Audio= Stream the audio from the bars below in two parts. There is 6 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
Jan Cox Talk #287 * Oct 19, 1987 * - 1:50
[Kyroot reading to :06.]
[The ultimate purpose of the Revolution is the transcension of all maps. The Revolution is literally inconceivable —off the spectrum (which spans from the too drastic to the too common). Relates to one can either feel or think one's way out of any problem; one of them is more efficient than the other. The Real Revolutionist realizes early on that warfare is the ultimate uncertainty--the supreme gamble, irrespective of any planning and intention on the part of the Real Revolutionist. The Real Revolutionist uses 'bad luck' and troubles to progress. The would-be Few are absolute suckers for 'prayer'--taking refuge in it from the ultimate uncertainty of This Thing and the transcension of all maps.]
[The would-be Real Revolutionist who in any way attacks, corrects or criticizes a foe has not even engaged the foe, much less conquered same. The critic implies he doesn't suffer from what he criticizes. Consider: the 'MEs' criticize each other in the name of progress constantly. The Real Revolutionist holds no enmity whatever toward himself. Relation to owning nothing that is not either useful or beautiful (bad habits are possessions): such possessions keep you busy criticizing.]
[The People believe life could be measured--but they fail to develop trigonometry. Life has not instilled the necessary resolve to discover/develop the proper trigonometry. All of man's questions and answers are simply his best conception of imperfect data, his best view of incomplete pictures. Man is aware of a world of incomplete dimensions. But there are answers/solutions--an understanding of the limited nature of consciousness. 4-D Time sight reveals a true automation--an infinite sequence of 3-D perceived, apparently isolated, unrelated contradictory events.]
[The almost sexual pleasure/jolt of This Thing--joy--it should find immediate expression.]
[1:40 UFN's ]
[1:46 Epilog comments: Consider best modus for expanding This Thing: informative, helpful or entertaining. Would it be best to sell the ideas or the source of them?
COMMENTS FROM THE REVOLUTIONIST'S HANDBOOK
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987
Document: 287, October 19, 1987
Comments from the revolutionist's handbook, if it exists, part one: For many Real Recruits for a period of time, it can be said that the ultimate purpose of the Revolution is to transcend all maps. For those of you who like it in more comic book terminology, I could say destruction of all maps, although "transcend" is really more accurate. But the wiring of Man, in those areas that the people would think of as cultural precedents or memory, cannot accommodate the belief that transcending all maps really could be the ultimate purpose of This.
On what would appear to be a larger level, you have what could be called "new information" rather than "transcending maps." Ordinarily, new information has a tolerance level for "drastic-ness," and if it goes beyond the tolerance level, it can't be heard. It would not connect anywhere, or make any sense. A would-be recruit cannot settle for this tolerance level. He or she has no business attempting to follow any system, whether it is called a revolution, spiritual system, occult teaching, whatever, if its purpose is apparently the correction of some previous established system.
This points to an area I've mentioned before -- how things apparently are a complete "something" at the 3-D level, but from an attempted revolutionary view, you see that is not the case. Take the world's major religions. The people assume that each had a founder. We'll go ahead and blame Judaism on Moses, and Christianity on Jesus, Islam on Mohammed, etc. The people's attitude individually and collectively (i.e. historically) says that there was almost an exact point in time that these individuals, through their revelations, established a "new system," a new religion. From a certain view, I could support that statement (remember that from some view, everything is true). But there is another equally valid view that I wanted you to see that begins to stretch 3-D reality. Those religions were not new. They were attempted corrections of already established religions.
But back to the tolerance level, both internally and externally, for drastic new information: people find this "drastic-ness" to be an area of apparent difficulty in This Thing. They want specific tasks. They ask, "What should I be doing? How much effort should I be making?" Or they feel that they should engage in some kind of apostolic spreading of the word, whether I told them to or not. And there is curiosity as to how This Thing might operate, or what Life might do with it. From one extreme view, from the view of the real revolutionist, the activity of This Thing should be so new, so drastic that it should constitute a whole new body of knowledge, or a whole new religion. That would be the most drastic -- a whole new body of knowledge that is not Moses revisited, not Jesus redone, not Mohammed warmed over in the microwave. It would be so drastic that it would not be a correction of any religion or system. It would be, "Just never mind all of that. There is nothing to correct. It's too far gone. It's irrelevant. It's of no consequence."
