Audio= Stream the audio from the bars below in two parts. There is 12 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
#292 ** Nov 5, 1987 ** - 1:45
[Kyroot reading to :12.]
[3-D consciousness believes that two great reservoirs fuel the stream of progress/knowledge: the reservoir of "knowledge" and the reservoir of "not-knowledge" (ignorance). It believes that the knowledge reservoir is fueled from extracting from the pool of not-knowledge. There is an 'E' reservoir however and it is from it that new knowledge flows. The ignorance pool could also be termed the 'not-experienced'; the knowledge pool contains also virtual experience (secondhand, indirectly experienced--book/movie events). New info comes either partially or totally from the E-pool. The Yellow Circuit can only think of old or old-based information--so how does anything truly new ever get thought in the first place? The New cannot be thought at first. Scenario of daydreaming/thinking while jogging past a warehouse that sets off apparently new-info-for-you—daydreams of what could be going on in the warehouse based on the name on the building. It is not new info however, since the thinking is based on pictures you already have of warehouse activity even if you've never experienced directly such activity. Your apparent new thought fits in with the old, is satisfying, doesn't overwhelm with newness. Only the Real Revolutionist can think/experience the New; it may be experienced as something no individual has ever experienced before, or an experience that has been had before by a multitude of individuals, but only a partial aspect to each. Any attempt to keep an up-to-date diary of analysis of your experience is impossible let alone any possibility of getting ahead of it--expanding info and new consciousness. Only the irrelevant offers this possibility for The Few. The Few must have the genetic potential to have experienced everything, to have been everything.]
[Everybody in the City plays by the "rules". The rules are: play by the rules and 2. Don't play by them. Life makes everyone believe that one of these rules is more desirable and should be adhered to. There aren't 10 Commandments--there are 20!! (counting the ones on the back!).]
[4-D Timesight as higher dimensional sight of Life's already (or man's future). The Few have got to liberate the unused space in themselves. Connected to lateral expansion. Unused space is anything in you that can criticize, can contrast itself as superior--separate from the 'alien'.]
[Real Revolutionary Data cannot be too local (personal, i.e., familiar, 'true') or too 'infinite' (extreme). New Data must be irrelevant to be of any use. The Few cannot be of 'cyclopic' sight--focused on either true or false; the local or the infinite. Binary consciousness is cyclopic--sees one thing at a time; can't take in the contrary and hold it in view.]
[ What form of data do the People want in life? Knowledge; hope; relief; fun? Consider that This Thing is all four in one. Not each separate, but unified.]
[There should be less Yellow Circuit resistance now for The Few to laboratory chemical processes. Less resistance to the need to have a 'controlled aggression' in looking out for themselves; a kind of chemical protection. This is an aspect of AMV12. "Blood only boils in battle not in victory". "Hormones are most active during the chase--not in the capture". All news is bad news; any captured ground (new progress) that becomes news is bad news. Anything that can 'be accomplished' is a waste of time. It is seen as a 'wasteland' by the Real Revolutionist. Self protection can come about either thru thought or feeling. The Real Revolutionist can accept no congratulations for apparent exploits.]
[Love in the bushes: requires something more than the City--a partner with Yellow Circuit potential/ability to share in a particular kind of shared-laughter.]
[City affairs are enough drug out and exhausting for you to be adding to it. Don't do the unpleasurable.]
[One liner: Head melodies can be nice--but there are other tunes available.
THE E POOL
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987
How can anything be brand new? How can you actually conceive and think the truly new for the first time? Although you should all know by now from your own experience, let me remind you that the ordinary functions of the Yellow Circuit can think only of the old. Here's an example.
Let's say you are jogging down a new street and you turn around and see a huge warehouse. A little sign on the lawn says, "Tompkin's Video Exchange and Rewiring Services." You glance at the big bay doors that are open and you see lots of trucks backed up. Cars in the parking lot tell you people are working there; and you catch a flashing glimpse of people. Perhaps at a long assembly line, people pack boxes for shipment. You can't say why, but it's obviously electronic equipment. You don't even happen to know much about electronics, but somehow an image registers -- a flash of people hunched over tables with soldering irons, and you "know."
You keep jogging. You glance at the warehouse and look off. You apparently had a thought about the place, about what might be going on in there. Yet the name on the sign didn't really tell you anything. That is, you do not know from the name of this company, from the description, what is going on in that building. Yet your Yellow Circuit flashed a picture lasting perhaps one second. You do not stop and say, "My god, that's curious. What in the world could 'Tompkin's Video Exchange and Rewiring' be?" Much of what passes for new thought is not based upon what you have personally experienced. In a city sense, you seem to have thought a new thought, but in any larger sense, you have not.
