of the night -- as if you can just sit and laugh and seem to vicariously participate in me presenting it, and there are no advertisements.  That is what you think.  All of you have read of the fears expressed in the late 50's that subliminal advertising would be put into movies and television, little messages saying, "Drink Coke," would flash so quickly that the conscious mind would not be aware of it, but people in a theater would suddenly say, "Alfonso, go get me a coke, I'm about to die." On TV, in the midst of a speech by a religious leader, the message, "Use condoms," would flash.  A man would suddenly reach in his pocket and have an overwhelming urge to visit his pharmacist.  Of course, I can't prove that my talks contain subliminal messages.  You could assume I come to that conclusion based on circumcision evidence.

     Let's jump back out to the emblematical, but apparently valid external world.  You should find it interesting that even under conditions of the harshest possible tyranny, some people freely support it.  You can find apparently well known, documented cases of this.  After a leader has been driven from his country you can see segments on television which show him with other people from his country, exiles, expatriates, who are perhaps singing Christmas carols to him, or have brought him sacks of food.  There are people who apparently freely, with no pressure put on them, seem to support a dictator.  Anything I want to describe can be found in what seems to be the external world.  I just presented that example to try to slip you in sideways to see the kind of thing you wouldn't be able to even consider.  I ask you, as always, can you get a glimpse of the fact that this situation exists internally in you?  There is a force in you which can be seen as the continuing controlling factor, although it seems to affect only one side of the partnership.  There is a tyrant in you, and life makes ordinary people express the feeling that, "You're either for the gods or against them; you're either striving for spiritual freedom or else you're wallowing with the enemy."  But, is it that clear cut?  I suggest otherwise.  I suggest that if you can get a fast enough glimpse, you see other factors in you which freely support the very tyrannies another part of you denounces.  In a weak moment, you might say, "These tyrannies are the very aspects of me, of my own internal government, that I'm sure I'm struggling against.  I'm sure that there are parts of me that are absolutely uncharitable, inhumane, unintelligent, unenlightened despots.  Every good part of me is struggling against them, trying to change my ways, trying to better myself, trying to reach a higher degree of awareness, trying to get in touch with higher forces, trying to perceive continuing simultaneous realities and possibilities.  There are things in me, I have no doubt, I should struggle against.  I see it clearly, the battle lines are drawn."  I suggest that if you could look just a little bit faster, if you could learn to look more at right angles into another dimension, you would find that there are aspects of you which, no matter how you try to describe it away, freely support the harshest, the dumbest, the most repressive tyrannies possible.  You should find that interesting.

     Consider the whole idea of new information.  Consider the good old quotation that people love to repeat, "You should know the truth" and the -- what is it called?  Oh yes, -- the truth -- "the truth shall make you mad," -- oops!  I mean, "Shall set you free."  Have any of you (of course you'll say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah" when I bring it up and put words on it, but that's the way it goes) have any of you ever pondered what's going on in humanity's historically consistent lament about the difficulty, if not near impossibility, of "knowing the truth"?  Pick up any book on philosophy.  You'll find a thousand and one epigrammatic observations about this problem, at least half of them from Romans and Greeks, wringing their little hands, wringing their little heads, about how hard it is to know the truth, how you can't know the truth, how lust will get in the way of the truth, how feelings get in the way of the truth, how men will get in the way of the truth, how going to war will cloud your mind.  It's an endless lament.  You can almost define philosophy as the continuing historic lament about the difficulty of "knowing the truth".