But if information is too drastic, people cannot hear it on a widespread level, and you could not hear it on an individual level. Assume I could talk to you in a way that was more drastic, more radical than the way I do; that there is a way I could talk much more directly. If that were true and if I did it, then it would fall so far into the radical end of the spectrum that you simply wouldn't hear it. You'd hear the sounds, of course, but you would not get anything from it. It would be too drastic.
The way Life has always used This, the way Life grows (not just in so-called religious, revolutionary aspects, but in all manners) is that it moves to the point that people can hear it and it sounds like it's a correction. It sounds like the same captain's on the bridge, but there's a new first mate. In fact, "he looks like he could be the great, great, great, great grandson of Moses. I remember that profile." And he is now sitting on the bridge and he calls out a correction on the course to the engine room.
Now somewhere between the most drastic on the one side of the spectrum and the apparent correction that is so innocuous that you can't really tell one preacher, religion or idea from another on the other side of the spectrum, is what seems to constitute new knowledge. It seems to be the beginning of some new system, a new institution back in the city. For a revolution to take place, that kind of information is necessary.
And yet I take you back to what I said earlier -- the revolutionist is up to that which is inconceivable back in the city. It is the transcending of all maps. Transcending all maps goes off the spectrum completely. It is literally inconceivable. It defies any Yellow Circuit analysis, which would look at that statement and say: "All right, the supreme knowledge is knowledge that will do away with everything that you know. It is data that is so encompassing that once you have it, once it's revealed to you, once you read it, once it was told to you and you heard it, your mind would once and for all go blank. It's knowledge that is so astounding that it makes you totally, unconditionally, once and for all ignorant. You are so smart that you no longer know anything because now you know it all." It is obvious, once I put it that way, that this statement is patently ridiculous. It is not ignorance, it is simply the transcending of all maps.
I mentioned previously that when a knowledgeable person, faced with attempting to solve some problem, attempts to move from one place to another, he has one of two ways to go about it. He can attempt to think his way out of it or to feel his way out of it. And I mentioned that one of the two was more efficient. Now I ask you: Can you see any possible connection between that and my pointing out that the almost inconceivable purpose of the Revolution is the transcending of all maps? You could say that, from a revolutionary view, the death of all maps would be the beginning of revolutionary life. And with just a pig whistle of ordinary intelligence, you have got to suspect that something is amiss in your normal Yellow Circuit line of reasoning if you think that "supreme happiness or the ultimate revolutionary understanding would be where your mind would go blank and you would not know anything." If that was correct, drugs would do it, or my old procedure of a screwdriver right up through the nose and a tap with a hammer. I could blank your mind right up. That procedure will not only take a load off a man's mind, it will take everything off a man's mind. So there has got to be more than that, wouldn't you think?
Here's something else from the revolutionist's handbook. (Do you think any of these pages might be related to each other in some sequence somehow?) The real revolutionist must soon realize that regardless of any plans, intentions, or even the execution of same, warfare is the ultimate uncertainty. In such a gamble, chance itself is the final factor. I guess that some ordinary people in the city might put it this way: "Fate is the supreme arbitrator." This is accepted as true out in the external world, if you know how to look for it. All you've got to do is spend a few minutes with the right kinds of books about history and those who were generals for the people and were literate at all. Without exception, after a few drinks, they will all admit one way or the other that, "I know that you people think that it was really a great stroke of genius the way I took care of that little sawed off fart opponent out there, but I'm going to tell you the truth (give me another drink) you're probably getting better odds at Monte Carlo." You can plot, plot, plot; you can reconnoiter, reconnoiter, reconnoiter, and it is still the supreme gamble. It's true out there, and it's true internally. You've got to see it and you've got to feel it -- that regardless of how you plot, plan, what your intentions seem to be, when it comes down to it, warfare of all kinds is like the supreme, the ultimate uncertainty. There is a reason I bring this up. See for yourself the importance of this in what seems to be your own attempted revolution. It might seem to you that to do This, it should be, if not a science, then a fairly controllable art. Am I not correct? Why else have there been monasteries throughout history? Why do we today have groups that you can join and follow some regimen? You can join a church, or some ashram, and after two years, you get a purple spot, and then after four years and you've given up everything, you get a green spot. You get to change colors of robes, you get to move your house trailer closer to the guru's house trailer or his mansion. There would seem to be some kind of certainty. What else are all the rituals in all the world's religions for? Why all the holidays? I mean sure you like to get off from work and get out of school, but how about all the rituals with your family, all the rituals with your friends at the church, the synagogue, the temple, the mosque; the things that you do alone at home, if you're religious -- rituals you follow each day, times to pray, certain foods to eat, certain ways to face to make your prayers, certain terms you use to appeal to your deities. It gives some kind of acceptable picture of there being a structure, all the way from massive church buildings that even a Los Angeles belly shaker couldn't bring down to teachings which have been standing fifteen hundred, two thousand, three thousand years. The rituals seem to have an unflinching continuity to them. That is not warfare.