Your thought about the Tompkin's warehouse was based on what you have already seen. Through movies, television -- you've been there in your Yellow Circuit. So even if you had not actually experienced that warehouse, you had thought it before. You thought it before, if nothing else, when you saw a movie. Therefore, it is reality to you -- you have experienced it -- as much as these words are reality to you. Yet from one quick view, you could say that you had a new thought when you glimpsed the name of Tompkin's Video Exchange and Rewiring Service. You do not know for a fact what is going on in there, yet something in your circuitry conjured up a satisfactory explanation that's probably close enough.
And from another view, you have thought of nothing new. The illusion of something really new is strengthened simply because you never thought of that one exact item before. But you did not truly think of anything new. No new conception process took place. It was all old thoughts recirculated and renamed. It was all based on old information. It was all a matter of saying, "Alright, I can think of what's brand new. I can think of something nobody's ever thought about -- a flying pig!" All you've done is take two units of old information and join it in a way that is new to you. But it is not new.
Now, my question again: Where does any new thought come from? Somebody must think it the first time. How could something happen in a movie that's never happened? At city level, a writer somewhere had to think of what seemed new. The script had to be new enough to survive any possible copyright challenge. But if a thought was truly new, it would be without the benefit and without the limitations of everything that they had thought about before: it could not just be "flying pigs." The image of people in Tompkin's Video warehouse working on assembly lines or huddled over electronic equipment is not new -- because you knew what it was as soon as you saw it.
Part of what I wanted you to see in passing was the fact (which no one analyzes) that nowadays it is sufficient to have stored old and reliable information which isn't based on your own personal, multi-sensual experience. The source of this storage is a page out of a magazine, book, movies, television. And now that information is functionally useful even though it was not gained through direct personal experience. This is not an attack on any of the media or the entertainment industries. But I do have a purpose in bringing this up. People do not distinguish in any way between personal knowledge gained through the experience of physically seeing, breathing, and doing; and information obtained secondhand and pre-processed through print, movies, TV, etc.
One of the initial flashes...frights...joys...is realizing that one of the rules from which no one can escape is, "I can only think that which I thought before. I can only think that which I have words for. I only have words for those things that I have already thought. If there is anything going on anywhere else -- if there is some kind of other dimension, if there is an invisible world, if there are some bushes on the outskirts of the city, I'll never know it because I can't say it. I can't think it. If I can't say it, I can't think it. If I can't think it, I can't say it. If I can't think it, and somebody else says it, I can't hear it." And remember, in the city, everybody plays by the rules. They just believe otherwise.
You could say that a Real Revolutionist would be someone who could think what's never been thought, see what's never been experienced. You could say that a Real Revolutionist would be someone who could Understand beyond what any single individual has ever experienced.
Ordinary consciousness believes that two great pools feed the stream of progress/discovery/intellectual growth. And the two pools are Knowledge and Not Knowledge/Ignorance. The belief is that the former is fed absolutely from the latter. In some way, Knowledge is derived from, extracted from the second pool of Ignorance. For example, it appears that scientific progress comes about through exploring areas of which we are ignorant. Scientists take the pool of Ignorance and slowly extract Knowledge. Assuming a progression of some kind, people perceive a constant process of extracting from the pool of Ignorance a fuel that slowly, if not instantly becomes Knowledge.
In the city, all sight is cyclopic. You've got the one big eye and that one big eye sees that everything is either known or not known. Cyclopic sight expects new Knowledge to come out of the pool of Ignorance -- this one great big eye is always affixed on one spot, saying, "This is where new knowledge will arise."
3-D consciousness sees those two pools of knowledge and ignorance as the only source fueling change, discovery and intellectual growth. But one lateral stretch toward a Revolutionary position would be for you to begin to Understand what no single individual has ever experienced: the unseen pool. From the E pool all Real New Data is derived. All new information comes either in part or in toto from the E pool. In considering "known versus unknown," E would represent the unexperienced; it does not represent a procession from the pool of Ignorance. Rather, the E pool represents what humanity has yet to experience.
