Audio= Stream the audio from the bars below. There is 10 minutes of Kyroots being read in the beginning. If you open the Gallery below in a new browser window, you can read along while you listen.
Summary by TK
#272 Aug 6, 1987 - 1:37
[Kyroot reading to :10.]
[Operational Directives are something to continue to do, not to be attempted, then remembered and re-attempted. Operational Directives are correct; they have no opposite as 'truth' must have--cannot be debated. Correctness does not turn into its own opposite --it simply disappears at the end of its usefulness. Correctness is always breathtaking, startling. ]
[More on the State: only the populace believes and acts that thinking and talking about something is almost as good as actually doing it. The State has all its elements such as the military, merchants, artists, etc. including the Ruling Powers. If the Ruling Powers do not control speech --they do not control anything. The apparent progression of an individual life is from a primitive anarchy of the child to a stable, sophisticated monarchy of the adult. Always the first step to monarchy is the arising of a dominant voice, calling for calm--calming the child down is the first step. The one voice does this gradually, tentatively at first but eventually proclaims itself monarch over all the others; speaking for all, and for the 'good' of all. But the populace of other voices soon realize that the monarch cannot bring about the promised good. Yet they do not revolt! There is a tacit acceptance of disheartening fraud along with the pretense that it doesn't exist. ]
[The Revolution can always be seen in two ways. As a storming from without by an enemy or as an internal uprising of the populace as in a fifth column conspiracy. ]
["Reform is the perennial drug of the people" whereas only the Real Revolutionist realizes that only Revolt will do. The calming voice (which becomes the monarch) always speaks of reform, never revolution. It will demand even a negative energy flow: a refraining from negative energy transfer (turning the other cheek) rather than allow an absolute cessation of such transfer. ]
[A Real Revolutionist knows his only permanent allies are his own Aim, his temporary Map of Correctness, and his Operational Directives compass of direction. His major weapon: a privileged sense of humor. ]
[The one thing that nobody can ever tell is what they seem to be. Thus, Life makes everyone try to do so. Another Real Revolutionist motto: "I don't do interviews". The Real Revolutionist comes to understand there is no need for torture, for every word spoken is a confession of sorts. All that is necessary is time. Eventually all will be confessed. ]
[More on the flow of negative energy from inferior to superior. How can this be used to consider the relation of the 3 forces? What correct usage can be made of the necessity that D-flow energies must flow upward? Is it materially possible for a superior position even to be seen? Ordinary consciousness can't really be angry with the concept of god. Men cannot curse god. The isolated smart-aleck voice can criticize god, but this is D-flow to a superior position. ]
[The highest molecular pleasure for The Few is high quality learning; first class, gourmet Yellow Circuit food.]
[1:22 Epilog Kyroot-style "UFN's" (Unidentified Flying Nevers) to 1:31
[1:31 TASK: Bombs away: "To be human is to feel ____." Consider two views: ordinary populace view and view from the Real Revolutionist. Do something creative 1 x hr. for next week.
THE STATE - ANARCHY TO MONARCHY
Document: 272, August 6, 1987
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987
I want to point out a little more specifically the reality behind the words "Operational Directives." Operational Directives are an obligation to actually do something you know is correct. To do something and not merely attempt to do it, not merely attempt to remember to do it, or not merely to attempt to remember to think about it. You should take it to be an imperative due to your understanding, hearing, feeling that something is correct as far as you are concerned.
The correctness of something is not entangled with the truth of it. In the binary world "the truth" of anything is also the untruth of it. Truth is debatable. There is always someone holding a diametrically opposed view of it. There has to be the untruth of whatever the thing is -- the subject, the idea -- for there to be a truth of it. But I am trying to get you to see that the stakes can be upped, not in a binary fashion, but by going off at a right angle, wherein things are correct. By "correct" I mean that there is no opposite. Correct is temporary, it's not true -- it's far beyond true. What was correct for you, you may have forgotten about six months later. For some reason, someone says, "Hey, aren't you the person who a year ago thought and acted as though so and so was correct?" You might display one of the real weapons of a Real Revolutionist -- the grandest, or one of the grandest, of weapons -- an absolute bad memory. You would not even remember doing it or you might not admit it, which is the same thing.