The revolutionist soon discovers that this warfare is the ultimate gamble. What I mean by "warfare," of course, is the revolution. It's you making effort, it's you finding out how to use what you call bad luck and trouble. The real revolutionist has got to very quickly realize that this aggressive warfare, not passive acts of being poor or going through certain rituals several hours a day, for example, is the ultimate gamble.
Here's an interesting question. Why have many people who end up interested in This, prior to finding This, been suckers for prayer? I don't care if they say they were praying to the gods or the departed founder of some sect. There is a chemical basis for it. The reason is that the closer people are drawn to This, the closer they are born to and living in that part of Life's nervous system which does This, the more they feel that they are being dragged into the ultimate gamble. But they are surrounded by the chemical noises of other little laboratories (that is, other little people) that speak continually of certainty, certainty, certainty, even if it seems to be negative certainty. "Gee, I don't know exactly what's going to happen tomorrow, but we can count on this, it's going to be worse than today." There seems to be a kind of comfort to that. Ask your own "people." I'll tell you the answer. Their vote is that it is better to be negative and certain than to arise every day and in some way this message would go out throughout the city: "The sun is about to come out. Everyone get up. God knows what in the hell is going to happen today. What happens today may apparently have no relationship to what we thought happened last night. We could get up today and from all reasonable views, what goes on today is like we stepped into a whole new movie lot; that we apparently walked in on scene three of a movie being shot and it's a completely different movie than most of us were involved with yesterday." But if a person had in some way effected a move like this within himself, it would be a transcending of all ordinary maps. It would be the direct experience of warfare being the ultimate gamble. It would not be the fighting of it, nor the attempt to flee from it, nor the discomfort of it, but the direct experience of it. You've got to plot, you've got to plan, you've got to have the intention to do This, but the Real Revolutionist knows that in a very particular way, the planning (thinking of action) may apparently bear no relationship whatsoever to the ultimate action. So what? If you're not acting what else is there to do? I mean, you can only watch so many TV reruns. There's only so long that you can be bored. If you didn't plot and plan, your Yellow Circuit would atrophy, wither away, perhaps even blither away. But the Real Revolutionist knows that after all the plotting and planning that is absolutely required, the day to day warfare and what appears to be the long range effects and consequences of it in the 3-D world is the supreme gamble. It is the ultimate game of chance. It is the zenith of uncertainty. And for the Real Revolutionary, not only is that the way it is, but he understands that is the purpose. "As discombobulating as that seems to my 3-D consciousness, what I'm actually working for is more of it. It's to make it better (or maybe worse)."
Here is another page from the revolutionist's handbook: A recruit who continues to attack, criticize, or attempts to correct an apparent foe has not only not conquered the foe, but has never even properly engaged this seeming enemy. This has a connection to another subject I talked about; that of not pursuing any apparent system whose central purpose seems to be the correction of some other system. If you indeed had apparently identified a particular foe, and you have, in some way, conquered this foe, then you might appear to be on top of the situation. This foe is no longer even much of a foe to you. And yet you continue to spend much of your time badmouthing. If you're a Real Revolutionist, I could say this: speaking at all about the foe should strike you as fishy. And if something smells fishy, it is fishy.
So what's going on? Still apparently talking about the external world, how about all the great philosophers throughout the ages that spent hundreds, if not thousands, of pages attacking the people's religious ideas, or the concept of gods. As an aside, one reason that we all love to be criticized is the undeniable perception that the person criticizing is at the very least tacitly stating that they are not victim of the thing that they are criticizing. That is what makes critics so popular. But back to the subject, something would be fishy that a philosopher would continually rail out at the people, pointing out the folly of "the rest of you idiots believe in the gods." What he is insinuating is, "I am too intelligent. I am above being frightened by the brothers Grimm and their cousins." Need I state the obvious? That person is not too smart.
