Video = None on youtube
Audio = Only part 1 is available at the moment
Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0309 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = tbd
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = tbd
Transcript = See Below
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk #309 Jan 4, 1988 - 1:53
[Kyroot to :10.]
[J. never repeats himself; has never talked about the same thing twice as if from a different angle toward unchanging content. Problems, unless due to a physical chemical imbalance (i.e., physically ill) are hierarchical position problems. No exceptions. Depression is a chemical imbalance. Note the nondescript character of the Blue Circuit versus the Yellow Circuit or Red Circuit. What if the Blue Circuit is developed exclusively for the processing of hierarchical position problems? This is not a province for the Real Revolutionist; it is unfitting for a Real Revolutionist to care about pack position. The ordinary treat problems by denial, a lessening, a withdrawal of consciousness of the problem (e.g., taking a drink to escape); this too is unfitting conduct for the Real Revolutionist. Such withdrawal of consciousness is a form of chemical self-protection for the ordinary. The so-called answers to problems require a price no one can pay: giving up a part of themselves, the part which is affected by the solution. Connected with this: any dream you can specifically formulate (put into words) can not come true; it will not have the specific experiential taste you anticipated. Absolutely forget every definitively imagined solution you've ever come up with for your problems. Consider: something introduced by J. ( in the fits and starts common to his method) which you gained some significant insight from, and when later enlarged upon turns out to be opposite from your insight, makes your insight wrong --yet nevertheless the original insight (though 'wrong') benefit continues! This is a commingling of contrast which yields a super variety of new data. When some problem between two in the Group results in J. becoming involved as the third member with a mandated solution --if the problem resurfaces, it's your fault in a willful manner. ]
[Time/consciousness contrast. If consciousness is slow relative to time flow, then time seems too quick; not enough time to deal with problems. If consciousness is quick relative to time flow of events, then time slows, becomes adequate to manage problems. Quick consciousness = dominant force. Slow consciousness = submissive force. ("Vicy Versy" appears on cue from spring-loaded surface related to introduced idea of consciousness inversely proportional to time). The lessening, withholding of consciousness = submission; submission is the slowing down of consciousness. ]
[Despite the fact that in every instant case the dominant, quicker force triumphs, ultimate victory belongs to the slower/submissive force in the 4-d view. ]
[In the social structure of humanity (lower, middle, upper) it is only the adjacent levels that try to impress/dominate each other. The extremes never even attempt it. The bourgeoisie/middle class attempts to imitate the upper and dominate --force more submission --on the lower in order to enhance their sensation of upward mobility in the hierarchy. Consider the internal use of this; king ignores commoners. ]
[1:53 Epilog end 1:54
"WHERE DO I STAND?"
(MIDDLE CLASS POSITIONAL PROBLEMS)
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document: 309, January 4, 1988
Periodically I get notes from people saying, in effect, "I marvel at the fact you can continue to talk about some of the same things again and again in a way that seems new." If you believe that I've ever talked about the same thing more than once, you are wrong. If you believe I have actually described the same thing -- from one week to the next, from one month to another, or a year later -- if you think that when I come back to a subject and say, "Here's something continued from two weeks ago," all I have done is talk about the same thing again, you are missing something important.
I have never repeated myself and there is a reason why. If over the years I had simply been talking about the same things over and over, using different words, I would be dead by now and none of you would be benefiting from This. This is not a matter of repeating the same things and just putting them in new dresses and overalls.
I bring up the subject for a reason, and certainly not to defend myself, since I have not been attacked. But, once I've mentioned this, you should be able to feel the difference. Even if one night I used almost the exact words I used the week before, beyond the similarity of descriptions, you should be able to feel the difference from one week to the next. I may seem to be talking about the same subject -- I may even say, "All right, here's some more about such and such," -- but whatever is being described is not what I meant the last time you heard it.
Consider: Why would I do that; why would I ever repeat myself? What is so great that it should ever be said more than once? If anything is all that great, to say it one time was supreme and anything more would be like topping whip cream with whip cream. Why would anyone who knew anything say something twice? If you know why, save postage -- don't write me.
