Jan Cox Talk 0268

You Talk Too Much

Audio= Stream from the bars below.  If you want to read along with the Kyroots, you can open the AKS gallery below in a New Widow in your browser.

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0268 from Cassette

AKS/News Items = Gallery

Diagrams = See Below  #117, #84

Summary = See Below

Transcript = See Below


Summary by TK

#268 *Jul 9, 1987* - 1:29

  [Kyroot reading to :08.]
  [Ordinary sight sees time as that which separates. 4-D sight sees time as that which unifies; a rectifying of opposites; a justifying process. A Revolutionary Rule for This Thing: Real Revolutionists cannot simply 'be themselves'; cannot just drift along in a fog of mundanity. Better to put on an act, to pretend a specific behavior of whatever ilk, willfully.]
  [There are two categories of human communication: social (personal) and 'scientific' (specific, informative, practical). Question: what is truly to be said about anything already accomplished? Anyone who knows, understands anything extraordinary and talks much at all...talks too much. The operations most distant from the center core of consciousness are the noisiest. The Few should have a continuing motto of "Shut the fuck up" toward themselves; it should be an everyday, minute by minute injunction. This is not for the ordinary: people need talk--especially of the social conversation type. The Few should never talk about anybody in the past tense. Such talk reinforces the tyranny of your own hard wiring, and drains your energy.]
  [1:10 Pre-epilog comments to video watchers re: the mistake of supposing a personal interest shown by J. toward you at one time or another giving license to abuse familiarity.]
  [1:18 Epilog: TASK: ASAP send ATL an area for study within which to become an expert in the next 38 weeks; be able to deliver 10 hours of instruction/lecture.


Transcript

YOU TALK TOO MUCH

Document: 268, July 9, 1987
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987

    Only the revolutionist can perceive things in a 4-D manner.  I want to give you another way to consider 4-D sight as it's involved with time.

     Ordinary consciousness perceives time as something which separates things.  In fact there's an old joke defining time as that which keeps everything else from running together.  This is a reflection of something real.

     Ordinary consciousness perceives time as a separator without any intellectual analysis of the matter.  It separates things, it separates events, it separates people.

     Now revolutionary sight, 4-D sight would be antipodal to that view.  To a revolutionist, time would be that which unifies, not that which separates.  Someone with 4-D sight would have a continuing perception of time as unifying.  In fact, from another view, it even rectifies.  Only by having a continual awareness of time in relationship to everything else, of time never stopping, of time not being an invention, of time not being the ticking of your watch, of time being an absolute dimension holding the other dimensions together, can you approach 4-D sight.  Furthermore, time is just a word.  The word "time" is not what time really is.

     If you had something resembling what I've been calling 4-D sight, time would be the ultimate unifier, NOT the idea that there are gods somewhere or that This is an attempt to return to some lost homeland where everything is seen as being unified.

     Ordinary consciousness cannot unify anything.  No matter how intelligent you are, you can never see the unity.  People theorize about it.  There are people who accidentally transcend ordinary consciousness and come back saying, "I temporarily realized everything is connected, joined together, one big whole...but now that I'm off that drug, off that accident -- I'm not sure what all that means, but it sure was important...  It was important."

     The beliefs that some things are good, some bad, some natural, some unnatural, occur because things are separated in time.  If you had a continuing awareness that time was the nonstop dimension then nothing could be seen as "evil," to pick a hard example.  You ask anyone what evil is -- give me an example -- ofttimes they'll say, "Evil would be the taking of a human life."  Of course, you can describe something that gets very personal to him and his family, and lead him right to the point when you say, "What would you do?" and the real answer from that person is going to be, "Well, I would have to kill this other person."  And if he were an ordinary person responding he'd probably add, "But that was a scenario, and you're making me admit that theoretically that might be true."  Well, anything that's theoretically true, as ordinary consciousness would say, is true.  You can file away the "theoretical" with your garbage bags.  If it's theoretically true, it's true.  Ordinarily, if somebody says that something is theoretically true, what they are saying is, "Alright, I almost want to admit it's true, but I don't like it.  You've tricked me, I'm forced into it," or, "I'm not fast enough on my verbal feet to think what to say back to you, so, oh well, alright."  My side comment is, if anything is even theoretically true, it's true.  But you should have known that already.

