Audio = Stream from the bars below in two parts
Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0302 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = none
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk #0302 - Dec 10, 1987 ** - 1:28
[Time turns any E into C or D. Thus Time = all potential. To activate all internal potential would create new time for the Real Revolutionist. Time is created at the expense of E, not at that of C or D (i.e., increasing E). Creation of time = creation of new space in which to move; creation of time as needed. ]
["Those who are not present are always wrong"; internal application: the `me-s' out of the speaking-I's presence are the subjects for rectifying and criticism. Those not present have no way to defend themselves; if they did they would not be attacked in the first place. How to use this fact: 1. make sure that no one is absent (thus, no conflict) or 2. make everybody absent (let no one be in power). Consider what is the ultimate "sin/evil"--malum per se --in the 3D world: denial in any form; this goes beyond mere criticism (i.e., includes sarcasm, etc.). The internal use: denial (of what is) and expiation (excuses). "Those not present" are the only fodder for denial/excuse. ]
[Motto: Nothing is true from every view, but everything is from some view. Consider the Look! Method embellished with the You Hoo! Method. ]
["Total lies are acceptable if they totally succeed" (in politics). This is correct for the Real Revolutionist internally as well. Remember: who would know the difference except the successful liar? Who is there to lie to internally? --those not present. Fake it till you make it. What if you could fabricate the ultimate lie: "I understand it all" and make the People believe it, i.e., so they could not deny it? ]
[Jazz thinking has got to go beyond improvisation upon 'old standards'. Enlarge your repertoire. Bring 'those not present' into presence; cease denying part of the People. Strive continually to think as big as possible; this points up how small you ordinarily think. ]
[The Real Revolutionist has got to be as tough as a 'refried combat boot' and at least as sensitive. ]
[1:28 Epilog: Suggested hobbies: "Mr. Know it all" is chosen and must answer any and all questions.// Compose a Group Gospel song, a private one just for the Group with no restraints.// Utilize the library of videotapes by J. E.g., transcriptions, etc. ]
TIME = ALL POTENTIAL
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987
Document: 302, GSIBM, December 10, 1987
12/10/87 - (#)
TIME = ALL POTENTIAL
The first rule of the night: Time would eventually turn any E into a C or D. That's not really all, but let's stop there.
When I say "time" I mean just the ordinary conception of time, back in the city. The apparent ordinary flow of ordinary time will ultimately take every E -- everything that is presently irrelevant -- and drag it into either C or D. This amounts to a new equation:
Time = all potential.
So, as things work in the city, this also means all potential would equal Time. Now we're getting somewhere, aren't we? If this be true, then if a man could activate all potential in himself while he was still alive, would he have created NEW TIME? Would he, literally, create time?
Many of you have already found your own answer to this question. You've written me notes saying, in effect, "Hey, last week when you made me go out and do something new, at first it seemed like a waste of time, but then instead of doing something useless and foolish, it suddenly seemed like I had more time." This is correct.
Consider that in everyone's life in the city, there seems to be a fairly constant pool of C and D. A person appears to flip-flop; they jump back and forth from one pool to the other regarding what they like and what they dislike. But the actual pool to them seems to stay "pretty constant." If you could see on a larger scale -- if you could expand your vision to include such a person's whole lifetime -- you would also be able to see an E-pool hovering about their life. If you live in the city, this is a fact. And I am also telling you that during a person's lifetime, that E-pool would ultimately be transformed by time into C or D.
Remember that the E-pool contains everything irrelevant; everything that is not presently activated in either the C or D pool, insofar as your perception is concerned. So everything that's not a part of your life -- everything you are not conscious of -- is simply potential. And, as I have already pointed out, time will turn all this E -- all this potential -- into either C or D. Time will activate everything. Therefore, time equals all potential. And, of course, the converse of this must also be true: combine all potential, and it will equal Time.