Some of you -- especially the newer people who may be reading transcripts or watching a videotape -- still feel that you have, without any doubt, personal problems. And when you are in the throes of these problems -- when you are these problems -- you believe one of two things: You either believe that I don't care because I'm always badmouthing "problems", or, that I refuse to admit people have problems, and for some reason am now blind to this and unaware that people do have problems. None of this is true.
Let me tell you more about problems. First, let's take "problems" down to the level where they belong. "Problems" is not a spiritual matter, and very shortly I'm going to start operating on the premise that all of you have finally escaped the molecular speed of your parent's religious beliefs. Not to attack religion, but I no longer need to use it as a map for you. I want to tell you point blank what problems are. (Remember, this is not a variation on the last time I talked about "problems", or the time before last. And I'll never repeat what I'm going to say tonight, either.)
I am going to describe the absolute, physical limits into which problems fall. They can be divided up into guess how many categories? Two. Whatever so-called problem you're having is either (1) chemical or (2) positional. If it is not chemical -- that is, if you are not ill -- then the problem is one of position. Problems may appear to be vocational, sexual, or financial. But if you are not sick -- if the Red circuit is not chemically out of balance -- what you are experiencing is a hierarchical concern. That's all. And it's time some of you developed the ability in your hearing molecules to perceive this.
If you don't think the examples I gave covered your particular problem, I'll give some more examples. When I say "sick chemically," I'm including some of what are called "psychological" or "emotional" problems. To take a common example, depression is a chemical illness. I'm not your psychiatrist, but some of you are wired up to continually think, "I am depressed about such and such," when what you have is a chemical imbalance. Go get it treated. Don't go in for talk therapy; you may as well go to a witch doctor or back to church or temple. Instead go to a medical doctor who will treat the chemical imbalance you have, if that's what you have. This Thing can ultimately have a kind of jarring effect on the nervous system and on the chemical balance that appears to be you, and This can ultimately "treat" such chemical "problems". But if, after some length of time, any of you are still having what up until recently was called an "emotional" illness -- clinical depression -- you should not think of this as a weakness. Just recognize it as a chemical imbalance. Find someone to treat it with the right drugs, and don't even think of this as taking drugs. Think of this as having your leg set when you break it, or taking insulin for diabetes. That is the first type of "problem" -- being sick chemically.
The second type of "problem" is positional. I'm talking about your apparent protection of your position in the pack, combined with your desire to rise to a higher position. This comes out as worry about money, clothes, sex appeal, cars, and so on, when all you're actually concerned about is your pack position, your place in life. That's it. If you're not sick, you're worried about your position.
In all my talk about man's operational functions, describing them as the Red, Blue and Yellow Circuits, have you noticed a certain peculiarity of the Blue Circuit? The other circuitry seems rather easily identified -- it's simple to tell a red function from a yellow function. But the blue seems hard to pinpoint. I have sometimes called the Blue Circuit a bridge between the other two, and many of you went, "Yeah, that sort of makes sense." The blue seems almost like a witness to the other two functions. You might almost conclude from observation that the Red Circuit could look after what seems to be the emotional side of life, and that the Blue Circuit only serves to tone down the private feral voices of the Red Circuit into a more civilized public voice. From one viewpoint, the red circuitry could function without the blue, and you might think, "If a person achieved a fairly good balance between the Yellow Circuit and the Red, between the rational influence and the uncivilized lower urges, he wouldn't need a Blue Circuit." Yet, it should strike you as curious that there does seem to be something unique about human emotions. Man has a so-called emotional component other animals don't have.
Listen fast, because I'm not going to elaborate on this. What if, what if, what if the blue circuitry was developed for one reason and one reason only: for the sake and the appearance of positional problems? Could you be living your life as the perfect example of the one use for the Blue Circuit? "All I do is worry about what everyone else thinks of me." Could the Blue Circuit have been produced solely so that people could worry about their position in the pack?
