Jan Cox Talk 0278

THE PROMISE OF SERVICE DELIVERED IS THE SERVICE DELIVERED

Audio= Stream the audio from the bars below in two parts.  There is 9 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.

Audio Download =  DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0278 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = pending
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = none
Transcript = See Below


Summary by TK

#278 Sep 17, 1987 - 2:00

  [Kyroot reading to 0:09. ]
  [To have a true time-memory would drastically change ordinary consciousness. It is to take awareness of every influence time has in everything; to account for time in everything. Ordinary consciousness is for making Life 'thinkable'; ordinary consciousness allows time to be thought of. Planning from present circumstances = no planning at all from the 4-D view. This relates to the inability of ordinary consciousness to think of anything new. Real Plans must be based on at least 5 minutes into the future. E.g., of kids chasing horses with bridle to catch and ride: got to run to where the horses are going to be, not merely chase after them. A Real Plan involves being where things are going to be. ]
  [Do not 'machinate'--be deceitful, treacherous, conniving. Remember that morality is biochemical. Machination dilutes the blood and starves the upper circuitry. Deceit is absolute poison for The Few. ]
  [The Real Revolutionist does not expect overnight victory. Part of his strategy is to make the enemy's cost of success greater and greater rather than directly overwhelming/vanquishing them. To increase the cost is one way to effect Real Change. ]
  [Is there a difference between discussion of the delivery of services and the actual delivery? Is there a difference between the promise and the deed? Or does the talk about delivery actually substitute for the service to be delivered? A problem addressed is a problem solved; merely articulating it serves the same purpose as actually solving it. Man is the only ongoing enterprise on this planet. Animals only deal with 'services delivered' where man pursues an ongoing program of activity: talk of action. This process of man (TOA) is its own payoff. All man's institutions deal in discussion of delivery of service: religion, psychology etc. This discussion is the delivery; serves the purpose of actual delivery. The attraction of sports events, collecting-type hobbies and the like is in the apparent finality it offers; a promise of conclusion --"the Rams beat the Tigers 14 to 7"; "only 3 more stamps will fill out my collection" etc. Men are molecularly arranged to approve and seek such activity offering (apparent) finality.]
  [Those who think they understand everything to the extent they can then teach others, have ceased to be an ongoing process and their movement expands mechanically afterwards: more followers, more money, more temples. ]
  [Everyone should make a specific effort to give pleasure thru words to other people. You can give more pleasure with a few words than with a gift of money. A few kind words will last forever in another's memory and be a consolation long after money would be forgotten. This is true also of giving pain with words: never do so. ]
  [Electrified feelings (negative emotions) should never be carried over to the next day. It becomes spoiled, left-over food. Dangerous potential for toxicity. ]
  [Families. The Real Revolutionist must walk away from their own blood kin after a certain point if unacceptable losses at their hands is incurred--and do so without a second thought. ]
  [1:42 UFN's ]
  [1:51 Epilog TASK: Consider what is one tenet or religious observance/ritual that would ensure the success of a new would-be religion?


Transcript

THE PROMISE OF SERVICE DELIVERED

IS THE SERVICE DELIVERED            

Document: 278, September 17, 1987
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox 1987 

     If you could hold a nonstop awareness of time, it would be THE most immediate way to affect not only how one acts, but how one thinks of acting.  It would drastically change, not only one's consciousness, but it would change one's behavior.  Of course, to have that kind of memory of time, would entail that you know what time has done to every circumstance that you have ever been in.  It would be a kind of understanding, nay, almost a certainty, of what time will do in the future.  If it was fully realized, time would reveal that, presently, everything is correct, no matter who you are, where you are, no matter what the present seems to be.  Forget any ideas of true or false, or whether things are properly arranged -- you would see the correctness of what was presently occurring.  You would see time as a kind of ultimate consumer of all mere truths, which also engulfs, I might add, the "untruth".  It would be the ultimate black hole:  that into which 3-D human energy goes, never to be seen again in your lifetime.  Because no one can maintain an awareness of the flow of time, everything that happens is sucked into a black hole and forgotten.  So it is that people can be surprised:  "Oh, my god.  What a shock.  Who would have ever thought this could happen?"  Time knew what would occur.

