Audio= Stream from the bars below in two parts.
Summary by TK
#267 ** Jul 2, 1987 ** - 1:32
[Kyroot reading to :17]
[The ordinary accept Life as something other than themselves; not so the Real Revolutionist. The ordinary equation: I + my problems = my life; this gives a great stability and resistance to change in Life along with the illusion that the opposite is the case. A Real Revolutionist would have almost nothing to say about his problems. The Real Revolutionist sees comprehensively, in a unified way that problems and self are not separate. The ordinary fight their problems and consider that change. I + not-I equation is obvious to the ordinary like A=A and B=B; whereas the Real Revolutionist sees instead A=B and B=A. An example is the reality behind the word 'love', for in spite of all 3-D logic and reality to the contrary love still exists.]
[More from the Revolutionary Handbook. Ordinarily the crude and ignorant make the best tyrants. An extraordinary tyrant would be educated, sophisticated and cultured, yet capable of dealing with the populace as if on their level. Consider the possible use of this fact to your own Partnership. The two partners speak the same language--the would-be controller voice uses the same crude language level as the controlled voice. But what if a 'ringer' could be inserted--an extraordinary tyrant, who could effect change?]
[The Real Revolution is against ordinary consciousness. And it should be rebelled against because ordinary consciousness (OC) is unable to think of more than one thing at a time. OC takes 'either/or' alternatives as capacity to think of two things at once. But it is not such. Neuralization is the attempt to think two things at once. 4-D consciousness is the seeing of concurrent pluralities of things and processes without the 'either/or' binary limitation; it is the consciousness of time as a dimension; the seeing of time as a consistent, usable profitable dimension unrelated to ideas of past-present-future--seeing time as an absolute indivisible presence. Time in the absolute sense is feared by man. e.g., "given enough time I'll be dead". The Few need to seek to see time-dimension; strain to acquire 4-D sight. OC is the supreme ability to keep Reality from all running together.]
[1:26 TASK: write a horizontal, passionately angry letter-to-the-editor in the vein of "what ever happened to common courtesy?"
TYRANTS AND TIME
Document: 267, July 2, 1987
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987
All in all, the difference between ordinary people and the real revolutionist is that ordinary men accept Life as being something other than themselves. If you could point an ordinary man's attention toward the equation,
"I + Not-I = Everything,"
he would see himself quite clearly as the "I." Also, he would clearly see the "Not-I" as something other than him. An ordinary man makes a clear distinction between what he regards as "I" and everything else. Now point your attention toward another distinction: the difference between such an ordinary man and a real revolutionist is that the revolutionist would know better than to believe that.
Here is another variation of the equation:
"I + My Problems = My Life"
Again, an ordinary person could probably relate to this, and would clearly feel that "My Problems" are separate from "Me." This must be so. If it were not, there'd be no need for priests, rabbis, or psychiatrists. There would be no fun in having beer drinking buddies. What would you have to talk about? What could you confess? What would you have to solve if it were not true that problems are external to you?
"My problem is my relationship with my mate." "My problem is I don't have enough money." "My problem is I feel less than qualified to be a homo sapien." All of those appear to be, without any doubt, external problems. And for ordinary people, they are.
The belief that problems are external stabilizes people, keeps them resistant to change, though from a 3-D view, it appears otherwise. "Listen, you've got to analyze your problems, communicate your problems, get in touch with them. You have to be familiar with your problems before you can change your life." It would appear that those people who can "deal with their problems" most effectively have the greatest potential to change, right? Of course that is not right.
Only a real revolutionist -- one driven by a sense of revolution -- can begin to face such apparently pessimistic information and accept it nonchalantly. Because the revolutionist suspects that a part is missing from all 3-D information. He can face even shocking, disruptive, insane information, since he is part of the loop that goes outside 3-D consciousness. Only the ordinary get upset about the inevitable.