A Real Revolutionist would understand another term (or he would have his own term), namely, "purpose directs posture." The correctness of something, not the truth of it, dictates what someone does, because the truth of it is merely common currency out there among the people. People in the market place; run of the mill merchants and bankers, soldiers, and the government deal in that currency. They argue over what's true and what's not true. It changes from time to time, but when it changes among ordinary people, that change seems to be of importance and they remember it. If you say to those people, "You at one time believed this kind of unlawful act was not true, but now it is acceptable. You are even practicing it and allowing it." They would remember, but they would say, "We have changed for the better. Our eyesight previously was flawed. We now see more correctly." That is the world of true and false.
The world of correctness does not change like that. Correctness is always temporary but it's temporary at another level. It does not turn into its own opposite. Correctness simply disappears when it's used up. Correctness does not turn into something else. It's just gone. Therefore, if you begin to follow what I'm pointing at, you can begin to see there is no opposite to what I mean by "correct." Correct is that which is useful. Correct is what you right now understand to be correct. For it to actually be correct, in a sense, it's got to almost take your breath away. It's got to be startling and it's got to make you grin. That is what's correct. Things that are true -- who knows? They're debatable. Your ordinary binary consciousness knows as much about what is true as anyone else's does. Everybody knows what's true and untrue. People just deal in a different currency from time to time. What some people call true right now would be like a lira and what somebody calls untrue would be a dollar. All you do is step across the lobby to another money changer, or step across the border to another land, and what was untrue is now true. That, however, is not the case with what is correct. What is correct for a person does not turn into its opposite. It's correct and then it's just gone. That is its usefulness. You do not waste your time in binary concepts. The truth, as the binary mind would have it, is useless. If there were any value to truth, ordinary consciousness would not be a one way street going in two directions. Binary consciousness would not even be. There would be no debates. There would be no discussions.
Here is some more information about the State. Only the ordinary, only the populace, only the people, believe and act as though thinking and talking about something were almost as good, exciting, and revolutionary as actually doing it. That is a very subtle little hole people step into -- believing that the propaganda of some group is fact, or believing that a proclaimed program is permanent (or worse yet, that it's true!) This, of course, is the same thing as believing that some of it is false. It doesn't matter. If you step into that ditch then you end up (and you never realize it) doing nothing. You may attend meetings, read books, or make notes, but you don't do anything. You think you feel better, but you have nothing to compare it to because you've forgotten exactly how you felt before. It may be that you're drinking less, or you have lost some weight, or you have bought a new car or had your old one painted. Or conversely, you may decide, "Who needs a car?," and you start riding the bus. The sensation is that you are better off than you were earlier, but your memory is such that you're not really sure. There is the sensation of, "I have certainly benefited from this and I continue to enjoy it."
The whole world is made up of States and people are made up of internal States. Inside of each State are the necessary institutions of the State -- the Military, Merchants, Bankers, Artists, the Ruling Powers, and the Loyal Opposition. All of this is true internally as well as externally. The Ruling Power is like the king, the monarch, the apparent prevailing, controlling agency, which comes and goes. It can be overthrown and is overthrown. On that basis, if the Ruling Powers in a State do not control speech, then the Ruling Powers have no control. This is obvious externally in the places that people in our position on the planet call "tyrannies" and "autocratic regimes." One of the first things those regimes do when they become the Ruling Power is control speech. If the Ruling Powers are not controlling speech, they're not controlling anything. Now let's jump from that wonderful world of sovereign states out there and see whether there might be an inverted echo internally. What is the feeling of progress, of change, in an ordinary person? From where do the People believe comes the impetus to change? How might this fit with the partnership arrangement internally?