     Connected to this, it would be pertinent to say that one of the main reasons for the existence of ordinary human consciousness is that it is the means to make life "thinkable".  And one of the ways Life accomplishes this is through the idea and operation of the concept of time.  I'm not saying that people have a continuing awareness of the cogent power of time; rather, I'm pointing to the fact that Humanity even has an idea of time, that men have even conjured up the word.  If looked at from a certain, not improper view, you could see that that alone could justify humans being "conscious" -- simply so they could think about time.  Were it not for the ordinary conception of time, not a continual awareness of time but the ordinary knowledge and talk of time, think about how many things would no longer be possible.  No one could suffer, be surprised, be bored, be able to say, "Who would have ever expected that?"  All those human phenomena require a disjointed awareness of time.

     Now let's stretch it:  Would any plans really be plans at all if they were based on present conditions?  If you consult the dictionary, or your own Line-level Yellow Circuit, that question would appear to be a non sequitur.  After all, "How else can you plan without accounting for the present?"  Line-level consciousness says that you must be able to note what facilities, abilities, needs, materials, etc., that you have available right now in order to make plans for tomorrow.  But I ask again, "If your planning is entirely based upon the present prevailing conditions, then what kind of plan is that?  Is it actually a plan?"

     I'll let you off the hook, and tell you that from a 4-D viewpoint, that's no plan at all.  All of you know by now that if I ask you to think of something totally new, and you can almost get a brain hernia in the process, all you come back with is, "Okay, we'll put wings on pigs."  That's not new; it's not a plan.  As I mentioned before, one of your first really great gasps will be when you realize how hard it is to think of anything that you've never thought before.  It's almost impossible to think of anything new or to arrive at any plan not based on present conditions.

     A Real Revolutionist could be described as someone who is 500 years or five minutes ahead of their time (the result is the same).  For anything to be classified as a Real Plan it would have to be at least five minutes into the future, and could not be based upon current circumstance.  It doesn't matter if you think you're perceptive nonpareil, or if you think you can inject possibilities into future plans that no one else could.  If it's based on present conditions, it's no plan at all.

     In the 3-D world, the only way to make plans is to assess the current situation, and ask, "Where do we go from here?"  You don't go from here; Real Revolutionary activity can't go from here.  If you go "from here", then you will always operate on the basis of reform, not real change.  You'll always expect cause and effect and live out your days and never understand that one plus two equals ten.  You'll always wonder why your plans came out flawed.  And the answer to that is that they are not really plans if they're based on current circumstances. 

     Some of you may remember a story about two kids trying to chase horses, to catch them.  One of the kids had continuing success, while the other didn't.  Finally, the kid who was more proficient said, "I found out a trick.  You don't chase the horse -- try and run to where he's going to be, and wait."  That would be the basis of a plan, do you See?  As long as you take circumstances as they are, you speak only of reformation.

     Let me say a little more about one or two things that were on my list of "rules".  If you deal with things you feel are deceitful or treacherous, you dilute the blood and starve your upper circuits.  You should adopt another sub-motto:  Don't machinate.  Don't do anything that to you seems conniving.  As you feed the treachery, you starve yourself, and are no longer involved in true effort.  You must continually remember that morality is molecular, not religious, intellectual or spiritual.  (I only use the word morality as a form of shorthand.)  Ordinary people believe they know what the word morality means; everyone speaks of it from the humanistic philosophers to your atheistic aunt.  They all say, "I shouldn't be deceitful.  I shouldn't gossip.  I shouldn't do anything that would make me feel shamed if seen by another."  The reason everyone is forced to speak of such things is not spiritual nor psychological:  morality is molecular. If you could remember this, it would have a drastic affect.

     It is nothing for the Few to operate on the ordinary basis of:  "The gods will strike you down if you're deceitful."  That's nothing.  The deceit, the treachery, that kind of machination destroys the blood.  It destroys your ability to feed your higher circuits.  That is the basis of morality for the Few.  Life has spoken through man throughout the ages -- announcements about psychological maladies and the spiritual dangers of immoral behaviors.  But it is a material danger, a physical danger to those who wish to start their own internal Revolutions.  And you can blame everything from alcohol to tight pants, to not believing in the cellulite fairy -- but it is a material reality. 