     If there were a continual awareness of time, then a person would understand that "anything my ordinary consciousness can look on, that seems to be a plus, an up, it will become theoretical."  It will and can become a minus and a down.  If it's red, it can become green.  And if you had a continual awareness of time, you would know that already.  I wouldn't have to make up examples no matter what struck your consciousness.  For instance, "I've never been confronted with this and it's terrible."  If you have 4-D sight, it's theoretically terrible, it's temporarily terrible.  Even if you willfully tried to hold the feeling of terribleness, how long could you hold it?  How long can you hold your breath?  How long can you go without eating?

     But remember, I was trying to point out a 4-D sight would be a continual awareness that "this is the way things are," an awareness that things do not simply exist permanently, autonomously, in three dimensions.  Everything is all ad hoc and completely run through with, tied up with, on the background of, time.  Whatever seems to be a solid now, will be something else.  Given enough time, given enough circumstances, what appears to be one thing right now, will become its own opposite by your own perception.  But another way to look at it, once you understand it at all, is not only will it become its own opposite from your perspective, it becomes its own opposite simply due to the existence of time.  For those of you who really want something to hold onto, the only thing that doesn't change is dead and buried.  Any of you, who wants to, can go out and hold onto tombstones.  Everything else is changing.  There is no peace in the land of the living.  I know sometimes it seems peaceful; it means somebody around here is getting old.

     Speaking of that, it is easy enough (it is too easy) for This to become a little too flighty.  It becomes a little too theoretically interesting.  You have to remember that if This is to be profitable, it has to be close to everyday.  It has to be everyday.  It is not in your best interest to just leave your so-called personal problems just outside the door, where they smoke a few and hang out, and when we're through, you walk out there and they leap back on your back and dig themselves into your spine and into your throat.  Then what we've done becomes just a nice, interesting interlude, almost like a time out from "me being me."  If any of you allowed that to happen you do know that I strongly disapprove of that.  You are missing the point.  If This were merely intellectually interesting, we'd be doing it some other way.  I'd be out there doing it as an entertainer.  But it would not be what it is.  Remember, This has to be close to everyday.  If it's not, then you're missing it; you're being entertained by This, but you're missing it.  It has to be everyday.

     If we had basic tenets, a belief, a dogma, even a catma, one of them would be this:  The Real Revolutionist cannot simply be himself.  You cannot simply drift along and "be you."  You cannot do it.  Generally, if you're not doing anything on purpose, you  drift along and you're just you, whatever it is.  You might as well be on your back, floating down a river.  You don't get into any problems, nobody starts a fight with you, you don't step on anybody, you get home alright, you're just drifting along being you.  You could have been drifting along being you for thirty years now, maybe forty, or fifty.  It looks like you may live another twenty or thirty years.  Now, I want you to hear this very directly -- you are better off attempting to purposefully act like anything than you are drifting along and being you.

     I read about an actress being interviewed about how interesting it was to be an actress, and what it meant to her life.  She babbled on for a while, then she said, "One thing I found that was unexpected about being a professional actress -- I learned at an early age that there were things I had to do business-wise, like going to parties.  You're always being invited to parties to meet backers for new plays and movies, but being a shy person, I've never liked parties.  For the first few years, this was a problem.  Then one night, I was going to a party, and it struck me, 'You damn idiot, all you've got to do is just play the part of a woman enjoying a party for an hour.'  After that there was nothing to it."  Now, that's an ordinary person talking.