Let me take a slightly askew approach, a corollary approach to what I'm talking about. The development in people individually of one's apparent sense of "I" could be seen as what would externally be the progression of humanity from primitive anarchy, childhood, to a more stable monarchy, adulthood. This progression from anarchy to monarchy would be like the Ruling Powers out there and the Ruling Powers in you -- the would-be Ruling Powers -- coming from this chaotic childhood sense of internal anarchy and calling for the gradual achievement of calm and quiet. After all, what would be one of the first aims of a group or an individual trying to assume power over a mob? The people are in a state of anarchy and one of the first things to do is calm them down. What's one of the first things that grownups do to children? It reaches a point (Life arranges it so that everybody's got a scapegoat) where a child psychologist says, "Well, this child's old enough to calm down." I might add this point coincidentally seems to be about the same time the parents believe, "I can't stand any more of this! The child is driving me crazy!" Suddenly it seems to be the right time to try to get the child to calm down and at least sometimes, "Be quiet. Just calm down. Go to your room. Read a book." Then the would-be Ruling Powers say they are beginning to speak for all of you. Then a short step after that is, "We are speaking for the good of all of you." Does this sound like a would-be tyrant? Does this sound like a parent? Does this sound like anything that ever came from inside your own head that you attributed to something else?
In the midst of this chaos of childhood, this feral state of simplicity, of wildness, there seems to arise a voice, "Calm down, let's be quiet." Then the voice, for all intents and purposes, seems to be saying, "I'm beginning to speak for all of you." Then, very shortly after that, as long as the mob does not rush up and strangle the would-be monarch, as soon as the People are listening, the would-be Ruling Power says, "Not only am I speaking for all of you, I am speaking only for the good of all of you. It's the only reason I'm doing it." Then, a number of months or years after that, there is the announcement, the proclamation by the would-be Ruling Power of their sole supremacy. They are now a monarch. The power lies with a single source which seems to be somebody, either externally or inside of you, who is in charge. This, however, inevitably leaves an ill-diagnosed binary 3-D view of the internal state of development, the apparent development of one's individual self. Even after you have apparently accepted the would-be Monarch as your Monarch, the crown cannot truly bring about peace and joy as you thought it would. As everybody thinks it would do. As everyone's would-be Monarch tells them it would. This is what the molecules are wired up to put into words, no matter what the language. You're becoming an adult, you're becoming responsible, you're becoming a good whatever it is, and now you're finally going to be somebody. You're going to leave childish, chaotic things behind and now you'll get on with the real purpose of life. You know, getting smart, getting wise, pulling yourself together -- all of that.
So with almost all people, in the State externally and the State inside of you, it reaches the point that the would-be Ruling Powers have apparently taken sole control and are the Monarch. But no one notices -- they can't notice it in the 3-D world, once the Monarch seems firmly and perhaps rightfully on the throne -- the crown cannot bring about the peace, the pleasure, the enlightenment everyone assumes will occur. This kind of progression in the individual life and in the life of mankind, going continually from this primitive state of anarchy into a stable condition of a monarchy, never brings about what people expect. There is still no widespread revolution and nobody really notices it in this way. It is as though everybody finally accepts the reign of their monarch, and once it is firmly on the throne -- you'll give it a day or so maybe -- and then you realize, "The Monarchy has not brought about what I expected." And the Monarchy looks around and suddenly realizes that it hasn't in anybody else either. Everybody likewise looks at themselves and at everybody else and realizes that it's a disheartening fraud. It is as though there is a tacit understanding, and a glance passes between everybody saying, "Let's don't ever mention this. I won't and don't you."
There would apparently be two ways to look at The Revolution. I'm not talking about "a" revolution. To talk about "a" anything is truly beneath a Real Revolutionist. If you want to hear somebody talk about "a" something you should be somewhere else. I'm talking about "The" something. The Revolution could be seen as being an assault staged from without, or it could be an internal challenge arising from the midst of the People themselves. We can put a four dimensional difference between the two views into two dimensional words like this: the former case would be like the overthrow, the destruction of the old religious, philosophical ideas that seemed to have been the nexus that held a particular state together as a state. The latter case would be like the production, the offering of new views, new maps of the established views to the people. There is a crucial difference between the two. When I say "crucial," I'm not speaking historically, I'm talking in a way that has meaning for people attempting to incite such a revolution within themselves.