Back to problems. If you are not ill and you seem to have a problem, you are involved with hierarchical, positional ills. And this has gone far enough with all of you. Such concerns are despicable; they are totally unfit for a would-be Revolutionist. You continue to think, "I'm upset about my relationship with my family, with people of the opposite sex, with my job and my boss, and I can't seem to keep my finances in order. I worry about these things and it makes me sick." If I were a psychiatrist, I'd call that holy bull shit. You're not dealing with a family problem, a problem of finances or relationships. If you're not about to die from being sick or from hunger or exposure, you're just worried about your position in the pack. Humanity is wired up to believe in psychological problems, but if you believe that, you are deluded. It's not a psychological problem; it's a status problem. And that kind of problem is absolutely inappropriate for you to have. You should now find such problems despicable.
There is something else you should become aware of regarding problems. Occasionally I may walk up to you and ask, "How is your mother? How is your job?" Or else, I may just look you dead in the eye and say, "How is everything?" Apparently you and I are discussing some apparent problem in your apparent life (I went too far) -- your life. And I might make a comment, a statement, or say, "Do so and so." Then you will do what? Most often, you will deny it -- which is another way of saying, you will lower your consciousness, your awareness, of the apparent problem being discussed. It's not simply that you feel I've accused you of something and you're denying it. Look beyond that.
What normally happens is that my comments are intended to make you See something. But instead of looking, you tell me, "Wait a minute. I know everything you've ever said had some meaning and pertinence, but isn't it strange that just this once, you seem to have missed the point." You may not actually say those words. But you attempt to do the one thing a Revolutionist can't do; you attempt to withdraw, to lower your minimal conscious of the so-called problem. You are denying the problem, withdrawing from your awareness of it, as an attempted, momentary, treatment.
You may remember my saying that one of the great characteristics of alcohol which makes it popular in the city is that drinking lowers your consciousness so you can deny. People feel their problems are pressing and they drink to get relief. This works as well as it should in the city. People unknowingly treat their problems by withdrawing even minimal awareness and becoming less conscious of the problem. In the city, this seems to be a fitting treatment. But for Revolutionary purposes, it's no treatment.
Consider a variation on this. Throughout history, humanity has had an injunction against lying, expressed in religious and moral terms. Why? Consider that there is a chemical reason for this prohibition. Why else would lie detectors work? For people in the city "lying" is a word; a religious or moral concept. In reality, "lying" is a chemical problem and, to some degree, Life does not want people "lying".
Similarly, for the last few decades in the Western world people have believed that, "You should not deny your problems." Supposedly, that keeps them unmanageable, or keeps them subconscious -- like monsters hiding under the bed. This is supposed to be unhealthy. The purpose of psychology, of talking analysis, is to "bring the problems out and deal with them." Contemporary, Western people particularly, believe you can't solve a problem if you deny it. You can never recover from alcoholism if you keep saying, "I'm not a drunk." So in the city, it's an accepted fact that you can't deal with problems if you deny them. And they're right. Except I am expanding this for you. Denial includes more than saying, "No, that's not true," or, "I won't do that anymore." That's child's play. That's at the level where you realize you'll never get anywhere in This Thing as you keep drinking. We are way past that level.
I am talking about the kind of denial which approximates real evil. That kind of denial involves withdrawing your ordinary awareness -- attempting to make yourself less conscious in a particular situation than you normally would be. For a Revolutionist, that type of denial is a waste of time and a slow suicide. And it is not a treatment for any of your so-called problems. Yet it is the first kind of treatment that jumps into every city-dweller's mind when a problem arises. "What's the best thing I can do in this situation? Take on the sure, certain actions of a sleepwalker."
What happens when things are going on that you don't like, when you find yourself in an unbearably uncomfortable position? Suppose you're at a party where, as far as you can tell, everybody is your better. You walk up to bow to the hostess, and as you lean over, your pants split and you fart. What happens next? You reach for a drink or, if that's not possible, you nevertheless become literally fogged in. Consciousness becomes condensed; your eyes glaze over; you withdraw.
Ordinary people could describe this phenomenon psychologically: "I was thinking, 'How can I extricate myself from this situation? I'm so embarrassed, how can I make up for this?'" I'm describing something that happens chemically, not psychologically. I'm describing a kind of chemical protection. Alcohol will do this, but you don't need a drink to have this happen. At the ordinary level, this withdrawal could be seen as .paa sort of necessary self-protection. But withdrawal is no real treatment and you cannot use it as one.