     There's something else I want to expand upon having to do with the allegorical struggle I've detailed of a Real Revolutionist living in the land of Fred or Mary, and the divisions within that land into ruling powers, the people, and the institutions.  A Real Revolutionist could look at the struggle thusly:  he would not expect an overnight victory.  Only the ordinary expect that, and at Line level it passes for conversion, contrition, enlightenment, etc.  Instead of expecting overnight success, the Real Revolutionist sees the struggle as an attempt to bankrupt the ruling powers by continually raising the cost of their successes. Please note that no religions and no 3-D information convey this:  they talk about the impossibility of immediately and directly affecting behavior.  "Starting tomorrow I'm going to abruptly change myself, my behavior."  And of course, it can't be done.  They, and you at Line level, speak of, "completely and decisively overwhelming the enemy," rather than continually increasing the cost of success to the enemy.

     There are times that you feel completely bogged down, that you can't even get into the City to attack anybody.  You feel paralyzed as if you're up to your knees in a musky savannah and can't move.  "Things keep having the same result over and over.  All these feelings keep attacking me, and I can't seem to overcome them."  Rather than looking at it as an attempt to overcome them, how about seeing it as a continuing drive to increase the cost of the enemy's victories?

     Here's something that I've been laying a verbal groundwork for over the last few months.  I'll put it in the form of a question:  Is there a difference between the discussions of delivery of services and the delivery of the service itself?  Man and his institutions will discuss and promise delivery of services, but you should see that they never do so.  It all operates at the 3-D level with complete impunity.  Man can substitute the discussion itself for the effort.  A person says, "Am I out of shape," and it seems, in a certain way, to be the end of the matter.  No other action is required or forthcoming.  The enunciation of "the problem" seems, within itself, to be sufficient.  It's almost as though problems addressed are problems solved.  I'll ask you again:  Is there a difference between the discussion of delivery of services, and the actual delivery itself?

     It's almost impossible to get a real verbal grasp on this concept so I'll sneak up on it in small pieces.  As far as 3-D consciousness can see, Man is the only creature on this planet wired up to pursue ongoing ventures.  All other creatures -- lions, dogs, hippos -- deal only in results.  They deal only in the services delivered:  food, sex, shelter, safety.  A lion finds food and eats.  He's finished.  There is no ongoing venture.  He doesn't sit around and dreamily feel, "Boy, that was good.  I hope I can find another gazelle just like that one tomorrow."  For every creature, except man, there is this daily "finis" to what goes on. Only man is wired up to deal with and conceive of ongoing activities.  A wildebeest, having escaped from a lion, doesn't run behind a tree and think, "Whew, that lion almost caught me.  The same thing happened yesterday."  It's action, it's the delivery of services.

     Let's go on from the two-circuited creatures and their search for food, sex, and shelter, to the wonderful world of psychology, religion, and man's attempts at self-improvement.  All of man's religions, his attempts to change, all deal in one thing:  the discussion of the delivery of services.  Please note, they never deliver.  And, no one notices.  (Before you attack Man's institutions, remember that institutions are just a whole bunch of men.)  Internally, everyone promises themselves a delivery of services that are never delivered.  They're not supposed to be.  Back to the original query:  Is there a difference between discussions of delivery of services and the delivery itself?

     If you begin to see Man as an ongoing enterprise, you'll see that nothing is amiss, and man is not being tricked.  He must be continually involved in this singular area in Life of continually pursuing ongoing ventures.  The process is the payoff.  Man's institutions deal in discussing promises, not in the delivery of services.  They never have delivered those services (religions don't deliver the promised communion with the gods, etc.) and never will.  They're not intended to, and on that scale, they operate with impunity.

     If someone says, "I've identified the problem, something we should work on and investigate," once it is enunciated, that is the result.  That is the delivery of services.  Simply put, the verbalization, the promise of delivery, serves the purpose.  The services do not have to be delivered; they are not expected to be delivered.  One example would be prayer.  Praying, not any result, is the delivery of services.  Anyone can point out that churches are full of people praying, yet their prayers go unanswered.  What no one sees, what no one can see, is that the process of praying is the service; it is the promise of delivery of the service that is the service.  It does not matter that the service itself never comes.