     It is preferable under every condition, to decide to be something specific, willfully.  Being you is unspecific.  It always is.  It is always unspecific.  You're just in the habit of doing it and it does not take any willful thought.  There's nothing wrong with it.  That is the way ordinary people are and that's the way they are supposed to be.  2-D sight is mostly the order of the day.  A few people here and there have 3-D sight.  A few people in the power chain mechanically have 4-D sight, but normally 2-D sight will get you through life, and there's nothing wrong with it.  It's not a curse.  But it is for you; and you would be better off, to simply decide, willfully, "I am going to appear to be something specific.  I am going to be 'Happy Man' or I am going to appear to be 'Mrs. Concerned'."  Willfully, plan to be something specific.  Drifting along being you is unspecific.  You cannot be a Revolutionary and be you.  You can't do it.  To bring Kyroot into this, he noted that to a revolutionist, ordinary consciousness feels like your foot feels when it goes to sleep.  He was referring primarily to 2-D consciousness.  Some of you should taste that even on the 3-D level.

     Now, let's bring in that wonderful, ever popular, subject of talk.  I'd like to remind you people that at one time, I pointed out to you that from the human level, all ordinary conversation, from one level, could be divided into two kinds, social conversation, and scientific, specific conversation.  There's the social -- "Hey, did I tell you how sick I've been," and the specific -- "Oh, 14th street?  All you do is go down Second Avenue, one street past 13th and there it is."  There are two kinds of conversation going on in life.  They're both transferring energy, and both of them are serving necessary purposes.  So, you've got the choice that you're either conveying the specific detailed energy or you're conveying some kind of social, personal message.

     Let me ask you a question.  What is there to be truly said about anything that's already been done?  Now this is to you people, would-be revolutionists, not the world.  What is there to be truly said about anything that's already been done?  When anybody has reached the point that they know anything, anything personally of an extraordinary nature, and then talk "much at all," they talk too much.  I guess I could make a corollary of that.  If any of you, by now, ever wonder if you talk too much, you do.

     What is it, throughout history, through a large segment of Life's body, through humanity, that finds some kind of heroic aura around people of few words.  You go and you pay your money, whatever it costs now to see a movie, and you see a Clint Eastwood movie, (in the past it might have been a John Wayne or a James Dean movie).  You paid your money to see the star perform, but he said only two or three things.  I guess I'm just missing the obvious.  What are you paying -- a dollar per word?  With that kind of figure, there's an hour and a half of good action and he says all of five words!  But there is something special about certain men.  (Of course, up till now it's been men, molecularly, who made history and recorded history.)  But these people who say very little seem to strike something very basic in the molecular structure of humanity.  The only reason I bring this up is that you should find that interesting.  If you don't see any more than that, you should find it interesting.  People who understand anything and talk much at all are talking too much.  I know Kyroot said that 90% of all so-called psychiatric problems were caused by poor posture.  Far be it for me to correct Kyroot, (I can see the validity of that, from one view.)  But I could give you another view.  As far as revolutionists are concerned 90% of all problems, psychiatric and otherwise, are caused by talk.

     Hence, I go back to the chorus of this particular refrain and ask you again, "What can truly be said about anything that has already happened, already been done?  What's there to be said about it?"  In ordinary life, it's, "Say it again, Sam," write it down, put it away, read it, read it to somebody else, read how somebody else critiqued the first person's words, think about it, then you have something to say about it.  If we are going to strike out talking about that which has already happened, what are you going to talk about?  Obviously, this is not any sort of worldwide potential tenet.

     But I would like to point out to you that the part of life's operations furthest from the center core of life's own consciousness makes the most noise.  Who talks the most in the factory of life?  Just at the ordinary level, you can see that the people that talk the most are those who know the least, who seem to have the least significance to life.