An ordinary man may have tried for months, even spent half of his salary to bribe his way into that important party. He's trying to move up in the pack, like a dog or a rat (and there's nothing wrong with that, if that's all you're going to be) but then, in just a split-second, he blows it -- and then he withdraws. This is an extreme example of something you can observe daily. The phone rings and the first voice that starts talking in your consciousness says, "It's your mother." And you lower your ordinary awareness. Somehow, you just know your mother is calling, and that changes the way you chemically feel. You can see it all coming -- guilt, arguments -- and in a real sense, before you even answer the phone, you have become less conscious. In the city, this is habitual, a form of self-protection similar to the reflex action of a porcupine shooting out quills. In the city, the reaction is explained psychologically: "She calls me too much. She's always wanting to argue about such and such. I can't take it, the pressure's too great." So in a sense, withdrawal is a form of treatment. But for you, it's no treatment at all.
You cannot treat so-called problems with that kind of chemical denial and withdrawal of consciousness or you will never even see the "problem". When confronted with a close description of their problem, city people will always respond, "No, that's not the real problem, that's not exactly what's going on." Denial is the chemical response of people in the city; they are built that way. But if you allow yourself to chemically, at the cellular level, deny anything about your so-called problem, you're attempting to treat the difficulty with no treatment at all. You're lowering even your normal, routine perception of life; trying to solve the problem by withholding from it even the ordinary level of consciousness.
Suppose you went to a doctor and said, "Treat me for so and so." And he says, "Well, the first thing we have to do is take a blood sample." You say, "Anything but that!" They have to take a blood sample or they can't begin to treat you -- and you withhold your blood.
Here's a diagnosis: "How did I get this problem?" You were born. "Am I sick?" No, you're not sick. "Then what is it?" I told you what it is. If you're not chemically sick, you're worried about your position. That's it.
Here is something else related to problems that you have never heard. All "answers" or "solutions" to human problems have an unrecognized price no one is prepared to pay. Even those apparently begging for a solution are not prepared to pay a price so dear, so unexpected, that it normally goes unrecognized. The payment demanded is a piece of yourself. You have to pay with a piece of what you are; you must give up the aspect of you that seems to have been affected by the solution. Notice the subtle beauty of this, at least verbally. Hearing this, everybody in the city would think, "What you're saying is, the answer seems to solve the problem. You're pointing out the obvious." There is a reason why change seems impossible at city level. The price an ordinary person would have to pay if they found a "solution" to their "problem" is that piece of themselves they will be giving up if, indeed, they accept this solution or this answer as workable. And nobody is prepared to pay that.
Another interesting aspect to this is that any dream, including any apparent solution to some problem, that you can specifically formulate cannot come true. That is a chemical fact, an unknown law of physics. This is why no one in the city is ever satisfied when they achieve their goals. You see an old school friend and say, "Hey, did you ever get elected to the city council?" "Yeah." "I remember, you said if you could just get into public office you'd be happy." "Yeah, I know, but it's just a job."
"Did you save up enough to buy that Ferrari!? Is that yours I saw you drive up in?" "Yeah." And the guy is suddenly faced with the fact that, "I used to dream of owning the world's greatest car and now I don't notice it except for buying the gas and insurance."
There is not some plot to keep people from being happy. It's just that any dream, any solution or wish you can specifically formulate will not come true. Even if you do get the car or the job or become rich and famous -- even if you apparently achieve your dream -- it will not be what you thought it was. Any dream you can put into words cannot be. Even if it does come to pass, what happens will not be what you expect.
Suppose your dream is to make a million dollars. "If I had a million, I'd put it in money markets and go off on vacation. All my problems would be solved and you'd never see me again..." That can never be. It's not that you can't get a million dollars, but the specific formulation of the dream -- that if such and such came to pass then my problems, the problem in my life would be solved -- can never come to pass.