All Revolutionary sight would use the E pool to convert what hasn't ever been experienced. Can you see that the Revolutionist would traverse this domain and produce new data without claiming personal experience? (Which of course belies all notions of cause and effect.) You should recall my recent motto: "If it isn't irrelevant, it's of no interest or value to me."
Only in the city is everything orderly and sane. You've got to get out in the Bushes for things to be chaotic, deranged. But it would only be there that you could learn how to derive new information, first from what seems to be your own experience, and then from beyond personal experience. If you are limited to your own experience, how are you ever going to get ahead of yourself, much less catch up? In the city, people seek some map of explanations. But it is like an attempt to keep a living diary and you can never catch up. Here it is, nine o'clock at night, and you are writing about what happened when you got off of work today. Assuming you've gotten even that far. You can never catch up, let alone get ahead. And if you're not going to get ahead, what's the purpose in any of This? If you're not going to get ahead, you're limited to the same information, the same consciousness that everybody's got. If that's all you've got, that's all you've got. You may think that you picked up some new terms or strange plays on words here from me, but "you" cannot turn your own experience into any kind of meaningful map. It's always too late. It's out of date. It's absolutely impertinent to the Revolution.
If you're always in the position of analyzing what happened to you and you can't catch up, much less get ahead, what can you expect to ever come from This? You might become a philosopher. You might even become a famous philosopher. You might write a book. You might write a famous book. But you will never scratch your itch. You'll never live and breathe your birthright. Because you are limited to those two pools, the Known and the Unknown. But you're looking in the wrong places. You've got to look to the Unexperienced. You need to look to the Irrelevant. Only by going there will you get ahead of the game.
In a city related, lateral sense, you could say the comprehensive consciousness you strive for would be an unnatural wrap-up of the consciousness of everybody else in the city -- all ordinary people -- and everything they ever thought, felt, or experienced (including yourself of course). That is a reasonable verbal shortcut. Some of you might recall that the history of all mysticism and strange activity is littered with people experiencing exceptional states lasting moments and hours. They continually try to describe their pleasure by saying, "Ah! I suddenly realize that there is a basic common denominator to us all. There is no human activity that is foreign to me." Such comments reflect what I'm telling you about experiencing the consciousness of everyone.
To really be born to do This, to be properly attracted to This, you must already have a certain potential and you must undertake a certain kind of preparation. Believe it or not, as unfocused as This may seem at times, it is as though you must be able to sense that, in your own nervous system, in your genes, in your own DNA you have thought everything that everybody that went before you has ever thought; you have felt everything that they have ever felt, and you have experienced everything that has been experienced up until this second. Only a few people have such a need, only a few people have such experiences -- a very, very few have any sort of continuing awareness of this.
Binary consciousness, cyclopic sight, ordinary human consciousness cannot conceive of this except in extreme moments. People have had, through accidents and through drugs for example, a fleeting experience such as, "Somewhere in me, I've done everything, I've been it all. It's all been me." Then, of course, it's gone once the drug or circumstance is gone. I can point out to you again that under ordinary conditions, what is lacking in that kind of awareness is an appreciation, in the widest poetic sense, of the existence of the great E pool. In such cases, nobody feels his own DNA. It boils down to this: you cannot feel and experience the history of mankind with binary consciousness, which ends up as cyclopic sight. You may say, "Yeah, there's two possibilities, there's I can either do it or not do it, and only one of them has an validity, only one is important. There are two great pools that feed everything, all of human progress is knowledge and ignorance. I know there's those two, if you want to call it that. But only one is of any pertinence."
Now, let me restate that in the city, everybody plays by the rules. But binary consciousness cum cyclopic sight does not see that. It cannot see that. It sees that in the city everybody does not play by the rules. Cyclopic sight would say that there are laws and there have always been a sizeable percentage of the people who do not abide by the laws. So at city level, to say that everybody in the city plays by the rules is false. And that's not true. From a larger perspective, it's obvious that everybody in the city is playing by the rules. They can't do otherwise.
In the city, under the limitations of 3-D consciousness, binary awareness dictates two possibilities. People either do as they should or they're just no good. You either "play by the rules," or you're an outcast, a criminal. In the city, man sees two possibilities, and one is to be eliminated. The whole point of the other possibility is so it will be destroyed by the good possibility -- for good to destroy evil, for Knowledge to finally absorb Not-Knowledge/Ignorance. It's as though one of them is an aberration; a perversion of the "right" one. There are two sets of laws and one of them is absolutely not seen by ordinary consciousness. One set of laws says that thou shalt abide by the law, the other set of laws says to some other group of people -- don't. And that's their law. For every Ten Commandments, there's ten more unseen. For every three standards of morality, there are three others tied right to them. Everybody is moral in the city, but there is one standard of morality that says, "Thou shalt do all these good things," and another set for another group of people that says, "You won't, don't." And they all faithfully live by each in turn. When you put the groups together, you have a dance. You have absolute life support in the city. But there is another pool from which no one ordinarily draws any fuel or substance. No one's even aware of it.