 Diagram # 117 illustration

Diagram # 117 illustration

     Your continuing motto toward yourself, not other people, just yourself, should be "Shut the Fuck Up."  90% of the people have psychiatric problems because of poor posture, but you should understand that you've got poor posture in general -- that you keep yourself bogged down drifting along being you.  And one way to look at it is -- you do it because you talk too much.  You talk too much to the person you live with, you talk too much to your parents, you talk too much to people working at convenience stores, and of course, I hate to be dirty, but you talk too much to yourself.  You should be able to get a very good glimpse, if not a very direct whiff of the truthfulness of this, that what seems to be old you drifting along with all your shortcomings, and all your problems, would all change drastically.  I am trying to sound fairly intellectual and understate it, but all of these so-called problems, difficulties, shortcomings, and self condemnations would be gone if you could Shut Up.  It has got to be a willful and specific act, of course.  It doesn't apply of course, to you who are hard-wired to be afraid to speak, or those of you who just plain hardly talk at all.  That doesn't count, you know that.  You have got to willfully do it.  And just because some of you hardly talk externally, doesn't mean you hardly talk internally.  Maybe you fool somebody somewhere, but you sure as hell haven't fooled me.  I know how it goes.  Your motto has got to be -- willfully -- Shut Up.

     This does not bode promisingly for ordinary relationships.  People need talk.  Ordinary people need talk as much as they need hugging, assurance, being smiled upon, the belief that someone cares about them.  It is a form of medicine, a form of patting, a form of reassurance.  But under ordinary conditions, people need talk.

     If you reach a certain point, you understand that your motto until further notice should be Shut Up.  And then you can specifically notice if, at a horizontal level, it begins to have an adverse effect upon relationships between you and your sexual partner or you and your family.  THEN, in relationship to this horrendous, threatening problem, you take the death-defying action of doing what?  You simply specifically act like something other than you; you act like somebody who is Not Shutting Up, but you do it specifically.

 Diagram 84

Diagram 84

     Something a little more specific.  You should never speak of anyone in the past tense.  If it's not right now, or in the apparent future, don't do it.  DO NOT DO IT.  There is nothing to be said:  it has been done.  One of the dangers of talking about people in the past tense is that what you say simply reinforces your own present wired up beliefs.  Talk in the past tense keeps your own systems charged up, ignited and operating in the way they are accustomed to, and even reinforces it.

     Now, if we want, for a moment, to appear to be just a little ordinary, we'll admit we've been referring to what ordinary people call gossip.  They are always condemning it and they don't know why.  Of course, they think they know why:  they pull out the good book, and somewhere in every holy book, it says, "Don't gossip about your neighbor."  Again you should find this sort of thing, interesting -- that the phenomena is worldwide, it is history-wide.  Why?  You should ask yourself, "What in the hell was life up to?"

     There is a worldwide condemnation of "gossip."  There is always a validity to it.  The basis is not moral or religious, and it's got nothing to do with the gods.  It's got very little to do with ordinary people either, other than to keep them irritated, to give them the necessary spark of motivational guilt.  But you people -- you should absolutely not talk about people in the past tense.  Whatever that leaves possible, go ahead and do it.  Now, may I also point out to you that this includes you:  do not talk about yourself in the past tense.  You are supporting a form of tyranny every time you talk about people.  You are reinforcing a dictator.  Take it up to a highly mechanical, a highly horizontal level, you are simply reinforcing the patterns of your own nervous system or so-called brain.  It is like any habit in the 3-D world, you continue to do it and it becomes more and more of a habit.  It becomes easier and easier, and it is simply then you, drifting along being you.  You should not be talking about people.  There are no villains, there are no heroes, there is nothing to say.

     People must talk about other people.  It transfers energy.  But -- I'm telling you, YOU must not talk about other people.  Whatever you could talk about has already been done.  The only thing you are going to say about people is in the past tense.  The only events you are going to talk about are in the past tense.  And don't tell me that sometimes you try to talk about the future, because all you are talking about is flying pigs.  You are taking your own past and you are trying to put wings on it and then you can say, your partnership can say, "All right, you might call it babble, or a loose tongue, but I was talking about something in the future.  I wasn't gossiping, I was talking about something that I and another person may do in the future."  But you are talking about flying pigs.  You are talking about the past and you have attempted to put wings on it.  You are talking about dead heroes, you are talking about dead saints, you are reinforcing your own wired-up belief systems, you are keeping all that energy that could ignite you in some other area, you are keeping it down at Line level, and you are drifting along being you.