Go back to my question about whether a man beginning to activate those parts of himself -- of his consciousness -- which seem unthinkable, would start to create new time. What if every time you took potential, chewed it up and activated it, you actually CREATED time? Now Consider: If you're creating what amounts to new time by eating up something else, what would that something else be? The new time would be created out of -- what?
People do not deal with time as if it were a neutral entity or think about time in a neutral way. Time always appears to pass in a C or D fashion; it seems positive or negative. Yet, if you could create new time, you would not create it in such a way that, "Gosh, if I activate my potential and create new time, I'm taking a gamble because it may come up bad time." To put this another way, you would be creating time out of all that presently seems to you impertinent and irrelevant. So your life would become less and less bland, less and less boring. You'd be creating new time, but not simply as people ordinarily think of time.
By participating in This -- by activating potential in yourself -- you're creating new time; not good time, not bad time: more time. You are creating a fourth dimensional space, so you have more room to move. And, if you believe modern physics, all this new time cannot be created out of nothing. So what's being used up? I suggest to you that the material you use to create this new time is truly -- to the Real Revolutionist -- irrelevant. For example, Consider the area of what seem to be problems. All the way from apparently serious problems in your city life to minor irritants and everyday annoyance at being alive. We've previously established, at least to my satisfaction, that the idea of there being problems apart from man is fallacious. Anything described as a "problem" is a profile, a verbal delineation, of what the man is. So what if, based on my opening statement that Time will eventually turn all E into C or D, when a Revolutionist begins to activate unused potential to create new time, this time is made out of the irrelevant, which is, in truth, his so-called problems?
If that's so, what a great psychiatrist I would have made! Except, there are only a handful of potential patients in the world. I could have been a family physician -- but the number of patients wouldn't even keep me supplied with tongue depressors. Of course, those patients I did have, could come in with every kind of routine, run-of-the-mill problem and...
All of you have had the sensation that because of participating in This, you feel better in a way you can't describe. I suggest to you that, among other possibilities, what is happening is you're creating new time by using up the irrelevant. And the irrelevant, to a Revolutionist, turns out to be what everybody else calls life. Actually, they call it "trouble", "problems", and "irritations", but they accept that as being life. The only non-suffering people in the world would be Real Revolutionists. Or, you could say, the only people who'd have all the time they need and it's meaningless, would be the Revolutionists. They'd be able to create time any time they needed time.
Remember the original equation. All you must do is activate some potential, and time is created. Time = all potential. The equation is not even that strange, given the current speculations by physicists, metaphysicians, and philosophers in the city. One acceptable definition of time could be that it equals all potential. And, if that be true, then all potential = Time. If you can execute potential then you are producing, in a sense, time for yourself.
"Les absents ont toujours tort"
The translation of that saying is, "Those not present are always wrong." Now, whether you agree with that or not, it's a known proverb in the city. I did not make it up, and it doesn't take any great intellectual leap to see the horizontal basis for the saying. Whenever people in the city are discussing something -- and you know what city people mainly discuss -- other people -- those who are not present are always wrong. Whatever is said about a person in his absence goes unresisted.
That, of course, is not the extent of our interest in this proverb. Take the idea of the proverb internally. The "me's" in you which are not momentarily in speaking control are always what? -- Wrong. All of the me's in your we's that are not present right now are in the wrong. They are the we -- the me's -- that seem destined to be changed and corrected. Any neural pattern that calls itself by your name which is not, right this second, in speaking control is always wrong.
Whoever -- whatever me in your we -- is in control right this moment has the feeling that, in the equation "I + Not-I = Everything," they are the "I". Or, if there is an "in here" and an "out there," they are the "in here." And everything else is "out there." The other me's are outcasts.