As long as you have the feeling that "Me" and "My Problems" are separated by a "+" sign -- as long as your system is wired up and fueled on that basis -- your life (and the life of most of humanity) remains very stable. To say the least, you remain extremely resistant to change, all the while believing change is possible.
The real revolutionist would have to deal with so-called "problems" in a unified way. There would have to be a merger between what appears to be inner and outer, internal and external. This continuing merger would go far beyond any binary appearances, and would result in the revolutionist having very little to say about "problems." A revolutionist would be unable to "externalize his deepest fears and longings." In short, he would not be an up to date kind of guy. There would be almost nothing for him to say vis a vis what everyone else calls problems.
If you could experience the reality behind what I'm describing as a continual merger, there would be no binary division between what ordinarily passes for "you" and "your problems." This is not a psychological theory but a molecular reality. There is a material connection -- as real as the bloodstream which connects your liver to your heart -- between what appears to be you and what you now define as your problems. But as long as these "problems" appear to be external, you cannot touch them.
There's an old gambling term, "Fighting the table" or "Fighting the cards." A similar political saying is, "Fighting the problem instead of dealing with it." As long the problem appears to be obviously external, you are fighting the problem. The name of the problem may change; the cards the other players are holding vary from hand to hand; internal conflicts in the legislature shift from day to day. But there is always opposition and what seems to be conflict. There's always some "problem" that's obviously other than oneself.
Take the equation a bit further. Does it state the obvious? From one viewpoint, the equation states that "A is A and B is B." I suggest that a revolutionist might perceive the equation as saying also (not instead of, but also):
"A is also B, and B is also A...."
Humanity loves to talk about "love." If we could in some way speak of "real love," I suggest to you that an ad hoc working definition would be:
"A becoming B in spite of all 3-D logic and limitations."
Were it not possible for A to become B in spite of 3-D logic, what would be worthwhile in the life of man? What would man be, other than an animal that happened to have a thumb, a charge card, and a change of clothes? He would be, as some pessimists imagine, a poor work of art -- one of Life's cosmic jokes. In other words, there wouldn't be even small-time miracles. What, after all, distinguishes man from other creatures on this planet?
Here is some more from the Revolutionist's Handbook, if there were such a document: Ordinarily, the crude and uneducated make the best tyrants. The reality of this is suspected; Life has people out in the ordinary world already speculating about it. But let's up the stakes: An even more extraordinary tyrant would be one who was indeed educated and sophisticated, but could still address and deal with the populace in the familiar manner of a dolt.
Consider this. Jump the parallel stream back into ordinary life, and pretend I'm just talking about politics, and you're some kind of fifth-rate revolutionist operating in the material world. Would a supremely cunning, extraordinary tyrant be just run of the mill crude and uneducated? Or would he be suave, sophisticated, complex and educated, but able to deal with the masses in whatever way he needed to deal with them? That is, in such a way that they believed he was just a run of the mill dolt.
As always, you can use this information against your own established partnership system. Think about it.
Let's approach this another way. Left to your ordinary devices -- your own internal voices -- what is the Yellow Circuit basis for internal change? How do the internal voices that talk about change in some other part of you talk? When one part wants another part to change, it acts as though it's crude and uneducated (notice I say "acts"), and this seems perfectly natural.
Picture you under ordinary conditions sitting around thinking, "I should lose weight," or, "I should give up smoking." Internally, do you take on a pretentious voice? Do you suddenly begin to speak like a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company? Do you say to yourself -- the self that eats and smokes too much -- "See here my good man, let's reason this out." No. Mechanically, automatically, you speak the same language as that self. You are like a would-be tyrant -- just as crude and doltish as those he's attempting to persuade by threatening: "Look here, if you don't stop smoking you're going to die of a heart attack!" "If you don't stop eating you're going to swell up and look like the Hindenburg!"