     Or, as another example, how about dieting.  It is the process of dieting, not a permanent weight loss, that is the service.  All of you know that almost all the people who lose weight put it back on.  Does that stop anybody?  Noooo.  How many books top the best seller lists that are related to dieting?  How many books do you find in someone's house about dieting, and they tell you they tried this one and that one and they didn't work.  "You mean, you keep buying books at $19.95 a pop, and they don't work?"  "Oh no, you don't understand."  What I'm telling you is:  it's the dieting, not the weight loss.

     It would be the saving up to get the Corvette, not actually having it.  People have cried throughout history about the difference between really wanting something, making extreme effort toward that end, and what a letdown it seemed once acquired.  It was the process of saving up, not the acquired Corvette, that was the service delivered.

     Of course, the ultimate promise of delivery is in men's attempts to reform their habits.  The swapping of habits, not actually undergoing change, is all that happens and it passes for some kind of finality.  By the way, that's why no one likes a reformed ________(fill in the blank).  No one likes a reformed drunk, for example, because he won't stop talking about it.  He can't stop talking about it because the molecular structure that tied him into being a drunk is still in operation.  There has been no actual delivery of services, but for the reformed "whatever", the promise of delivery is what feeds him, and drives him to constantly talk about it.  I'll also point out that this is another reason for Man's Yellow Circuit memory:  so that he can run plans and ongoing ventures from minute to minute, day to day, and generation to generation.  Without the Yellow Circuit memory, these nonstop promises of services to be delivered would not be in a continual, and necessary, flow.  They would stop, not only from generation to generation, which would be bad enough for Life's health, but would stop from minute to minute in you.

     To jump to something I began to mention just before about things having a sense of finality, why is it that people feel so kindly toward sports, collecting, drugs, shopping, etc.  All of these things appear to offer a kind of passing finality.  Take sporting events, for example:  they hold the promise of a conclusion just within reach.  Just look at the amount of time devoted to sports scores on the network news.  On the molecular level, man is wired up to feel favorably toward things that hold the promise of some kind of finality.  Nothing in life ever seems to come to a definite conclusion, but this afternoon, "Toronto played New York and the score was 7 to 5, Toronto."  At least one thing got done today -- it's official, it's in the record books.  Collecting and shopping, as molecular substitutes for hunting, also provide this feeling of finality so favorable to people.  There are people who collect hundreds of albums by artists they've never heard.  It feels like there is some kind of finality almost within reach.  And you might ask, "Boy, I bet you really enjoy those albums."  "No, I never listen to them.  But let's see, I've got every album Hank Williams ever did, except one that's only in Argentina, and one that was bootlegged in London.  Once I get those two, unless something else pops up, that Wild Duck will be dead.  Then, there'll be a conclusion reached." It's a feeling of finality.

     Back to man as an ongoing venture.  When the ministers, swamis and gurus are finally recognized by a flock, they, in a sense, mechanically accept the fact that they now do know it all.  "I know it enough to be a minister, to be a teacher.  Part of the proof is that I've told these people weird things and they didn't laugh.  They brought their friends.  Now, I never even think about it anymore."  What I want you to see is that in this situation, those people are no longer ongoing ventures.  Their only sensation of ongoing ventures now becomes "more funds, more followers."  The bigger church building, the need to increase the congregation has now become the promise of services to be delivered.  No one in church stands up and says, "If there's a word, then why didn't we get it?  I'll help bring in more followers once you give me the word you promised."  I'm bringing this up not to cast any humorous light on ministers and the like (they are doing nothing wrong, and nothing is amiss) -- but because this has an internal application.  Once you think you "know it all," you cease being an ongoing enterprise.  You might as well be a minister -- and here's the justice again if you're extra quick:  once he (the would-be teacher) ceases to be an ongoing enterprise with any real potential, then he has a greater magnetic attraction to garner a following.  Were he an ongoing enterprise, people would find it difficult to grasp the situation, as if they were doing the backstroke in warm jello.  People would come to hear him speak, and be disturbed, believing perhaps that he had something to hide, or just that they couldn't tell what in the world was going on.  Once he's no longer an ongoing venture, once he "knows it all," he can attract others. 