Those not present are wrong. Who is there to defend them? This is not a verbal joke. Jump back to the city and picture a group of people: Roman senators, or churchmen in the Middle Ages, or a bunch of guys sitting at the neighborhood bar right now. If they're talking about somebody who's not there, that person is wrong for one obvious reason: there's nobody present to speak for them. Because there's only one person to speak for you and that is you. You can say anything about someone who's not around. "Hey did you hear Fred did so-and-so?" "You're kidding!" Everybody laughs; nobody questions the accusation. There's nobody to defend Fred, so he's wrong.
Whatever they say about Fred may be true or untrue. If Fred came in, he might go, "No, that's not true!" Or he might say, "Well, yeah, but why did you bring it up? How did you know?" That's not what I mean by "defend". In Fred's absence there is no force -- no energy -- to promote the Fred view. Now look at this situation internally. Whoever's in speaking control finds fault with whatever else is brought to attention. There is always somebody else we don't like in us. Bad habits, bad attitudes -- whatever they're called, it amounts to those not present. And they are always wrong. So when I say no one is there to defend them, I don't mean if you could be conscious of both simultaneously, one would defend itself. If it could defend itself, it would not have been attacked.
Along the same lines, I mentioned a few weeks ago that ordinary people do not learn from their mistakes. If they could learn from the mistakes, they wouldn't have made them in the first place. Because to an ordinary person, it was not a mistake just because they did something and were caught. What they learned from that was, "Don't get caught." If a person could, as they say in the city, "learn from their mistake," they would have learned it before they executed the mistake.
When I say those not present in you -- those aspects and attitudes and feelings that are outcasts and are wrong -- have no one to defend them, I don't mean a particular habit could jump in and say, "Wait a minute. You've got me all wrong and you're exaggerating me!" What I mean is, it cannot be defended. Not that any particular habit is wrong per se; these attributes are not malum per se, or evil in themselves. To the Real Revolutionist, nothing is simply evil in itself; anything could be D right now, within a certain circumstance. So, the parts of you that aren't present right now are wrong -- the one speaking sees all the others as wrong -- but the others could not in some way jump up and defend themselves. There's nothing to defend. They simply are. Yet in the city, they are always wrong.
Whoever is in control is right and beautiful. You approve of whoever's in control. So if you are going to have somebody wrong, they can't be there. Whoever's there to stay is no longer wrong. Attila the Hun, Pepin the short, fat and ugly, may by all reports, be living ogres until when? Until they take over. Then it's, "Hello Mr. Hun, how are you?" "Sire Pepin! How beautiful to see a man of your short size as a man should be."
Remember, I don't just mean "out there." Even when an ordinary person in the city says, "I hate myself," that's only talk. If you hated yourself, you wouldn't be yourself. But whoever is not, at this moment, present in you is wrong, wrong, wrong. If this were not so, you'd have no desire to change. You wouldn't even be attracted to This Thing. Since This is far from ordinary self-improvement, most of you have forgotten that originally you thought This was going to make you a better person. Now that you've invested so much and gone so far, you're not a better person -- but you're a different person.
Now how to use this information? I suggest two immediate possibilities which are opposite and the same. But, some of you are right-handed and some left; some are women and some men; some have middle names and some don't. Since everything is divided into two, we apparently have two needs, so I'll point out two possible approaches.
One way of using the information that those not present are wrong would be to bring everybody in you together simultaneously. This would stop the ordinary situation wherein somebody is "in here" and a whole bunch of other people are "out there." That's one approach. If you bring everybody "in here" and hold them, you have changed the situation. If at any given time are no "those not present," it follows that there can be no one wrong and you would have no complaint with any part of yourself. That's a linear description; actually this moves into another dimension. But consider that if you could bring everybody together, you'd have no internal conflict.
The other approach would be to alter the situation so there is no one in charge. Then it's no longer a matter of merging those "here" and those "not here", because you have done away with the difference between those present and those not present. The statement that "those not present are wrong" infers that those present and in charge are right, or at least that they're non-wrong. But what if you could operate so that, by all linear, 3-D observations, there is no one actually in charge?
