Jan Cox Talk 0288

CULTIVATING NEW NEURAL CHOICES

Audio= Stream the audio from the bars below in two parts.  There is 8 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 0288 from Cassette

AKS/News Items = Gallery

Summary = See Below

Diagrams = tbd

Transcript = See Below


Summary by TK

#288 ** Oct 22, 1987 ** - 2:02

  [Kyroot reading to :08. ]
  [Man apparently has additional choices over animals. So too does the Real Revolutionist have additional options over ordinary men: additional neural(apparently) options vs. mere added information which transforms to behavioral distinctions. A Real Religious Man would also have additional options. The Few seem to have an additional choice, e.g., control over some native habit = Real Choice. This is equivalent to not having to think of C in opposed context to D (pro or con). This is an actuality --not merely a theoretical reality; if theory were enough --properly useful--everybody's questions would have been answered when they first arose.]
  [Remember: the Real Revolutionist says, "if it's not irrelevant --I'm not interested" If it's relevant it's of no use. ]
  [The Real Revolutionist recruit should be camped in a place where nothing is indigenous. The Revolutionary I has a frighteningly unpredictable effect on the 'MEs'.When the People say something is impossible, do they mean they lack the means or the motivation/resolve? Does a Real Revolutionist ever really lack the means? Resolve = non-indigenous needs--unpredictable, unnatural hunger. The Real Revolutionist never lacks the means--only the resolve. ]
  [Some apparent foes must be submitted to before they can be conquered. This requires unnatural neural choices; submitting is a kind of extra choice unavailable to the ordinary. Obedience first, then rebellion.]
  [Plans follow action! The thinking of action the action itself. In your battles of Revolution you should see that planning has almost no effect on the outcome of the battle --other than planning must occur for the battle to occur. This relates to having 4-D Timesight; understanding seamless simultaneity of events--no isolated causes followed by effects. Thus you cannot learn from your mistakes!! They happen first!]
  [All of man's institutions, inventions and goods are limited to a spectrum of the 5 senses/3-D world. The mis-use, over-use or dis-use of one of the senses is always considered to be sin. But sin then is not outside the realm of the 5 senses; not an offense against otherworldly gods. Everything comes thru the senses, and this is forgotten constantly in the City --for good reason. Thus the supposed neural option singularity of man over animal is chemically based, molecular. Yet man's 'mind' his "I" is somehow beyond the chemical whilst still being fueled by the chemical. Thus the split in man--his MEs--is a dialog between neural voices and chemical eruptions.]
  [Remember your first priority: look out for ole No. 1; look out for your Revolutionary I above all things. This can be done with thought or with feeling. You cannot protect your Revolutionary I after the fact; you cannot protect with limited options/ choices--by being reasonable, predictable, or any other City behavior (C- or D-based). The 'new and improved' version of selfishness is the 4-D version; it makes ordinary egocentricity look like altruism. No one properly understands the necessity and character of protection of Revolutionary Zeal.


Transcript

CULTIVATING NEW NEURAL CHOICES

Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987
10/22/87

        Back in the city people have tried to define man as the thinking animal.  There is some three dimensional validity to such a description of man's distinguishing characteristics.  They are pointing to the difference between the operations of creatures with simple circuits, and man.  A rabbit runs around a corner, and if he meets a wolf, the rabbit runs.  He has no choice, and though he is not "thinking," he is taking in some impression from his surroundings.  Now, you could say that a man in a similar situation has more choices than the simple circuited rabbit.  If he meets a snarling wolf, knife and fork in hand, gazing hungrily at his thigh, a man apparently can consider alternatives to running.  A man might weigh his own jogging capacity and look for some makeshift weapon at hand.  He might figure he has a better chance of attacking the wolf with a stick than outrunning him.

     Compared to every other three dimensional animal of which you are aware man's nervous system seems to offer/demand the ability to consider additional choices.  Of interest to us now is the fact that the Revolutionist may, compared to city folk, be also defined in this manner.  The Revolutionist has more neural connections, and thus behavioral choices.  These additional choices do not refer to quantities of information.  Say that after fooling around with This Thing, you might suddenly have a flash of insight that you now know everything in the world about public accounting or nuclear physics.  If you had four or five degrees you would not have the additional options discussed now.  I could say that the number of choices apparently available all the way from worms, birds that feed any open mouth in their nest, even a baby that is not theirs, rabbits, ordinary man in the city, to the Revolutionist, distinguish where they are in the full food and evolutionary chain.