Internally, you have just the right would-be tyrant. I'm using "tyrant" to cover a multitude of roles -- ruler, governing body, would-be controller. Remember, we're talking about the internal affairs of you, not the simple, external affairs of the body politic. What if your internal tyrant seems every bit as boorish and vulgar as those with whom he or she has to deal -- that is, oneself -- but is actually very intelligent and knows what it's doing? In other words, what if you could be aware that this is all an act?
A kind of suspicion of this state of affairs has gone on throughout history. There are continuing little refrains saying, "Boy, wasn't Caesar -- or King X -- a work of art? Wasn't he something!" "There was a lot more to President So-and-So than people gave him credit for, he just couldn't let on he was in the know because of the circumstances of his office." Of course, all suspicions are a reflection of something -- and there is a continuing suspicion about rulers from some quarter of Life's body.
What if you could deal with what seems to be a stubborn part of you, because you were smarter than it was? I know that sounds like dreaming to most of you, but what if part of you were smarter than the rest of you, and the rest didn't know that?
Let's get to the heart of what I am talking about. The Real Revolution is against established consciousness, and I'm going to tell you what ordinary consciousness is and why it must be rebelled against. I strongly recommend that you remember this definition -- at least as long as it stays true. Ordinary consciousness is the inability to think of more than one thing at a time. That is what the revolution is against.
All would-be mystical and religious systems of the past -- descriptions of enlightenment, satori, higher consciousness, expanded awareness -- were attempts to convey the impression of what it would be to escape this ordinary condition. They might have attributed the condition to a fall from grace, the power of demonic spirits, the laziness and immorality of man, or white sugar -- but they have been unknowingly describing a struggle against the inability, no matter your religion, intelligence, or level of education, to think of more than one thing at once. Life has been having humanity dream of, muse about, ponder and poeticize, "What if I could think of more than one thing at a time?"
Do not be misled as you sit listening to your own voices and believe, "Wait, it is possible for me to think of two things at once!" When ordinary consciousness seems to be thinking of two things at once, it's always on this basis: "I can think of two things at once and here are the two possibilities; either I lose or I win big." That is not thinking of two things; that is one thing. The one thing you are thinking about is the "winning/losing" thing.
The revolution that I am now describing I have in the past hidden behind such words as "Neuralizing." Properly done, Neuralizing is a threat to ordinary consciousness. There have been other descriptions such as the old Zen teachings. In Zen, one attempts to "clear the mind," to not think of anything. Do you see that if this were possible, it would be an improvement? Anybody who could think of nothing could also think of more than one thing at a time.
Neuralizing is a continuing -- as long as you attempt it -- threat. By being able to remember something without thinking about it, you strain the situation to the breaking point. If you can remember something without thinking about it, you can remember something without thinking about it solely. Because, to begin with, you have to be able to remember not to simply think about that thing to be able to Neuralize. If you do that for a certain period of time which can't be calculated by your watch, you will stretch ordinary consciousness to the breaking point.
Revolutionary consciousness -- 4-D consciousness -- would be the ability to consistently think of a simultaneous plurality of things and processes. With binary consciousness, every head has a tail and every winning situation has a loser, while 4-D consciousness is not limited to the binary outcome of any specific process. Anybody can think of "C" and "D": "I will either make a favorable impression or I'll look like a fool." But from a 4-D perspective, C and D are one: "All right, I can think of the C/D (win/lose) possibility, but I can simultaneously see the E possibility (things that have nothing to do with this win/lose game)."
One way to approach this is to look at the E possibility as equaling time. There are limits to 3-D words, but a good description of 4-D sight would be the consistent ability to be conscious of time stretched through and across all other dimensions. This ability would be necessary for a revolutionist to properly plan, reconnoiter, and execute any revolution. (Remember, we're not talking about some revolt out on the street -- we're talking about effecting a dramatic change in your genetic makeup, a reshaping of your very being while you're still alive.)