But now, let's bring this kind of activity where it belongs -- internally -- to that apparent division in each person, those two "me's," the way in which the wiring system operates in the 3-D world. Think about the way that one of your me's badmouths the other one. If there is an appropriate description for the relationship between the two me's, it would be the badmouther and the badmouthee. There is a feeling wired into all humans that at various times, one of these me's -- the one that seems to be the most civil, the one that seems as though it should and possibly can overcome the old "bubba" me -- is constantly making some attempt to attack, plotting to attack, planning to attack, having the very good intention to attack, and make the other "me" do "better." There is a feeling that some progress has been made. If the human organism does not feel some progress has been made, it wouldn't survive. You wouldn't get out of bed. And so a man will say, "Well, now that you ask me, yeah, I still do drink, but I don't drink as bad as I used to. Oh, yeah, I still punch women around, I guess, a little bit. But I got it down to a close group of personal female friends I have. And yeah, I am inclined to get in trouble with the law, but the last time I didn't get but six months in jail." The feeling is that there is some kind of improvement. And it's not necessarily done verbally. There is the feeling that "I have made progress over my lesser self. There may be a ways to go, but I have made progress." But as long as you have the inclination to criticize, to correct, to attack, to any way badmouth an apparent opponent, you're living in the worst possible dream world, because you have not in any way conquered or defeated, even temporarily, this apparent opponent. You have never properly been engaged in combat. Who can chemically feel any reality to this? You have accomplished nothing as long as you feel like there is something to be accomplished, as long as you can bad mouth any part of yourself. As long as some part of you can talk about some other part of you. All you've done is learn how to whistle in the dark. You've looked at the cartoons that Life produces (I think a lot of you call it imagination) and you take it as being something else. If you are driven to any degree to attack, to correct, to criticize, to, in general, badmouth an apparent opponent, externally or internally, if you ever had any idea that you have accomplished anything; that on a temporary battlefield for a few moments at one time you had overcome something; forget it.
Remember, if you can't use this, it's not interesting.
So now the question is how much ill will do you still have towards you? If you have any, you only qualify as a would-be revolutionist. Don't try and tell me that, "Hell, I'm a lot better than a recruit. I've been hanging around you for years now." If you've got any complaints about you, it's not open to any kind of discussion about, "Well, it's not about me because I realize that I'm not actually me. I realize that Life has wired me up in certain ways." You can try and repeat, you can try and refine, you can try and give me your own upside down version of what you think I said; but be that as it may, if you still hold any enmity toward yourself at all, then we're not talking about any kind of progress even on a small scale. We're not even talking about you having been engaged in any kind of battle.
Judging by your reaction, I believe that when I started this last piece that I did not make it simple enough to start with. To make it simpler, can you imagine a little kid - a first or second grader - coming home, and he keeps telling his father about this guy named Philip the pinhead at school. Once Philip pushed him around at school and really humiliated him and beat him up, but one day he comes home and says, "I called his bluff and he backed down. I called his bluff, just like you told me to, Dad. And now that son of a bitch won't fool with me. Now he is yesterday's news. I don't have to worry about him." The kid tells you that every day for months and years. Even those of you who may have the soggiest head ware on for being out in the bushes, you surely would hear that something would be a little fishy with a seven or eight year old kid that keeps saying, "Boy did I show him!" The father asks, "You're telling me about that guy that you told me you backed down ten months ago?" And the kid says, "Hah, boy, he won't fuck with me, he gives me a wide place in the road when I come by." And he says this over and over and over. That is how simple I intended to start this. I'm still talking about the same subject when I talk about you still have complaints about you.
Let me jump around to another page in the revolutionist's handbook. I have had a lot of reaction from my asking you, "Why would a reasonable man, a Real Revolutionist, own any possessions if they were not either useful or beautiful?" It has spurred a great deal of interest in people. But have you considered how things work in a topographical manner? Why is it that I can apparently conjure up new data, a new way of looking at something, a way you never thought about it. For example, I pointed out that all possessions, if they're worthy of getting and keeping, had to fit into one of those two categories, one of the two possible reasons that a human would want anything. It is either useful, which is synonymous with me saying that it will save energy, or it's beautiful to one of your five senses. Everything that you've ever wanted in your life, any so-called desire or motivation, fits into one of those two categories. I don't care who it is. You're just stuck with it as long as you're living in a 3-D city.