     Based on your reasonably intelligent participation in This thus far, I will admit that it's possible that a few people can, whatever this may mean ultimately, "know the truth".  But there is an unrecognized point here. For these few to know the truth is to understand simultaneously that this truth is operational at best for five minutes.  From one quite Real view, that is why there has been the continuing historical lament about the extreme difficulty of knowing the truth.  We can say, and it is true as far as words go, that everyone -- everyone who ever lives -- "knows the truth" once.  Everyone.  But what they don't know is what I've already pointed out to you, this truth that they once know, is true and functional, operational, only for five minutes after they know it.  Very few people ever understand that.  Everyone else does once "know the truth", whatever that is.  You once knew it, before you met me.  At another level, everybody once "knows the truth", but they do not understand that it is only true and operational for five minutes.  Thus comes about this feeling, this lament, that, "There's some difficulty."  Because it is as if the five minutes passes and then everyone is left standing there hungry, holding an empty food wrapper.  They bemoan the fact, they philosophize, they theorize on the great difficulty, if not the actual impossibility of ever "knowing the truth".  Now, why it seems so important, why it has this particular spin and edge to it is that "knowing the truth" is not impossible by any means.  I am telling you truthfully, in so far as words can go three dimensionally, that everybody, no matter how they moan and philosophize about the difficulty of knowing the truth, once "knows the truth".  But they did not know that five minutes after they knew it the truth is no longer operational.  Then at some point after five minutes the feeling begins that, "My god, it's almost impossible to know the truth, whatever it is."  They're standing there with an empty food wrapper.

     While we are in this "mapping update", I am inclined to tell you another thing about the revolutionary, subversive knowledge that is This Activity.  Once this kind of knowledge is had by one person, in one locale, the odds against others in that same locale and time naturally having it increase drastically.  If the possibility at any given time and place of one person having this kind of subversive knowledge is one in a million, then after that one person has it, the odds of someone else having it jumps to about one in a hundred million.  Does anyone find that interesting?  It's not a pessimistic comment, but it's something that you need to know.  If you can see it in a certain way, it connects with some of the questions that you and the partnership think you've raised about why This seems to be.  If you based your speculations about it on your exposure to me, you'd be well within your rights, you and the partnership, to have all sorts of curious conversations with yourself about, "Is This an absolutely valid reflection of the possibilities of how This Thing should operate?  Is This the way he's doing it, or what I perceive of what's going on, a full representation of the possibilities inherent in our time and place?"  "Why does it seem to operate in this manner?  Why has it operated in other manners, at least the way I perceive it, historically, at times I believed I have perceived it?"  Part of the reality, part of a more expanded, multi-faceted view of it available to you would be if you could remember what I have just pointed out about the odds.  Many things that seem strange to 3-D, foot-sleeping consciousness, that seem spiritually inexplicable, psychologically inexplicable are hidden within this reality because people are wired up to believe, concerning any kind of extraordinary knowledge, and metaphysical great truths, that if one person knows it, then a whole group of people can know it.  If one person knows it, he can write it down, or teach it to two or three other people.  Or, if one person knows it somewhere, then that means that there's probably a whole group of people somewhere that know it.  Or, conversely, why is it that it only seems to happen here and there?  Don't use me as the only example by any means, but use your own perception, your own imagination about what has happened historically in the past, at the times in which you believe this has occurred.  Why does it seem to just happen there, and then you don't usually hear about it for a long time?  But it happened there and you look back now at whatever it is, a religion, a philosophy, a would-be mystical system.  You look at it and say, "It seems so obvious.  The first time I read the writings of so and so, I can't believe that most of his family and friends laughed at him and threw prunes at him every time he came into town.  And they finally killed him.  I can't believe it.  What he said was nothing."  That's what you say from the safety of being on another planet.

     In order to end on a high note, I'll give you your tattoo for the week.  If anyone wants to listen, well, you don't have to, it's not really that important, I don't guess.  But I feel it's something that I should advise you of.  I know that many of you subscribe to scientific magazines, and some of you read important periodicals like Forbes, Vanity Fair, and Psychology Yesterday.  As always, I'm privy to some information that is not in general currency yet.  So, I am going to tell you something that is right up to date.  I made a note to myself only today that if I had the time and the inclination I would bring it up tonight, so that's how fresh it is.  It has been proven, it has been proven, that you can have fun and not be sober.