I suggest that whatever terms you have read or heard about in the past -- awakening, enlightenment, and so on -- all fit within this new description. All those people who have accidentally experienced such moments -- no matter if they attributed the experience to spiritual forces, gods, or creatures from Venus talking to them -- are describing what I call "4-D sight." What they experienced was all the ordinary dimensions, plus an awareness of time itself. For a few moments, they had at least a tacit sensation that time changes everything; time is the great illusion.
Think back to the descriptions I've recently given of the apparent chain of power and theories about that going on in the body of Life throughout history. If there were any material reality to conspiratorial theories, the real difference between the powerful and the powerless would be that mechanically powerful "individuals," "families," or "hereditary strains" are born with an awareness of time. The powerful would recognize time as a necessary, useable, profitable dimension, though everybody else does not.
Ordinary people don't consider time as being a dimension. Time is something ticking away on a watch. Time is what you have to put up with in order to work. Time is what you argue about when your wife's late meeting you. Time is what the ditch-digger complains about when he has to work over it and isn't paid time-and-a-half.
If ordinary people were to suddenly develop a consistent awareness of time as a constant dimension, they would no longer have faith in the appearance of things. They could have no belief in words; "lying" and "hypocrisy" would no longer be considered something actual -- like a kumquat -- or something to be avoided. In short, ordinary consciousness would no longer have any faith in -- could not depend upon -- stable reality.
I have said that ordinary people cannot see the Ultimate Conspirator, Life; Life, because Life's face is so large. Similarly, people cannot perceive time. From a different -- larger -- tempo perspective, everything in life is unstable. Everything -- not just people and their families, but what appears to be the cosmic truth -- is temporary and will someday die. But ordinary consciousness does not take time into account and thus cannot perceive this.
Rather than taking this situation as merely speculative, consider what seems to be your relationship to yourself. You view "you" as a stable entity: "I'm always the same person, more or less. I may be moody, but I look in the mirror and though I'm now forty, fat and fatigued, I'm about the same thing I was at fifteen. I still have the same name, the same bad habits, and the same complaints with myself. There's just not that much difference." There is a difference, but ordinary consciousness can't see it.
Without a continuing sense of time being just as important as height, width, depth, weight, color, fatigue, fullness, emptiness -- and whatever else you think is important -- without a constant awareness that time is always there and nothing is stable -- you cannot change. You're left working in the mines, listening to a radio. Sometimes the radio seems to be tuned in to great thoughts -- but you're still listening to a radio. You might as well buy one of those complete with its own clock at Radio Shack.
I'll tell this: It's way too late for some things and still a little bit early for some others. The only problem is, a real revolutionist is not welcome in any waiting room, anywhere. At the bus depot, the train station, the airport -- they don't like a revolutionist to hang around. And he can't just show his hand and say, "Well, I missed the last bus," or "I'm a little early, I guess, for the plane I was waiting on." A real revolutionist can't be "too late" or "too early." That indicates a severe dependence upon ordinary consciousness, wherein even time is viewed as a stable something.
Time just is. Time is another dimension in the same way that the third part of the Holy Trinity in Christian doctrine was another, unseen dimension. I use a Christian example because more of you are familiar with that teaching: there was the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But no one could ever explain what the third one was -- it just was.
The Yellow Circuit can comprehend the idea of gods: "Ok, everybody knows there are gods -- the Greeks, the Sumerians, everybody has always had gods." Then along comes a prophet and says, "Now we've got The God, Jehovah." Then that god had a son, "He split off a son." That's hard enough for the Yellow Circuit to accept, much less the third possibility of a something which came from nowhere and has no name. The Holy Spirit just lurks in the background of the scriptures of the Western world. "You better watch out for the Holy Spirit." Because nobody knows what the "Holy Spirit" is.