     On a grander scale, Life's institutions such as religion, science, or psychology could not attract the populace if they were still ongoing enterprises.  They have to have apparently reached a goal.  Religions claim, "Our prophet, once he arrived on the scene, set the record straight once and for all.  He gave the final word and it's written down in our book."  Then it has an attraction, a purpose in Life.  It continues to discuss and promise services to be delivered, and no one notices.  It is now an ongoing enterprise in the respect that it continually promises services, and that is the service.  If it was Life's purpose to create something called religion that would actually make men more pious and moral, Life would have done it long ago.  If Life really needed those services which religion purports to offer, it would simply deliver them. Everyone would be more moral.  Your molecules would have been frozen in the position that Life needed and that would have been it.  There would be no such thing as change, or the Yellow Circuit:  the service would have been delivered.  But that is not the nature of Life.

     This is not, in any way, limited to religion.  Science, and all human activity, deals on the basis of services promised but never delivered.  Because the discussion is the service delivered.  That's it.  People talk about losing weight, while ordering another pitcher of beer.  The problem is enunciated:  there is nothing else to be done.  But people are not idiots.  They are, on the contrary, a delightful, necessary, ongoing, open-ended enterprise within the body of Life.  Listen to Life -- to the sounds humanity is making in print, in its ivy covered institutions, in the halls of government, in the temples and churches, in the neighborhood bar -- the message is a nonstop discussion of the promise of services to be delivered, and they never are.  Because the service to be delivered was the discussion of services to be delivered.

     Man is the only creature that can not only act, but think of acting.  He can plan and plot.  And it's all tied to Life's need for growth through an open-ended, ongoing enterprise called man -- it requires all these discussions of services.  If you think this worthy of criticism, you're operating at Life's lowest common denominator:  the churches and governments don't, "rip anyone off," nor are they "too greedy to ever produce the goods."  The service is delivered.

     One or two quick wrap-ups.  You should make a specific attempt to see that it is possible to give another person much, much more pleasure by words than by any amount of cold cash.  It is also possible to inflict a singular injury on people through the molecular use of words.  Regardless of how imperfect words are for conveying anything beyond the limits of the 3-D world, you should not despise them, nor underestimate their power.  The Real Revolutionist understands the potency of words, and would treat them with all due respect.  Just a few words can give more pleasure to someone than if you cleaned out your pockets and gave them everything you had.  And it is a kind of pleasure much more lasting than any that someone would get from a gift of thousands of dollars or a new car -- they will remember the pleasure of the words long after the new car became just more "stuff".

     And I'll call this next one "electrified leftovers".  Don't let feelings, that is, chemicals that you let get electrified, carry over to the next day.  It is like leftover food; it's unstable and dangerous.  If you have had negative chemical reactions over something, you should bend every possible effort to not carry them over into the next day.  Once any feeling becomes electrified, it is now in your Yellow Circuit memory, it will become more toxic the next day, if it's left overnight.  If you've been "hurt", let us say, and you go to bed feeling that way, and you think, "How can I get revenge?  I'm not through with this," then it has a more dangerous potential to become toxic overnight.  Do everything possible to not let electrified feelings carry over to the next day.

     People continually ask about their relationship to their families.  Almost no one is prepared to hear this, but, if it gets so very bad, so very extreme, then you're going to have to cut your losses and walk away.  I know this sounds like the epitome of harshness.  Ordinary consciousness says, "Walk away from my own mother?"  It just doesn't fit right.  I've told you many times that your connection to your parents is most unusual and that there is a kind of hands-off respect that you should give your blood kin.  But, and I am not encouraging any of you to do this, in the most extreme circumstances, you simply may have to walk away, even from your blood kin.  I am not, in any way, suggesting that any of you should do this.  But consider that all ordinary people in relationships suffer to some degree, but the price being paid is imaginary.  With a swift, clean cut, the Real Revolutionist would be able to not only forgive and forget, as others imagine, but to forgive, forget and then forget you ever forgave and forgot.

     And what about with the internal partnership?  Let's say that internally you totally walked away from something.  Then one of the voices calls out, "Boy, did you ever just turn away and walk away from that!" And you'd answer, "What?"