This type of information appears to be new picturizations -- whole new areas from a made-up universe that I make up from week to week, from night to night. You think, "How can he apparently pull these things in? How can he apparently conjure them up and nobody else ever thought about them? But, by god, it fits." Have you ever noticed I invite your participation, an invitation to correct me, to find an alternative, to find one that I missed, to find one by correction, but you never can? It all always fits.
Back to the filet mignon of the fun, this question about why would a reasonable person continue to possess anything that was not to him either useful or beautiful? Let me expand it and ask you -- can you perceive of your personal habits as being possessions? If so, same question. And by habits, I mean everything. I don't mean what is normally considered bad habits -- smoking or drinking or picking your nose. I'm talking about the bad habits of being you -- the very things that you feel you should be attacked for, the very things that you feel as though some part of you should take remedial action against other parts. Can you perceive of those parts as possessions? And the same question holds. I ask you -- why would you continue to possess any habit that was neither useful nor attractive to you? Remember, by "habit," I mean you at the minor league level, in uniform, in your position, in all of your glory, with all of your warts. I guess what a lot of the people back in the city would just call your personality in toto. If you perceived it as being your possessions, which ones do you still cling to that are neither useful nor attractive? And then, of course, I could ask you the obvious big old question, "Why?" Especially after I've pointed out not only do they seem to be unattractive and un-useful in themselves, but besides that, it keeps you involved with saying, "Ah, I can push them around." It keeps you involved with criticizing them like, "Ah, this old thing, I don't know why I have this." You keep trying to correct them. "Well, yeah, I know what you mean when you say that about me, but I'm doing better. I'm going to clean that up." But you stay involved with believing that you've pushed around the boy in the schoolyard, that you've accomplished something. But if anything, you have made these possessions feel more and more at home. It's like having something in your home that's very ugly and there's no possible use for it, and rather than dealing with it as a Real Revolutionist, you dust it more often, you keep having nicer and nicer bases built for it. You move it over to a nice niche. You put track lighting on it. It's the ugliest thing you've got. It's the most unuseful thing imaginable. And yet you give it a more and more central position.
Remember, we're not talking about what you ordinarily think of as bad habits. We're not talking about morality or so-called sins. I'm talking about the very things that seem to be part of your natural uniform, the way in which you play your position, the very things that seem to be the habitual parts of you, the distinguishing parts of you, the parts of you that you feel have got to be reformed, cleaned up, corrected. And so I ask you again -- why would a reasonable man or woman continue to possess things that are neither useful nor beautiful?
In the city, throughout history, people periodically display a belief that Life can be measured, but apparently lack the resolve to discover or develop the necessary trigonometry to measure it. The solutions to what have always been called Man's "unanswerable problems" lie in the unrecognized fact of Man's captivity in the sense that the world that he is conscious of is a world of incomplete dimensions.
Here's an example. I believe I've made some reference to it in the past. It's a fair one, as good as me trying to make up another springboard. It was that turn of the century story called "Flatland." If you deal with dimensions fewer than consciousness mechanically conceives of, then you can draw the kinds of parallels that the story did. Right now, there's no need for me to try to improve upon it. The author tried to picture through words what would appear to be one dimension intruding into a lesser dimension, the dimension right below that which is native to Man. He was trying to picture how it would be if people were living on a flat plane -- if our consciousness, our perception were a plane, if we were two dimensional creatures, if your eyesight was the thickness of a piece of paper. If that's where you were living, you could look at width and breadth, but could see no height. And I believe the picture this author used was, "What would happen if you had a bicycle wheel, and between each spoke was a different color, and in some way you could take this wheel and make it run through the plane? It would be like a bicycle wheel stuck in water. The top film of water would be two dimensional consciousness, and the wheel would be cutting through it. His conclusion about this event was, "It would appear miraculous. These little two dimensional creatures would see stuff come from nowhere. It would suddenly pop into their universe and then it would disappear just as suddenly." They could look as hard as they could lengthwise and breadthwise, but because of the physical configuration of this made-up universe, they could never conceive of, "Where in the hell did that stuff come from?" It is because it comes from a right angle. It comes from above and to them it does not exist. It just suddenly pops into consciousness and it's gone. Maybe it pops back. It's just miraculous, and they can only attribute it to ghosties, goblins, psychic experiences, gods, or the like.