There are two ways you could look at a would-be Revolution. One way would apparently be very distinct -- that is, an assault from without. A Revolution can be seen as forces outside the Ruling Powers, forces outside even the Loyal Opposition, Revolutionists out in the bush, out in the jungles, assaulting the Ruling Powers; an assault apparently from without by those out of power who want power. The other way would be to see it as a less inflamed, less drastic fifth column inner rebellion of the People themselves -- people going about their everyday affairs of being Bankers, Merchants, Priests, Reporters. The Revolutionist apparently attempts or stages a rebellion on the basis not of an absolute assault and overthrowing, or tearing down and trampling all known idols, morals, ideas, etc., but as a kind of working from within. He is apparently offering new maps and new views of what is already established among the people. So there would appear to be two distinct ways to look at a Revolution. But that is a two dimensional description, and if you're given the possibility of only one of those two then you will never be able to write, produce, direct nor act in a Real Revolution. I hate to be the harbinger of bad news (as if there was another kind), but under those conditions not only could you not write, produce, direct or act in The Revolution, but if it were showing in your home town you'd never even know about it. If they showed it in your bedroom, it'd go right past you. If they went into your bathroom and showed the full film, you'd never be aware of it. Although you may be sitting there on the throne of power thinking about it, you would never, never see it.
Here is something else about Revolution. "REFORM" is the perennial drug of the people, while the Few would know that only a Revolution will do. The voice that seems to arise in humanity and in an individual, moving along from childhood, a primitive form of anarchy, to what appears to be adulthood, a condition of stable monarchy, is the would-be voice of the Monarch, the Ruling Powers. This would-be voice of you apparently encourages you along this natural mechanical progression to calm down and be quiet, to listen to it because it is speaking for all of you, to listen to it because it is speaking for the good of you, but along the way, what is it speaking of? It was not necessarily using this word "reform," but the reality of its conversation was always on the basis of "reform." "You don't have to completely shut up, but just, oh, I don't know, shut up when Daddy's watching TV. Or how about shut up after 9:00 at night or shut up after you have been talking nonstop for twenty-two hours. How about shut up when you see Daddy pick up the hatchet. No, you don't have to quit talking, no, no, no, 'reform.' And listen, you are old enough now, we would like for things to calm down a little. Would you quit relieving yourself in your pants? Would you go to the bathroom by yourself so that I don't have to deal with it?" See, you're not told, "Hey, listen, don't defecate any more, I mean that's it. You are now seven, stop it." You are told merely to REFORM.
Now back to apparently spiritual, esoteric areas. Consider a child (whether it be an individual child or humanity as a child), in its mechanical progression from primitive anarchy to the more stable condition of a monarchy. To this child the would-be Ruling Powers do not say, "You have to stop hating people, you have to stop transferring negative energy." (Now don't let that smart aleck bunch of rowdies in your own internal crowd reject this before I explain it correctly.) Now, there are many adages that seem to have validity only because of their age, written on the walls in various temples saying something like, "Being hostile is not really the best idea." But notice that humanity is not given an absolute enforced directive such as, "Do not transfer negative energy." People are told only to reform, not to undergo a revolution. You are not told to STOP IT. The perennial drug, the perennial directive is REFORM. But for the Real Revolutionist that's not good enough, because it does not produce what he wants. Reform will not do. Reform is simply the cry word, the byword, a drug, a lubricant for the mechanical natural ordinary progression that humanity and individuals undergo from primitive anarchy to a more stable condition of monarchy. Along the way, the byword, the link pin, the drug, the oil, the directives, the instructions would be, "Reform, reform, reform." Not, "Stop."
A Real Revolutionist might or must ultimately see dialogue coming down to this, "I shoot, you listen." That is not reform. Life does not do that. Life does not require that anyone participate in a revolution. A revolution is not really in Life's general overall plans for Man. I am not talking about trying to inflame some widespread revolution or trying to spread whatever revolutionary potential or spirit might exist among a few people. If Life played card games, that's not in Life's hand. But you have to see that "reform" is a kiddy drug.
A Real Revolutionist knows that his only permanent allies are his own aim, his own temporary maps of correctness, and his own compass of Operational Directives. I guess it would have been shorter, if not sweeter, if I had simply said, "The Real Revolutionist knows he has but one permanent ally and that is his aim, everything else is a marriage of convenience." A Real Revolutionist's permanent ally is his own aim. He expands that aim with the help of his temporary allies, his maps of correctness (not true maps, because there are no true maps).