I mentioned to you before about what is known to all of us in the warehouse and shipping trade as "breaking down boxes." You take containers and cartons and separate the seams so they lay down flat. Then 20 or 30 boxes fit into the space of one. In a sense, you have liberated space. You took it out of the empty box where it is useless, and returned it to big granddaddy Space. You gave the trapped space back to Life itself. To be a Revolutionist, in that same way, you have to learn how to liberate unused space in you -- just for efficiency's sake. Ordinarily you don't think about it, but now you should consider that Life gets to use that space somewhere else. This is one basis of the idea of lateral expansion of present city experience and knowledge. You need to be able to liberate all the areas in you that are unused.
Let me point out that unused space in you is anything that can point a finger, generate mechanical resistance, be a critic. It is unused space if it believes, "I'm in charge of some particular knowledge." It can also be in charge of some particular ignorance. You must liberate that space or else you're always full of what's trapped there; random and rigid information, facts, disinformation, opinions; well-founded prejudice and ill-founded prejudice; objective bias and subjective bias. It is all just unused space. You end up with what appears to be substantial somethings, but in fact they are empty. They just take up your potential space to become more then what you now are. Little known to you, and not known at all in the city, is the fact that most of the boxes are completely empty.
You cannot properly perceive or begin to extract your own real, fresh data with too much unliberated space. You just simply can't. Too much of what you hear from me and too much of your own efforts at making meaningful maps from your own experience goes in one of the old boxes -- full of empty misinformation. You'll be limited to either the old or the old-based. You're going to think "flying pigs" or (you might look at it as being a real breakthrough) one day you'll think, "Nah -- it's pigs that fly." And of course, one day you might have a real, low level, mystical experience and make a tremendous breakthrough and say, "I was wrong -- it's cows that fly." After that there's probably no stopping you.
Let me point out that Real Revolutionary data, that is, real useful data, can be neither too local nor too infinite because both extremes will preclude any possible map making derived from your own present experience. All of This, if either too grand or too minute in scale, would remain mere thinking of action. It would not become the necessary action which is the essence of This Activity. It would not affect your own nervous system, nor would it produce real change if it remained mere theory. If it is too familiar, from a Revolutionary viewpoint, it is too local. It can't be too reasonable, it can't be too true or else all the people in the city would hear it and say, "I know all of that." It will all be too comfortable, too predictable. But for the information to be truly useful, in a Revolutionary sense, it cannot be too infinite either. It cannot be too extreme, or else you could not take the Revolutionary information and experience it for yourself.
You can look at the too local and the too infinite as simply being additional right angle synonyms for the possible and the impossible, the true and the false. As long as you're dealing with your own cyclopic sight, there is no escape. There can be no movement, because the only thing that you're focused on is one or the other. The only thing that you're focused on is the one to be accepted in the city at the expense of the other. So you're going nowhere in the city -- too local or too extreme. "We know about this," or, "We don't and we don't need to hear some cockamamie theory." All they are doing is referring to information that is too local or too infinite. There is an area between what's too local and what's too infinite. What is it? It is the Irrelevant. It's always right in front of you.
You can eventually begin to compose your own maps, related to your own personal experience. Your experience begins to create truly new knowledge in you. And it did not come from ignorance; it came from you dragging your kicking and screaming consciousness into the Bushes -- the Irrelevant. And it has to be nonverbal, because if you let it get verbal, it's no longer new.
What form of data do you and the people seem to seek? Does it seem that you and the people are seeking the kind of data that apparently offers knowledge, hope, relief, or fun?
Closely related to this, I ask you, why is it that topographically in any field, I can always identify a small number of possibilities that consistently seem to cover all outcomes and you can't find an exception? For example, you might argue that hope and relief are the same. But if you are really a potential Revolutionist, you know they're not. In some miraculous way, I sometimes pick out three possibilities, sometimes four; and any of you that start getting real smart about it realize, "That explains it all. Everything I can think of in this area fits into those few groups." And you can't combine any of the specific possibilities I've named. Isn't that weird? If you think that's weird, consider further that the real weirdness is: how did I do it?