     To compare atheists and religious people:  you could say, "Well, atheists have more freedom, because they don't have to put up with all those commandments, and shalt nots," but here we go pushing the mechanical jello limits of three dimensional reality.  If you could be a real Christian or Muslim, whatever, you would have more options than anyone else.  Whereas everyone else was operating as they must, you would be operating in a way that would have been extraordinary (or would be even now) for your time and place.  You would be able to do stuff like love people that piss on you.  To not be afflicted with all the things religions say are afflictions.  You would have more options.

     But since these religions are now insufficient for revolutionary purposes, as I have discussed elsewhere, what This Thing is involved with is apparently additional neural choices.  A minimal starting place is that if you could do anything that was simply not native to you, this would apparently start as an additional nervous system choice.  If I asked what your biggest fault was, all of you would have something to say, and if your description had any validity, for you to overcome this fault would require that you gain some additional neural choice.  Without this additional choice, whatever you call a bad habit to be overcome is like a very simple circuit; this simplicity is not unlike that of the bird who feeds any open mouth in her nest, regardless of whether it is her kid, or one that somehow got in her nest.  Or back to the rabbit, the rabbit cannot stop and consider if it should yell, "Hey your paw's untied," and then dash off with a head start while the wolf looks down.  With an additional neural choice, you would not absolutely react the same way over and over when faced with the circumstances you included in your description of your fault.  For you not to react by cringing, or by getting furious, if someone looked at you in a wolfy manner, would require real change.  The additional choice, just in the city, would be just this side of an FM, not a radio station, but a fucking miracle.

     But now I am referring to areas even further away from the city limits.  The additional choices refer not just to affecting what you call your shortcomings, but to even think of things in a way that is, to say the very least, based upon unnatural, normally unavailable, nervous system choices.

     To think the unthinkable, I said that years ago, and some of you still feel its power.  But to think the unthinkable you have to have absolutely unnatural, unwired, neural choices.  You can't talk yourself into it.  I have given you things to do, but these did not produce a breakthrough in your neural patterns to where you could then begin to think the unthinkable.  These tasks were more to show you how locked in your neural patterns were.

     Another way of presenting the Revolutionist's additional choices is that in such a condition you would not be forced to totally think and feel, to believe in simply C as opposed to D.  We've gone over this enough in the city, under all ordinary conditions, whatever people think or feel is pro or con.  It is apparently proper, constructive, true, or it's D, it is destructive, and so on.  If you had additional neural choices, you would not be limited to these alternatives.  Only our Revolutionist could properly consider the E factor, not just theoretically, but in the sense which I recently described as dragging in E, burning up the irrelevant to get yourself out of the almost bottomless ditch of intellectual dichotomies.

     There is a way in which I could say the Real Revolutionist would have as a motto:  if it ain't irrelevant, it's of no interest, no value to me.  Of course, if you have a nervous system that has more choices than are normally available, then, what I am calling the irrelevant is no longer irrelevant.

     But looked at from an ordinary viewpoint, if a Revolutionist were to describe the factors he took into consideration he would sound insane.  Of course, he could just not talk about it, but I am assuming he might make some comment about his behavior to give you a certain glimpse.  This motto is cute, but it sounds insane at the 3-D level.  Nonetheless, it would be true that the Revolutionist could say, "If it is not irrelevant, it's of no interest to me."  It's of no interest because it is of no use.  If it is relevant, it already fits into the standard number of nervous system options that everyone has.  If the aspect factor is relevant I would simply react as I have always reacted, and that doesn't interest me anymore.  And of course, if it is of no interest to a revolutionist, it is not useful.

     The recruits, the would be revolutionists, should be camped in a place where nothing is indigenous.  Somebody I guess could point out that such is impossible since something is indigenous, native, to everywhere.  That's why I hate dealing with little bitty minds.  Don't bother me about pea brained reason.  The recruits should be camping in a place where nothing is indigenous, and I can even say that if you were able to support some of the revolutionary zeal in yourself, then you would know what I am talking about.  The recruit should stay on the move, not think the same thing twice.  The real bushes would be a place where your ordinary self would, in a sense, be disoriented all the time.  Your Line level state of consciousness would always be picking up fleas, hitting thorns, having bushes flip back and hit it in the eye.  There is no inherited familiarity in the bushes.

     From another view the Revolutionist finds the bushes fun, with a certain kind of four dimensional perversion which is no longer perversion.  The 4-D sense of awareness find the 3-D's squirming around sort of funny.  This amusement is allowable because it's yourself, not somebody else actually hurting, not some other creature, which prompts the amusement. Part of you makes sounds like, "Boy, I would sure like to be mad."  And another part says, "Yeah, I know you would."  The dialogue might continue:  "I could just cry."  "Boy, that comes as a surprise to me."  "I could just cry and fall on the floor, if you'd just let me."  "Alright, you stay right here 'til I go to the bathroom and we'll think about it."  When you reach a certain place your ordinary self knows that that is a lie.  Well, it takes a long time before your ordinary self gives up (and in a sense it never does) but your Line level awareness can tell that you are being a smart ass, that you are insincere.  Perhaps sometime I will go into how you can scare the hell out of your ordinary self by apparently being chemically too sincere.