I assume all of you had read that story years ago. That is a fair place to start. But there's never been an ordinary story that tried to describe the fourth dimension going into the third. And you're certainly not going to get anywhere with ordinary consciousness talking about a fifth dimension. Using this particular terminology, I've been describing a kind of 4-D time consciousness, wherein everything would be different. Not theoretically, not in science fiction lore. If you have a nonstop, seamless, continual awareness of time (I'm talking about what ordinary people mean by time right now, regardless of what I may understand about it differently) then all things are connected. Life is seamless, and there are no such things as contradictions. It's simply that Monday becomes Friday in another year. The day that the twelfth of Never fell on this year is the same day the Ides of March falls on twenty-two years from now. The people that you loved and kissed some hours ago, you now are throttling. Time teaches everybody a lesson, if only people could learn it. There is a kind of unknown trigonometry. People ofttimes have this periodic belief that they express as, "Yeah, Life can be measured," and that's always been the end of it. It's as though Life has not instilled in Man thus far the resolve on any widespread level to either develop or discover, whichever would be the case, this kind of transcendental trigonometry, the necessary trigonometry to measure what's going on. This does not belie the fact that Man apparently attempts to pursue this question, but it is always done on the same old binary basis. Man attempts to measure a 3-D world through 2-D trigonometry, on the basis of binary measurements -- good and evil, proper and improper, true and false, or just, "I'm trying to measure it," and, "I'm not interested in measuring it."
On that basis, you would have a situation that would not be dissimilar to the flatland story and the colored wheel continually slicing their 2-D world. Things come and things go. You attempt to plot it, you attempt to measure it and you are lacking one dimension. You are lacking the dimension that in essence allows it to make any sense. Everything unanswerable is such because Man lacks the ability to see beyond 3 dimensions.
The mystery does not have to be simply that which you or your neighborhood might couch in spiritually mystical terms. It could be that you still wonder, "What is the nature of Life? What is our relationship to the gods?" or whatever similar romantic flimflam may still be running around in your circuitry. Or it could be the other end of the spectrum, such as, "Where's the end of the universe? How can they say that the universe has no end? Everything's got an end. What in the hell am I doing here? Why is everybody else by and large a bunch of dumb asses?"
All of Man's unanswerable questions have a solution and the first solution is to recognize the captivity of Man being conscious in a world of incomplete dimensions. All of the mysteries, all of the unanswerable questions are simply Man's best view of incomplete pictures, his best conception of imperfect data. It is not Man's shortcomings, it is not Man's "cursed position." I'm talking about all the things that Man cannot answer, from the so-called great cosmic mysteries down to the mystery of, "Why do you do me like you do, do, do? Why do I keep getting attracted to women who always disappoint me? Why do I keep doing the same dance around and around with my parents?" .paFrom the great mysteries down to the little mysteries, they are all Man's best view of incomplete pictures.
Even though Man's I-sight, his consciousness, is improving, his best view of what he terms "mysteries" are still incomplete pictures. If you're only 3-D conscious dealing with incomplete data, you can be in the avant garde back in the city, but you can proceed in only one of two ways. You can feel that regardless of your hopes and suspicions, some of these things just can't be answered -- that St. Augustine of Hippo was correct, that in some way you can almost logically prove that there are some things the gods don't want you to understand. Or you can believe in some way that Man's level of consciousness has not reached the level that we can peer into the real depths of the material basis of Life and thus discover how creation came about and brought us up to the level of so-called human consciousness so we could answer all this. You can believe any or all of that, but you will go to the grave with your questions still unanswered. Or you can try and make some use out of what I am telling you. It is not that the basis of Man's best views are not good enough, that Man's current perception is inadequate. That comes into it, but it is not singularly that. Back in the city, all you've got is Man's best view of incomplete, imperfect data. It's not hidden in the sense that Man's mind has been clouded by the gods or because human consciousness and the human spirit is crumbling and going downhill and, "Now we don't even understand the great mysteries of life, wherein I'm just sure back in Atlantis and on the lost continent of Mu we had superior creatures, and there were flying saucers down in South America three thousand years ago." If you believe that, you belong somewhere else. If you believe Life is going downhill, you don't understand anything. You are dealing with incomplete information and if you had the correct understanding and perception, the solutions, the more complete vision, the more complete pictures, the expanded data lie in the personal realization that you are captive to ordinary levels of consciousness, that you are captive in a world that is dimensionally insufficient, that you should be parking in a handicapped zone, and you don't even know it. There is another dimension right here at all times, but your best view still picks up only three.