Back to those four possible forms of new, useful Revolutionary data, Life seems to offer: knowledge, hope, relief, and fun. And I ask you, which form of data do you seem to need? That which apparently offers knowledge, or that which apparently offers hope, or that which apparently offers relief, or that which seems to provide fun? Let me give you the punch line at least down at the 3-D level. This Activity is all four in one! If it's not all four in one, it's not This. Now, if you separate them, you're back to the city. They are so connected that you can't separate them. If This does not give you all four, either something is wrong with me, something is wrong with the relationship between you and me, you weren't born to it...all kinds of possibilities.
A Revolutionist should demonstrate less apparent Yellow Circuit resistance to certain lab activities. I'm sketching an area of an extreme, unconditional self protection. It is not limited to two pools of, "I'm either going to look out for old #1 or else I'm not going to worry about myself." What is required is a kind of controlled aggression. Aggression is really an outdated word from the past. Like everything else, aggression has some purpose. Even though I say it is not the word, I had some reason for saying it. There is a reality behind the word "aggression." "Controlled aggression" for you properly here would be a kind of controlled chemical protection of one's Revolutionary potential. It is one aspect of certain functions of AMv12. The blood boils in battle, not in victory. Hormones are most active in the chase, not the capture. You should feel an absolute necessity for the protection of your Revolutionary potential, and it has something to do with the battle as opposed to apparent victory. It has something to do with the chase, as opposed to an apparent capture.
And those who begin to experience correctness with my use of "aggression" should ask, "How or what might be the best possible approach to defend myself?" I'll give you two possibilities. The protection might come about through feeling. "Defense" might fit into my description of controlled aggression and it might have something to do with blood boiling during battle and hormones being active. Since I repeated that at least three times tonight, you might suspect a tacit message: that active hormones, in a 3-D sense, would be preferable to the alternative.
Back to the intermediate ability I verbalized as a "wrap-up in one person." It is the containment in one nervous system of everyone else's feelings, thoughts and experiences. I could also call this "wrap-up" a non-binary 3-D time (which would make it a 4-D kind of consciousness). Such a perspection in one person would also be a higher dimensional sight of Life's "already" (which is really a better way of saying "future").
What I am trying to make you See is that ordinarily you're only living in arbitrarily severed dimensions and whatever has just happened is old news. What is new to you is part of Life's "already." I'm using "already" as now -- it would be something else in another dimension. You might say it is another dimension: what seems new and fresh. In the city, once you've got something, it's already spoiled. It's very discouraging -- but only to people in the city who have "better things to do." If you're dealing with city consciousness, you can't ever see that it gets you nowhere.
What's the use in trying to do This, if whatever you do is yesterday's news? And if you recall, some time ago I proved to you all that all news is bad news. You may ask, "So what is the use in doing any of This, if I'm hearing you correctly?" When I correctly describe it in words, it sounds utterly futile at the city level. As soon as you've made any progress, as soon as this fictional Revolutionist has gained any new ground and claimed some kind of temporary victory, then -- once it is done -- it's instantly just plain old bad news. In the city, including any newly won ground, the Revolutionist sees only wasteland. Using good old cyclopic city sight to read these words, seems that anything that can be accomplished is a waste of time.
The Revolutionist would see that not only is all the territory in the city from which he sprang a wasteland, but also all the land he has newly won outside the city is also a wasteland. It seems no nourishment is left. We're not talking about out there, now, are we? The Revolutionist cannot accept laurels nor congratulations for his apparent exploits.
Love. Let me point out that "love in the Bushes," as far as Revolutionists are concerned, would be all profitable, pleasurable relationships. These relationships would require something not necessary in the city. The kind of Revolutionary "love in the Bushes" requires a partner with a certain Yellow Circuit lab potential to share a certain quality of laughter. Without it, you don't have Revolutionary "love in the Bushes."
Back in the city, Life's minor leagues, you should recognize that ordinary life itself is whacked out enough without you adding to it personally. I mean specifically -- Life doesn't need for you to pick up new habits or new forms of suffering. If I could get you to ask yourself extraordinary questions that might lead to any form of new experience, you should finally ask, "Why am I doing anything that does not please me? Anything that is not good for me, anything that is not pleasurable?"
I think I'll leave you with a one-liner. "Head melodies can certainly be nice, but there are other tunes available."