     I perhaps should say that a Real Revolutionary (and a would be recruit having neural choices that are not ordinarily available) could appear to be dangerously unpredictable, rather than insane, since some of you have skated so close in the past that you are uncomfortable hearing me use that term.  But to worry about whether you are going insane just shows how close you are to still living in your own face.  You've really got to be bourgeois, have a brown shoe brain and white sock sensibility, to wonder whether you are going insane.  Only real, real, sane moments entertain this concern.  I could make that one of many benchmarks.  To have any extraordinary perception is to know what insanity is -- you have no doubt whether you are or are not insane.  Are all of you aware that one of the proofs you are nuts, in ordinary psychiatric circles, is to proclaim your sanity?  Psychiatrists used to be taught to be always kind of humble, even non-committal, about your own state.  They go on about how, "All of us go through analysis ourselves," and, "Who among us can say we're absolutely sane?"  And if some guy in the back of the audience says, "Well, I know I'm absolutely sane!" the psychiatrist, because the guy is always in the vast minority, can look at the everybody else, like he's thinking, "Oooooh, that kind of fanaticism is a dead give-away."  So of course, we are back to 4-D worlds running through the 3-D world, and of course, there are things you cannot do with ordinary people.  So even if you personally understand the difference in the city between sanity and insanity, better than all the psychiatrists put together, you don't describe your sanity.  Not that you do interviews anyway.

     My jokes about the kind of interplay between your apparent selves point to a kind of frightening unpredictability that is part of having additional neural choices, of existing where it seems your genes no longer have the normal, original, choke hold.  When faced with a situation where your natural reactions are not your only choices, you may, if you did anything that could be observed, do something that just seems unrelated.  It's like the great story I used to tell about a man with some limited exposure to mystical groups, and some activity similar to This.  At another time and place, he was driving through a torrential rainstorm, late at night.  On a deserted highway he saw a man just standing in a rain filled trench.  The guy stops his car, picks up the man, and asks him what in the world he's doing out there.  And the man says, "Well, as you know, I do reupholstery work."  The driver, when he told me the story swore this had some great meaning for him.

     Well, I didn't think it was so funny either.  For some reason his story just came back to my mind now.

     Here's a change of subject, and a question.  When people, back in the city, back in you, say that something is impossible, does that signify that they lack the means to do it, or that they lack the resolve to do it?  What is it when all the minor league players, all the people in you are saying something is impossible -- they don't have to use the words -- without even saying anything, they are continually saying this.  They are saying something is impossible not just when you are here, though here they get a real good workout.

     One question is never enough so let me ask this:  do you think that a Real Revolutionary ever actually lacks the means?  Don't take that as waving a superficial, egoistic banner -- it's not that you can do everything in the world.  I still don't attempt to walk on water, nor have I ever attempted to repair a kidney tear on myself with duct tape.  But would the Real Revolutionist ever be in a position where he had the resolve but lacked the means to do, not the three-dimensionally impossible, but everything else that the people in him, the people out there, say is impossible.  When you get hit in your naughty parts with a two by four, you either get real mad, or you fall down and scream for a few minutes, but you do not get up and tap dance and try to tell me stories about some guy driving late at night in a torrential rain.  The last response seems dangerously unpredictable.  Are the people saying they lack the means to act otherwise?  Sometimes you leave here convinced you will operate on the basis of something I said, and then, elsewhere, it seems as though you lack the means to do it.  It goes all the way from, "I couldn't remember it, as determined as I was to use it, as much as his description struck me at the time," to, "I tried, I tried and it didn't work.  We just didn't have the means -- it must be a trick.  It sounded right when you said it, but there must be a trick."

     Topographically I suggest that whenever something is said to be impossible people either mean, "I don't have the means to do this," or, "I don't have the resolve to do this."  If "resolve" throws you, try "disindigenous need."  (So I made up the word disindigenous.)  An extraordinary need, beyond the requirements of people living in the city -- unpredictable, unexpected, unnecessary by city standards, is what I mean by disindigenous need, by resolve.  This is like me saying, do you actually need This?  Or using terms like "people properly attracted to This."  Such resolve is part of having additional neural choices.  If something is impossible, and you are actually involved with the Revolution, the impossibility is because you lack the resolve, not the means.  And that's true whether you believe it or not, which is the great thing about This.  Like the little kid said when someone asked him if he believed in fate:  "If I said no, will it go away?"