You need a continuing awareness of time. I could describe this in several ways and time is just one of them, but time is the most immediately usable to see the inseparable connections. There is a flow that is not lineal. Three dimensions cannot make sense out of that. Life appears to be full of false starts, mis-steps, fits and starts, and they all appear to occur in isolation. By and large most things seem to be separated and fairly irrelevant to each other, whereas what I am intending to convey to you by the term 4-D time sight is data that's expanded, pictures that are more complete. The data is expanded to the point, the pictures are completed to the point that everything that you and everyone else have already considered to be the great unanswerable questions and even the small unanswerable questions are answered. Not verbally. It's the good old "Look" method. You suddenly Look and there it is. If you could see where human consciousness resides, you could also see the great wellspring of all of Man's ideas of supernatural forces, deities, mythology, unanswerable questions, UFO's, ghouls, goblins, trolls, fairies, wee people, you people... There is it, all the stories of superman, all stories of Atlantis, the stories of the garden of Eden, anything you want to imagine of how things could be better, cartoons of what might complete all of this, what might make all of this make sense to you, there it is...it is like an inside out black hole. But instead of eating everything up, it gives everything up. It's as though this black hole, this bottomless pit that no one can really identify turns out all these possibilities. "Ooohhhh, it could be that!!!" You could form a whole mystical school on the, "Ooohhh, it could be that," theory.
Ordinary 3-D sight sees all human moves as just a series of fits, starts, hesitations, missteps, realignments, attempted corrections, little jiggled-up pieces of, "Will something happen?" That is the nature of human consciousness. I've attempted to describe it a number of different ways, all the way from a chemical basis to what appeared to be a psychological basis. It is the way consciousness, the top end of our nervous system, now works in the city; that is, you have got to be able to classify things. You've got to be able to separate I from Not-I, you've got to be able to separate red from green, tall from short, heads from tails, or the city would not function. The sewers would run uphill. When you flushed the toilet, who knows what would happen?
What I mean by 4-D sight is that it would reveal human existence (and I mean this in a non-judgmental sense, more of a technical use of the term) to be true automation. This doesn't mean that humans would be machines or that humans are machines, but it would be true automation in the clinical if not technical use of that term; that is, it would reveal that human existence, rather than being fits and starts, or just a sudden bout of insanity, is a kind of true automation. Every step is an integral part of an infinite sequence and each step is inseparably connected to all things fore and aft. It is to see for yourself, and then to feel the reality of this being a true automation. That is not some negative judgment. Every move, every action that you can conceive of as being human is a part of true automation in that every one is an integral part of an infinite sequence, inseparably connected. And I'm not talking about linear connections on a 2-D level, such as, "Everything that's gone before and everything that will come after." That is only breadth and width. Human consciousness says, "Well, this happened over here, that happened over there. This happened at this time and that happened at some other time." That is a lack of dimensional awareness, of something happening at a right angle. It only appeared to happen before or after in 3-D consciousness. That one red part of the bicycle wheel flashes through for a split second at I-level consciousness, the 2-D world. First it's red and then comes blue. At that level, Man's best perception tells him only that, "Red came before blue this time. Who knows where either one of them came from, they just happened. First there is red, then there's blue. Who knows what the connection is? We can point out a sequence, it happened in time." But it did not happen "in time." A 3-D creature would see, "Hey, you people are not looking at time. You think red was suddenly followed by blue; that one of them existed and then it disappeared and then another one existed. But they both exist." You can see that red does not come before blue. It's the 2-D perception of the way it's turning. You could turn it the other way. You can see the wheel. You know that there is no starting point on a wheel. Red doesn't follow blue. But you would also understand that based upon the little 2-D people's best perception, based upon their best view, to them it is true and it is all miraculous. It is also true from that view that red comes before blue, or it did just then. It's true, but it is incomplete. And that which they take to be miraculous, that which you take to be a series of linear causes and effects, is not.