A kind of privileged/special sense of humor would probably be one of a Revolutionist's indispensable weapons. Not ordinary humor, not ordinary witticism, not run of the mill sarcasm, and not critical of anybody. It is not laughing at banana peels under the physical, intellectual, or emotional heel of another person. It is a kind of privileged humor. It is a kind of humor not available to just anybody -- if it were it would be of no benefit, no use, and it would simply be back at the level of all ordinary humor -- based upon and sewn with the thread of hostility. There is always a very distinct but normally unrecognized dose of negative force/energy in humor. But the Revolutionist would have as one of his indispensable weapons, a kind of privileged humor.
Let's talk about something completely off the subject. How about a good old dogmatic statement? The one thing no ordinary person can tell is what they seem to be. Now forget about anything else, but the ONE THING no ordinary person can ever tell is what they seem to be. And therefore Life makes everyone try to do so. In this same diverse and distant galactic area, the Real Revolutionist would have yet another motto and it would be, "I don't do interviews." Up, down, left, right, inside or out, "I simply don't do interviews."
In this same disjointed area, the Real Revolutionist comes to understand there is no need for torture, because every word that ordinary people speak is a confession. In the case of the Real Revolutionist, the closest he would come to having some implement of torture would be TIME. All you have to do is stand back and wait, because every word ordinary people say slows things down and is a confession. If you can listen through that special weapon of a privileged kind of humor (that is, you're not tied to any critical concept of whether people are right, wrong, literate, or unreasonable) you hear that every word uttered by ordinary people, including your own internal people, is a confession. No need for torture, no need for threats (which of course, are a form of torture to the ordinary). Even with the ability to hear his own people's talk as a confession (I don't mean a new confession; it's the same old confessions over and over) a Real Revolutionist keeps as his motto (as long as it's correct) "I don't do interviews."
Suppose someone who apparently is fairly intelligent steps forward and says, "I would like to know more about you. I'd like to ask you a question. I would like to pass along some energy, I'd like to give you some attention." Now among the people, everybody is a fool for that. A reporter can go up to a general and say, "I would like to do an interview about you and your meteoric rise in the military." The general out there (and the general internally) says, "I couldn't be more delighted." In fact, he gives a tacit compliment to the reporter "on your intelligence shown by your being interested in me." But, by the same token, the general can turn to the reporter and say, "How in the world does somebody get to be a reporter?" And the reporter says, "Well, okay, let me turn off my tape recorder and I'll tell you." If a would-be Revolutionist gives out an interview to anybody, you are banking on the wrong revolution. If a person gives an interview, you've been going down a grossly mistaken path with him. You are not dealing with a Revolutionist, because one of the Real Revolutionist's mottos would be, if he or she would indeed even say this much, but it would be, at least silently and secretly, "I don't do interviews." I don't do interviews, period. Unconditionally, no discussion. I don't sell interviews, I don't even entertain the idea. I don't have to think about it. I don't do interviews.
Anybody that does interviews is not a Revolutionist, and anybody that does interviews, no matter what they apparently are saying, are confessing. They are being tortured by being alive; they are being tortured by having moved in an unsatisfactory manner from a state of anarchy to a state of apparently stable monarchy -- and then found that it's not what they thought. It's not what apparently everybody else expected. And now it seems, "as though there is a secret society between me and everybody else. Things didn't work out as we thought they would, but let's don't talk about it. I'm not going to mention it and don't you mention it." And after that, everybody does interviews.
What I'm going to say now flies in the face of ordinary consciousness, and I know you can crank up your engines and fly in the face of it. What appears to be negative energy, can only flow from apparently inferior positions towards superior positions, not the other way around. Superior positions cannot criticize, cannot find fault with, cannot pass down what apparently is negative energy and food to an inferior position, only the other way around.
Now, I want to ask you how might this be related to, and how might you be able to see this in considering the Three Forces? How might this have some correctness, that is, some useful purpose, in the ever changing triads of human existence? On a larger scale, in the triaxial dance of verbs and even (in the 3-D world) apparently of nouns (that is, things), the forces apparently go from C to D to E to C to D to E to D to E to C to D to C, and so on. What might be the usefulness of me telling you that apparently D-based energies cannot flow except from an inferior position to a superior one? What correct use might this fact have in the ever changing dance of energy from C to D to E? I'll at least hint to you that the possible ramifications of it are staggering. If you don't find them so, then you're not listening to the Revolutionist in you. You're not even listening to me, and you didn't hear what I said.