     The hunger, the resolve, would be that nothing is impossible.  If you hear, "Well, I would try to do it, but I'm not sure what the means are," don't believe in the speaker's resolve.  The means are always as close as your own elbow.  Do you have the resolve?  Do you have the ability for extraordinary nervous system choices?  If you've got the choice, you've finally got to exercise it.

     Let me point in another direction.  Some opponents, apparently to be conquered must first be obeyed.  The foe may be your own habits, what you call your shortcomings, the lack of general resolve that seems to overcome you.  You must first submit to some apparent foes before you can dominate them.  Can you see that to do this would require an unnatural set of neural choices?  If you observe the general activities of the city, everyone's city, everything is predictable, everything falls within the bell curve.  If these activities could be compared with the kind of secret activities that the Revolutionist is involved with, he or she would apparently at times be agreeing, even cooperating, with these most bourgeois city happenings.  This internal or external submission is the three dimensional appearance.  Back in the city you can divide up everybody out there and everybody in you into those that are driven to dominate and those that are driven by the hunger to submit, to be led.  You could apparently try to take this to a more complex verbal level and specify that there are forces in Life -- people, institutions, ideas -- that one should resist and then there are those one should submit to.  But, you do know by now, that any proposition in the city -- say, "Let's all be Buddhists!" -- will meet with a certain percentage of agreement and a certain mechanical resistance.  Half will resist and half will submit.

     If there was another alternative, one more choice, the things that seem to be problems to you might appear differently.  Any problem, any apparent foe, seems to present two choices, and while one may be less unpleasant, neither is pleasing.  If one of the people in you is driven to submit to this foe, and is in the majority, then the rest of you feels betrayed.  "You have taken away all my energy, we should not have given in so quickly."

     Whatever the problem although you verbally can say you have the choice to either do this or not, to struggle or not, actually this choice is non-existent because there is one alternative that you would never, never do.  To activate this normally unused choice is actually an additional neural choice since you would never mechanically have picked a certain one of the apparent alternatives.  So certain behavior might appear externally to be, say, submission, when it is for the Revolutionist the use of additional neural choices not available at Line level.  I know this is sticky.  You submit because to conquer in some cases involves first apparently submitting.  This is a part of dragging in the irrelevant.  This is part of being able to use the 3-D multicolored wheel flowing through a two dimensional field of reality.

     Okay, let's make it worse.  What if thinking of action actually follows action itself.  If you say this is three dimensionally impossible you are wrong.  Can you glimpse how plans might actually succeed the actions.  If this makes any sense, you'll see why there is no such thing as predictable cause and effect.  You see why any predictable cause and effect is limited to mathematics in the laboratory.  Ordinary consciousness can never make sense of this.  Psychology just deals with predicting behavior of inbred rats -- heck, they don't even pretend anymore they are a science of the psychology of humans.  Psychology is the science of simple circuits.  If you can glimpse that the plans succeed the planned for action, then you understand why no one ever learns from their mistakes.

     Consciousness is the last to know.  Remember the story about the multicolored wheel that turned through a slit in two dimensional reality.  Those living by the slit were sure that blue follows red.  But if you could see the wheel from a three dimensional stance, you could see that the opposite is just as true.  Apparently plans precede actions, apparently you do not resist foes by submitting to them.  Apparently red comes before blue.

     Another unrecognized topographical reality is that all of man's inventions, all of his institutions from commerce, manufacturing, religions, everything in the ordinary world, are limited.  Anything you could want, in terms of self improvement or home improvement, is limited.  Everything at Line level is absolutely limited, limited to the spectrum of the three dimensional five senses of man.  If you were an ordinary person back in the city you would see sin as being inhumane, unreasonable, something fairly nebulous, but there is no sin unless it has to do with one of the five senses.  For Life's general purposes what is called sin is always some particular stimulation of one of the five senses, either a misuse, an overuse or a disuse.  In the city, people imagine that sins are something beyond wanting to feel a woman's ass, liking the smell of a furnace that just came on, looking at a yard full of roses; they assume sin is maybe a general attitude towards the cosmos.  .paThe only way you can apparently sin is through one of the five senses.

     The city folk never notice this.  If you asked someone what they wanted in life, they might say, to succeed in their profession.  What could constitute this success?  Say you want to be a great spiritual leader.  After you publish a phenomenally successful book, you are in an accident and left deaf, blind, and with a nervous system that cannot even feel braille.  Although millions of people might be crying to meet the author of this book that changed their lives, of what would this achievement of your aspirations be composed for you personally?