Ok, it's time for a vote. Which method do you like best?
On a Revolutionary level, what might we conclude would be the action most closely resembling what's referred to in the city as "sin" or "evil"? Even though all city data is imperfect and therefore useless to a Revolutionist, city ideas do reflect something. You each know what your own nervous system means and what the historical nervous system of humanity means by "sin". Humanity believes there is such a thing as real sin -- malum per se. Not something that's wrong because the New York or Florida legislature passed a law, but something truly evil. Humanity -- including you in your lower nervous system -- believes in malum per se, usually described as some despicable act like murder. This belief is a reflection of something real, and I can describe an action that comes closest to what city people think they mean when they talk about evil. I'll put it in one word: denying.
If a Real Revolutionist were asked, "Do you believe in this?" "Do you believe in that?" He'd answer, "I believe in everything." In a revolutionary sense, the closest one could come to the 3-D concept of evil, malum per se, sin, or missing the mark, would be in denying. If a Real Revolutionist denied something that someone said; denied their belief; denied anything Life said through another person, that would, from a Revolutionary view, approach what city people believe is real evil.
Denying is slightly removed from simply criticizing. From one viewpoint, it's a more serious matter. What is the closest thing to evil you can do to yourself? "No, no, I didn't do that." "I said that but I didn't mean it." "I didn't know what I was doing, my unconscious made me do that." "I did that, but it was an accident." "I fear you have misunderstood me." Any attempt to explain oneself is to deny oneself. Any attempt to explain what you thought, said, felt, or did is to deny what you thought, said, felt, and did. When you deny, you are approximating evil, but what you're doing is worse than the city concept of evil, for such denial is multidimensional.
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with a person altering their behavior. If you had the habit of drinking battery acid once a week to get high it would be a reasonable expectation that after exposure to This you would stop the habit. You might call that denying your habit, but if you went about quitting the correct way, you would not tell me or you or anybody else. Wouldn't you be embarrassed to tell even yourself, "I've become so enlightened now I think I'll stop drinking battery acid"? A Revolutionist has no business humiliating himself, which goes back to the all encompassing rule of not talking about yourself. But what I am calling "denying" has nothing to do with an actual change of behavior; it has nothing to do with more precise control of feelings and a closer involvement in the chemical lab that nips at your heels constantly. What I mean is denying what is. When you deny what is, you've taken a beautifully dangerous stick and punched out your eye. Every time you excuse yourself, explain yourself; every time you do interviews and rewrites, you're denying yourself and what is.
Remember, we're not talking about "out there." All of you should know better by now than to do interviews and make excuses. I'm talking about what goes on "in here" between you and those not present, those dirty bastards. Or, if you prefer, "Those parts of me not involved in This. Those sides of me still holding onto the past and arguing with my mother." Just everybody that's not "here" right now, everybody in you who's wrong. Those not present are always wrong.
If everybody was present -- if nobody were denied -- you would not have the existing, absolute, chemical dichotomy between "you" and "not-you." There would not be a you -- something worthwhile -- and a something that's unacceptable. If not for denial, the general sensation you have that something is wrong would no longer be possible. The possibility of sin and doing serious wrong would disappear. But notice how insane this is, in city terms. Everyone believes in evil and sin; you don't have to be religious to know it exists. You don't have to go to church to know people can't improve without understanding the areas in which they're lacking. No one could become more humane unless they understood how, in some ways, they are less than humane. In other words, "There are parts of me that need cleaning up." And it only takes one part -- one not present -- to put you right back in the city.
I repeat: Denying is the closest manifestation, on the revolutionary level, to evil. Saying, "It's not true, it doesn't exist, it's crazy, it's imagination, you shouldn't think that, you shouldn't do that, you shouldn't say that..." Denying is easier to exemplify "out there," but it goes on in you continually, personally. The Real Revolutionist would say, "I believe in everything," if he answered at all. That's not a joke. He'd be answering in a 4-dimensional sense which only he would understand. Because he'd be saying, "I affirm everything."