I can give a definition, ad hoc, or at least point you in the "E" direction. I could also point out to you that it is time. Of course, notice that one of the important factors in any definition of "god" is stability: "He's the same as he was yesterday and will be tomorrow; there will always be god." God, how comforting. The Yellow Circuit goes, "Whew!" What a relief to know that somebody, something thing somewhere is unchanging. In that definition of "god" there is no place for a description of the third part -- this enigmatic Holy Spirit -- because its name is "Stand back and watch me change!" or "Step forward and just try to stop me from changing!"
But you cannot go on dealing with two apparent forces, whether they be "good and evil," "up and down," "X and Y," or "Mutt and Jeff." You cannot fuel a revolution using two forces; you cannot base revolution on binary "understanding" or "knowledge." Nothing makes any sense -- you can't see anything correctly -- without a continuing 4-D sight wherein Life is stretched across and permeated by time. I do not mean the Yellow Circuit division of events into past, present and future; not time according to a watch or the movement of earth around the sun. I mean absolute time; that is, the unstable, forever changing nature of everything -- the reality of processes over things and verbs over nouns.
Without a constant awareness of time, everything apparently becomes nouns. To human consciousness, anything that seems to be of value can be reduced to a noun -- a thing -- and its importance can be seen in the fact that ordinary consciousness thinks of only one thing at a time. "I only think about things that are important, and right now, revenge is important." When ordinary consciousness is thinking about it, jealousy is important -- or poverty is important -- or thinking about death is real important.
As long as you are a victim of ordinary consciousness -- unable to think of more than one thing at a time -- then time appears to be salami that you can cut up. You can slice time and repackage it; you might be able to trade time around. You can pray to the gods to give you more, to not slice it so thin.
The basis of fearing death is a fear of time. That seems obvious, once I put it in words: "It's a fear of change, a fear of time passing." The unstated, unrecognized reality is: "Given enough -- what? -- time, I'm going to die." "Given enough time, I will no longer be as I am now." "As poor a physical specimen as I am, given enough time, I won't even feel as good as I do now." "As few friends as I have now, given enough time, strangers will probably begin to hate me." There is no greater fear than the fear of time. But it's never called that.
At those moments when you do remember to make effort, you should be devoting l00 percent of your attention and energy right then to the campaign to See time. When you can do that, you will be correctly revolting against established consciousness. Otherwise, you are time blind and time is like slices of salami. You will think of something, and then something else. That's the only way ordinary consciousness can make "any sense" out of anything. What if it all ran together?
So there's another, possibly more positive, definition of ordinary consciousness: man's supreme ability not to have everything all run together at once. Consciousness is wired up to divide, categorize, and name -- everything. The whole purpose of education seems to be to produce men and women with the ability to tell the wheat from the chaff, real art from fake art, true ideas from false ones, good people from bad. What else is human intellect but the ability to discern between the good and the better? Having everything run together doesn't sound right, does it?
Creating the illusion of stability is part of ordinary, 3-D consciousness' job description. You look out and you see individual people with different tastes, different backgrounds, different opinions. Ordinary consciousness believes in who's; there's a little Ed inside of Ed and a little Jane inside of Jane. Therefore, you've got to worry about hypocrisy, unconscious motivations and mendacity (Did anybody ever look that up?) and you have to wonder, "Can I trust this person?" Once you have correct, 4-D sight of yourself, people are what they do and there are no secrets in anybody. There are no heroes, no villains; there are no little people inside of people, no unconscious motivations.
In conclusion, I repeat: Whenever you are devoting l00 percent of your energy to This, you should be engaging in a campaign to develop a continuing awareness of time as another dimension of what appears to be 3-D reality. Of course, if you could suddenly develop 4-D sight and the ability to think of more than one thing at once, do you realize what that would do to your inner life? Think how that would affect your ability to be mad or critical. Think what that would do your ability to experience -- dare I say it? -- everyday, human, emotion.
What a relief all this talk of revolution is just talk. Thankfully, we live under conditions that are so oppressive, so controlled, there's hardly any chance of revolution -- it's almost functionally impossible. But it sure is easy to sit here and talk about the revolution.