     A potential verbal 3-D trap is confronting us again.  In the 3-D world, what seems to be that your own mind can say, "Well, this almost sounds interesting, but it can't be that simple, or even if there is some validity to it, I can't go do it.  I cannot go home and shut up.  It would drive my mate crazy.  I can't go around shutting up -- I just can't do it.  I smell some validity to it, some potential.  I can't do it."  And as always there is some validity in that.  We're dealing with the fact that all of you are still playing in traffic.  Suppose we have a belief system that had as a requirement, "The main thing you've got to agree to immediately, is to talk 90% less than you ever have up until now."

     Alright, that sounds reasonable, even if it sounds unreasonable.  Even if it can be explained, even if you're told this is the way it has to be, still, nobody can do it.  Everyone fails including the man preaching it, because it came from the more noisy remote areas of Life's body.  The justice is that very few people can understand somewhere within themselves that "shutting up" would probably be of more help than correcting their posture.  Very few people are struck by the motto's potential, by its potential as a very exciting foodstuff, like a ballistic newton.  And justice is such that there's no great danger that you're going to go out and do it to the degree necessary to wreck your marriage, lose your job, or have ordinarily domestic animals begin to chew on your ankles.  That's not the way it goes -- justice is inherent in all of this.  Many of you believe that you tried doing it in the past -- and you went too far.  Some of you may have tried to do it, and believe that it harmed some relationship.  People believe all kinds of nonsense.

     If you understand anything at all extraordinary, and you talk much at all, you talk too much.  And an absolute failsafe present standard is, if you ever wonder -- if you ever wonder at all, do I talk too much?  You do.  Count on it.  Bet the farm on it.  Take my word for it.  If at any time you leave a situation and wonder, "Did I talk too much?" -- you did.

     Of course, some of you may have left the situation and thought to yourself, "Boy, I sure am tired from sitting there for the last three hours.  Can a person get tired from talk?  OH NO!"  Well, as some of you may find out, you can die from talking.  The human voice can get you killed.  Just ask the man hiding in the bedroom closet in his shorts, when he coughed at the wrong time, after the husband got home.

     I, in fact, have a story for you.  There was a fellow, (it could have been a fellowette) who seemed to have the reputation for being some kind of teacher.  Once he wandered into a city he had never visited before.  Very shortly, a crowd of people recognized him and identified themselves as part of a group that had been reading his works and meeting together.  They never imagined that they'd ever meet him personally.  So they'd been reading his works, which they considered to be very important, and they'd been meeting together on a regular basis and discussing them.  "And now, here you are unexpectedly in person!  If we gather everybody together, would you consider coming and saying something to us?"  He agreed, so they gathered the whole group together.  He said, "Alright, I considered telling you something, but first, I've got two questions.  First, do you people believe that my ideas, my maps, are the epitome of contemporary understanding and knowledge?

     And they said, "Yes."

     And he said, "Alright, I've got another question.  Do you people regularly get together and debate and discuss my ideas?"

     And they said, "Yes, yes, yes -- seriously and at great, great length."

     And he said, "Ok, I do have something to tell you."

     And he said, very loudly, "There's nothing to discuss!!"

     And that was it.

     I like the story.  And it's a story of everybody.  It is a story of everyday life.  And if you can see it properly, you can apply it internally, in your land.

     There's nothing to discuss; unless you're just a group of ordinary people that thought they would never meet a source.

     Ordinary people, when asked, "You mean that you people debate and discuss this...," not only do they answer yes, they say yes, yes -- that's twice.  And they even point out, "seriously and at great, great length."  To them, this was an attribute.  An added incentive for the man to say something.  Which of course he did.

     Even if you can't be a verb, preferable to being a noun would be to be an adjective.