Only people stuck in city-consciousness believe there are some things that are wrong or things that do not exist. "I deny it. All reasonable people deny it." The Real Revolutionist will affirm it all. He'd have no conception of denying anything, of saying, "It serves no purpose. It should not exist. It does not exist." The Real Revolutionist would believe in everything -- actually believe -- though he knows the belief is not true on the 3-D level. On the 3-D level he doesn't believe in everything because it's not everything at that level. At that level, if the truth be known, only three-fourths is seen at best, and his real reply to, "Do you believe in this?" would have to be, "Yeah, I believe in the part you can see." He might want no part of the way this manifests at the 3-D level, but seeing one more dimension, he can affirm it -- or at least not deny it.
There's nothing to deny in the 3-D world. The only thing to deny, if you wanted to, would be that that's all there is to the world. Because that's not all there is -- but that's the way it looks in 3-D.
This is a good chance to repeat one idea: Nothing is true from every view, but everything is from some. Let me expand on this from a slightly different direction. Instead of just the axiom, here's a scientific rule: the TALTBSFTVA (There is a lot to be said for that view alright) method.
Still expanding -- remember the "look method"? The look method is just to look. (Don't try to throw any metaphysical cherries or shredded nuts on top of this method, just look.) If you could combine the look method with the "Yoo-hoo!" technique, you'd have a death-defying tag team. I'm sure some of you assume I'm going to explain that technique and the other half hope I am. Well, there was this kid, some years ago, who hung around the house where I was living at the time. Let me point out that he was in the fourth grade, and it came to my attention that he had beaten up two adults at the elementary school -- had taken them both on. I may have let him hang around me too long, but anyway, he started to this thing. I saw him do it to kids and I'm afraid I sort of laughed, or at least I didn't deny him, and then he expanded and started doing it to adults. This thing he started doing -- he would just turn on people and holler, "Yoo-hoo!" I've never tried to imitate him, so maybe I'd better tell you, this would infuriate people. Sometimes I'd go to the store and let him ride with me and he'd start doing this. There would be a bunch of kids playing ball and this kid would lean out the window and yell, "Yoo-hoo!" Or we'd pull up to a traffic light and there would be adults doing adult things -- waiting on buses, reading the paper, leaning on umbrellas -- and he'd go, "Yoo-hoo!" and they would really get mad. The ones who didn't get mad would suddenly trip or just -- well, I can't give a good enough blue circuit description of what the kid was doing in words. But take my word for the fact that when he did this, people would look at him like, "You s.o.b., I'd like to yank you out of that car and kill you!"
We'll assume I've conveyed enough of the sense of this to press on. I'm calling this the "Yoo-hoo!" technique, and there's not much else to say about it. First you've got to look; then you use the method. This has to be done in combination, just right. You do know, of course, I'm not talking about doing this to other people. I'm talking about dealing with those not present; those waiting on a bus, apparently separate from the one about to use this technique, in you. So first you look and realize that apparently, right now inside, there are those not "here", those not taking charge. You see them in you, then you go, "Yoo-hoo!" Just remember the look method and the Yoo-hoo! technique -- a death-defying combination. When done right, it was almost miraculous, the severe and immediate inflammation it caused in people. I wish I had filmed the kid.
Let's move on to something more specific about the city. Throughout history, there has been an idea -- theory, belief -- that what is right is whatever succeeds. A corollary to that is that total lies are acceptable, if they totally succeed. For example, it's accepted in politics that lies are ok if they fulfill their political purpose. Before we go further, let me point out that if they were total lies and they were totally accepted, no one knows they were lies. The only person who knows is the king, the president, the prime minister, or whichever individual concocted the lies. (Of course, this couldn't be connected with that old question, "What's the difference between making people believe you can do something and actually being able to do it?" and I'm glad there's no connection.)