Here's another question. Is it actually possible, materially physically possible, for a superior position, a superior force, to be seen at all by an inferior one? I already pointed out to you that in the 3-D world what appears to be negative energy can only go from an inferior position to a superior one. But now I'm asking you (hint, hint), can the inferior position even see the superior one? And yet that is the flow of apparent negative energy.
Could you see the possibility that you as an individual can only be angry at inferior positions in you? You're walking along and suddenly, "Ouch! Who put this toy here?!" It was your clumsiness, to put a word on it, that caused you to stub your toe. And what direction, based upon what I'm telling you does any form of apparent negative energy, including criticism, go? An ordinary person could say, "Well I was cursing an inferior position." You're sending negative energy toward an inferior position, but it's in you. In this case let's call it your own clumsiness. Even within you, in your State, it is only the inferior position that you can criticize.
Now, I ask you again, what might that imply, what might be the staggering ramifications of all forms of apparent desire to reform? If it only can flow in that direction. If you can only find fault, even internally, with inferior positions.
Along the same line, can you see that in a certain way ordinary consciousness, (listen quickly!) can't really be angry with the concept of gods. Remember, in mentioning the gods I'm not talking about anything correct, I'm talking about man's concepts, what Life has made ordinary consciousness molecularly think up, dream of, imagine, have faith in. Ordinary consciousness cannot send negative energy toward gods, toward man's concept of gods. Now, as I said, you have to listen fast because if we were speaking in so-called psychological terms or if I were actually held down by gravity and had any faith in three dimensional reality and two dimensional words, it'd be another story. You'd say, "Well, that's the kind of philosophical thing that humanity's talked about," or maybe it's even, "The absolute spiritual reality of the fact that the gods are so superior; we have no right to send them anger. You'd have to be really cut off from the grace and will of the gods to be angry at the gods. You'd be less than even a decent minimal human." I'm down to the molecular level where we all belong. Under ordinary conditions the human organism is not wired up to send negative energies toward this concept of a higher power.
Notice also, men cannot send up curses, negative energy to their gods. It is a splendid arrangement, it is a beautiful arrangement. In a sense if we were speaking in philosophical and psychological terms, which I am not, it's as though Life itself, as always, has arranged molecularly for men to be unable to send negative energies toward higher positions such as their gods. And it's as though, if we were speaking in psychological terms, which I am not, Life has likewise made men who do not realize it, become rationalizers for the gods. Nobody holds a god responsible. "Pray for me brother, I am dying of cancer, pray for me." Of course, from some smart aleck viewpoint out there, a stranger hanging around the faith healing tent can say, "You're dumb, you know that? Why are you praying to this god of yours to cure your cancer if it's the god who gave you the cancer, or at least stood by and let you get it? Now you're going to pray to him? Give me a break!" There are no such common voices as that. Humanity, that is, ordinary consciousness, the people, do not criticize and condemn the gods. If anything, if we were speaking in psychological terms, which we are not, they are apologists. They rationalize for the gods. "Sure, I'm dying of cancer, but...," and so on.
Here's something about the molecular patterns of pleasure in people. This is just one view, a correct view, but this is one view that I want to stress. From one correct view for you, the highest form of lateral molecular pleasure is in first class, gourmet Yellow Circuit food. That is, first class, gourmet learning. This can be good even for apparently Red and Blue Circuit difficulties. It should be another small motto -- learn, dammit, learn. This is not to take away from the need for Red Circuit food or distract at all from artistic and/or other hobbies you may have. But the highest form of lateral molecular pleasure is first class, gourmet type Yellow Circuit food, which you should be getting every day. Any day that you let go by without that, you're cheating yourself, hurting yourself. You're out in the Bushes attempting to be a Revolutionist and you might as well be out there with a girlie magazine. For you women, you might as well be out there with....I don't want to go into it, but suffice it to say you're out there only playing with the Revolution (or perhaps with something else).