Let's say that we get the wheel spinning and we let it spin for x amount of days or years, and that continually blue follows red, until it becomes an accepted scientific fact. "Every time you have red it will cause blue to come into your two dimensional world." To the 2-D world, that is linear cause and effect. But if you were standing back in a three dimensional condition seeing all this you would realize, "Naah, you people. That's your best view, but it's not true. There is no cause and effect between red and blue." They would be at a severe disadvantage. They would be subject to believing all kinds of mysteries. There'd be questions that they could never find the solutions to. You can imagine what kind of religion and gods they would conjure up in that situation.
If you could see the 4th dimension running at a right angle to the three dimensional world you would realize there's no way that you can deal with ordinary terminology, ordinary consciousness, or have me picture in words a 3-D world in which 4-D things are happening. Time can literally be seen right now as being the fourth dimension. You should have a continuing coeval consciousness of time along with everything that you think you are experiencing through all the senses (considering your brain itself as being the sixth sense.) That was the basis of my little example a few weeks back of drawing on white paper with a white crayon, where you couldn't see the writing. Then I took a water color and brushed over the crayon, and the letters I drew, C, D, and E, stood out from the background. Using time in that sense, if we were fishes, time would be the water. If the fishes had 3-D consciousness, they could look up, to the side, orient themselves in a 3-D world. But ask a fish about the water itself, and the fish that is most perceptive, based on their best view, would say, "Water? What water?" This is similar to your conception of time. It is the irrelevant exploded. It would be a kind of reward, a kind of revolutionary payoff. You could see the 3-D world as being truly a process of automation. Not mechanical in the 3-D sense, but truly automational in that everything that happens has a connection to every other movement that happens.
It would be a slight improvement if you had just the lineal sense of everything being true automation. In other words, that things over here that you apparently disapproved of, things that you found to be absolutely irrelevant, if not distasteful, you could back off and see on that level that there is an automation such that things do not just happen randomly, that things do not happen in isolation, that things are not falling apart. If that were possible, that would at least be a lineal sensation of infinite sequence. If such a thing were possible, then you would realize, "Alright, everything that's happened over here apparently down the lineal line without a doubt was affected not only by what just happened, because even my brother-in-law can see that, but it's affected by what happened two thousand steps back, twenty thousand steps back." And then if it were possible to be linearly more aware, you would have a kind of knowledge of the future that whatever is going to happen is also going to be tied to it. That would be an understanding of what I am calling true automation. There would be no mysteries, from the "big" ones to the kind of everyday little nit picking, penny ante things that bother you in life. There would be no discussion about, "Why did I do this?" There sure as hell wouldn't be any discussions about, "Should I stop it?" And there definitely wouldn't be any question like, "Well, ho-o-o-w-w-w-w do I stop it???"
Several of you have written me that since being involved with This, you have had experiences that not only could be described as revolutionary, but also a feeling of there being a sexual jolt. I am fully aware of the feeling of being involved with This kind of activity and something so joyful happened that it truly feels almost sexual. It is not unusual that some of you have felt that toward me, that you felt that the experience of something happening was tied up in some kind of erotic sense with me. I understand that completely. How about this for an explanation: when things are such a joy, when something is of such a pleasure, the kind that we're talking about, it has got to find a ready means of expression. And what is the readiest available? And I am not in any way discounting sex, or in any way making light of this, because I understand it completely. Think back to all the religious literature for thousands of years in all religions; you've got would-be saints, holy men, learned rabbis talking about some kind of experience close to the gods, the cosmic forces. They always tried to be pretty nice about it, but if you can hear, the picture is always, "It was almost as though I was giving myself to the gods, that it almost felt like a sexual experience." I can feel at times that it happens to you people. Look at it as being an experience so pleasurable that it is unprecedented in your life; it is not normally available in the city. Ordinary stimulation of the senses does not cause it. It happens, and there has to be some expression for this kind of joy. Just because you may be now undergoing the beginnings of some revolutionary change, it does not stop you from being a sexual creature. It has to find expression. Just look at Life in general, look at Life as you know it in the bushes and in the city; the ready expression of extreme joy is what? So those of you who have asked me and made comments about it -- if you thought that there is anything strange or perverted about it, you are off on the wrong track. It's just extreme pleasure. Those involved with low level activities out in the ordinary religious world have tried to indicate the same sensations through their poetry and allegorical confessions of love for their gods and things like that. I don't want to take away any of the mystery, but I can imagine a quite ordinary guy who won a forty million dollar lottery yesterday and it made him so happy that you might find him sexually aroused. Does it surprise you that to some folks, winning forty million dollars is potentially horny making? So what do you make of that?