The Real Revolutionist would know that, far beyond any notion of city politics, total lies are totally acceptable if they totally succeed. This is correct, but it has nothing to do with "out there." To everyone in the city, lies are something one person tells another; you can't have a lie without two people. That may be true in the 3-D world, but the Revolutionist knows he could go into hermit mode out in the bushes and the flow of so-called lies would not cease. What city-people call lies are just a great manifestation of E. The lying I'm describing is somewhere else. So, how could the fact that totally successful lies are totally acceptable be used?
(Of course, this can't be related to that silly question about whether making someone believe you have an ability is as good as having the ability. Those not present not only are always wrong, but they don't know what abilities you've got and, conversely, as long as you've got people not present, you'll never know. This has nothing to do with what we were talking about, but Consider who you would try to make believe you have certain abilities that you don't actually have? Not those present right now, because they know better. They're in speaking control; they're the ones asking, "Who do you think you're going to lie to and fake out?" They've already established they can't lie to themselves. So they have to lie to those not present. Which is another way of looking at why those not present are always wrong -- you lie to them. So, what if you succeed in making them believe you have abilities you don't have? What's the difference, if you make them believe it? According to political maxims back in the city, there's no difference, if you totally succeed.)
How about that other maxim, "Fake it till you make it."? "Faking it" would be the epitome of what? A lie. What if you could engage in the total fabrication -- the all-encompassing lie -- from your liar to the lies in you? What if you told yourself, "I understand everything," and you believed it? Whoever is in speaking control right now would just announce to the people, "I'm no longer in a learning position; I understand the way Life actually works." And what if they believed? Think about it. If you could perpetrate total lies that were totally successful and thus totally acceptable, not to be denied. I submit to you that this might be the most rousing verse in a Revolutionist personal anthem. You might then have a resounding, flag-waving, verse added to your own theme song.
Last week I talked about "jazz thinking," which would include not only enlarging but also improvising on your own established repertoire. You have to go past the point of merely enlarging your catalog of tunes. You have to drag in those not present and listen to them sing. Take the songs you never listened to, or the ones you heard and didn't like, and make them part of your fake book. They have to be added to the catalog; it's a matter of pushing yourself musically on a larger and larger scale. If you don't, you end up dying intellectually, and being captive of your own lie -- not a total, successful lie, but the lie that says there are parts of me not here and thus wrong. "And it's a good thing they're not present, because I don't like them."
I can tell you one thing about every part of you that you don't like: those parts are not here right now. Hey, is that wonderful or what? Find an exception. When have ever stood talking, face to face, saying, "Boy, there are parts of me we don't like," and found the one talking to be the one you don't like? Never. It's impossible.
You can't go on forever just improvising on your present repertoire; you have to push. You have to bring those not present into presence; take what apparently inside of you is "out there" and being it "in here." You have to merge the contrast, cease denying any one of them. You should always strive to think as big as possible. In a real sense, you ordinarily think real small. Once you think bigger, everything changes. Suppose you walk into a convenience store and ask, "Where's the milk?" and the clerk says, "In the dairy department, where'd you think it would be?" And ordinary person would get mad and think, "No wonder this store doesn't have any more business." But you think a little bigger and, "If I had to work in a joint like this 20 hours a day with the threat of a holdup all the time, that would probably be for me good behavior." Usually, you do not think big; you do not use the Look Method. If you do, this might go further to, "Is getting mad at this clerk going to be the beginning and end for me?" I'm not going to give any more examples, but you can think bigger and use the Look Method with anything, anything. You make a serious revolutionary error in your attempt to move along in This Thing if you are not continually striving to think bigger.
Last week mention was made that you have to "be as tough as a refried combat boot or you're not going anywhere" in This. That's true. But you've also got to be at least, at least that sensitive. Think about it. That is the only way to properly, chemically protect yourself -- assuming you have some Real, correct feel for what aspect of you deserves protecting.