     Such limitation does not diminish the purpose of life, but in the city everyone has to forget this.  It just sounds as if these limits turn man into some kind of lesser creature.  You can say there's a difference between hearing a woman say, "Come over here and drop your pants," and hearing a voice that says, "Hello, this is god, and we've been watching you."  You can say there's a difference.

     Okay, I started out this chapter talking about apparent additional neural choices.  But if that was all there was, how easy everything would be.  All change would simply be a matter of fresh neural processing.  I, or anyone, could solve any problem you thought you had by giving you something bizarre, or just new, to do.  You could be told to stand in the bathtub and stick your first two fingers in a peanut butter jar and go "mmmmmmm."  The teenager could go to his rabbi or minister with important questions, and after the priest showed him their vade mecum, he'd go "Oh."  And that would be it.  It would not matter what the information or directive was if it was new to you.  It only appears that the distinguishing aspect of man on the evolutionary ladder is his more complex neural system.  What if this is another linear run, a two dimensional distortion.

     If man is unique among the creatures we know, his singularity is still chemically based:  it is not a neural singularity.  Previously I have joked about the brain being another sense organ.  But the brain is not an additional sensory apparatus to the first five senses of man.  What seems to be the mind could be seen better as the "I" interpreting what's going on with the "me's."  If man has a singularity, it is not in the part of the nervous system called the brain.  If he has a singularity.

     I have mentioned before the stories hard wired into man's nervous system about a descent from a primeval paradise.  The descent has been downhill since then.  This descent is an aspect of the split humans feel within themselves.  Can you perceive that this split could be a kind of dialogue between the chemical eruptions and the neural voices?  I guess not, but if you could, let me tell you, for a gambling man or woman, here is a sure shot.  Assuming that in the three dimensional world the guys running the table still spin the wheel and still call the winning number, the possibility that the inner division all men feel is a kind of dialogue between chemical eruptions and neural voices, is a sure bet.

     Of course, if the dealer isn't the one laying down the cards, maybe you've stumbled into a revolutionary camp.  And then all this is moot anyway.

     You have got to learn to protect yourself in a certain way.  Your number one responsibility is looking after, always protecting, "I," at all costs.  This is the real Revolutionary "I," not the mere "me's," not the people.  This proper self protection makes the egotism of the city look like Mr. Rogers.  You cannot properly look out for, protect, yourself if you do not understand that the apparent sequence of events in the city is not the only possibility.  Without this understanding, that blue only apparently follows red, you will forever be apparently reacting to what happened to you.

     You cannot protect yourself after the fact.  No one learns from their mistakes; that is going in the wrong direction.  Some of the time you feel like you've been dominated, some of the time you feel like you've won.  It's like you are at a gambling table.  In the best of circumstances, right in the middle of the bell curve, the best you can do throughout your life is beat the table half the time.  Half the time you win, you apparently dominate, and half the time you get hit in the naughty parts with blunt instruments.  At the very best, half the time (and remember there are very few people right there in the center of the bell curve) you ride the camel.  The other times the camel rides you.

     The wolf either slobbers and bites you, or you run away.  With only two choices, there is no choice.  Nothing they teach you in the city can help you.  You cannot protect yourself. You can't protect yourself by being either submissive or dominant.  In other words, just using C or D will not protect you.  If you can't see that, you can't see anything.

     Protection would be a kind of dangerous unpredictability.  Protection would depend on choices in you that are not commonly available, neither C or D, neither taking no action, or taking some kind of action.  The self protection I am pointing to is nothing you have ever imagined, or dreamed of.  Many of you feel that since hanging around This Thing your life has improved, people don't pick on you so much.  That may be true three dimensionally, but that is not real self protection.

     When you reach a certain point you have got to be able to make a city egotist look like Albert Schweitzer.  Of course I am not suggesting you would ever get seen protecting yourself in the way I am pointing towards.  By now though, you must have some glimpse that the same kinds of mechanical forces drive an Albert Schweitzer and an Adolf Hitler.  If you put off getting revenge because you notice your attacker has a baseball bat in his hand, or you give money to some beggar, there is no difference.  No one is making a decision.

     The recruit's protection is based on a new choice.  You cannot get bogged down into the two choices of either crushing or wanting to get crushed.  Binary decisions, "I'll get my revenge sometime," or, "I'll try to in some way forgive him," are not protection.  Protection is dealing in an area that is dangerously close to the frighteningly unpredictable.

     The new choice is not neural.  Remember the chemical fires.