The fact that dreams cannot come true is not bad news. To those who can Hear, that's great news. For one thing, you can forget every dream you have about the solution to your problems. Any dream you have about the answer can never happen. If a genie shows up tomorrow and says to you, "Just make a wish. What do you want, I owe you one?" and you can specifically formulate a request, whatever you dream up, I give you my word, will never be. It is impossible or you could not have formulated it. I'm not telling you the dream is difficult to come by -- it's impossible. But don't be discouraged. You should think, "What a relief!!"
Have any of you considered the possible purpose of my bringing up subjects, then dropping them, then apparently coming back to the same topic weeks or months later? Because of this time lag, you have the possibility of coming up with your own view of whatever was discussed. Then, lo and behold, weeks or months later, I bring up the subject and, very likely, what I say will be in direct conflict with what you've been thinking about, based on my original description. Yet, along with the realization that what I'm saying is the apparent opposite of what you've been thinking, you'll understand, "I really got something out of what I was considering." Seemingly, I'm saying just the opposite of what you learned from that. I gave you a map, you went off with it in one direction, then I came back and said, "This map really goes the opposite way." What kind of map is that? Consider that the co-mingling of the two views -- of the new, apparently conflicting sides -- is what will produce in you an absolutely new personal form of fresh data.
I want to expand on the idea of contrast in relation to time. Time contrast operates like this: If your sense of Yellow Circuit awareness -- what city people would call consciousness -- is slow in contrast to time, then in that situation, at that juncture, time will seem to be going fast. When your awareness is slow, that is a form of submission. And in that instance, time may even seem too fast. If, on the contrary, your consciousness is quick in contrast to the apparent flow of time, it is as though time has become slower than consciousness. Time seems to become manageable, or at least tolerable.
In the first situation, you are withdrawing; you are denying in some chemical sense; you're not taking responsibility. There are many names for this in the city: stress, pressure. People have the sensation that "things are moving too fast, I can't handle this input overload. Everyone's asking too much of me." What is actually occurring is another form of contrast -- time contrast. The "quick" (time or consciousness) would be comparable, relatively speaking, to the dominant force; the "slow" (time of consciousness) would be comparable to the submissive force. This is another way of describing the eternal dance between forces; that one of quicker and one of slower. Using this description, you could say that either time is going to dominate the events of your life and your awareness, or vice versa.
The fact that time sense seems to be personal and changeable is no great secret. There is a big difference for everyone between waiting for Christmas and waiting to have dental work. Time changes. But Consider that time cannot change alone. This is a chemical phenomenon involving at least two elements. Time can only change in contrast to something. When time seems too fast, your consciousness has slowed. This is a form of submission; for whatever reasons, you are withholding part of your consciousness and consciousness slows down.
Whenever you deny what's going on -- as in the case where you made a fool of yourself at the important party -- you pull consciousness in, become less aware of the environment, slow down your awareness in relation to time. You're involved in a chemical protective mechanism, but the end result is that the environment seems to be moving even faster, and things apparently get worse. You're embarrassed or hurt or scared, you try to hide, and you end up feeling, "If things would only slow down a minute, I could pull myself together." Things get worse, relatively speaking, the slower your consciousness is -- the more submissive and dull awareness is -- in contrast to time. In such situations, time does move faster for you whenever you withdraw your perception.
Conversely, all of you can remember instances where you were in an enriched state of being conscious, being exceptionally aware of everything going on. In that state it's as though time slows down. Under optimal conditions, time may even seem to stop. You feel like you've been riding a train of time and suddenly you stopped and looked around at the countryside. The wind is still blowing, people are still moving. But as far as the events of your life are concerned, compared to your heightened awareness, it's as though you can tell everybody, "Hey, sort of hold on until I get back to you." You can step out of the scene -- and step back again -- and be right where you were. Your perception has changed and time has changed in contrast to, relative to, the quickness of your perception.
Along these lines, here's a little something to Consider. What does Life mean by throwing out stories where the slower/submissive ultimately wins over the faster/dominant, after the slower one initially appears to lose? Think about such stories as "The Tortoise and the Hare," the motto of which is, "If you persevere, you will win." What kind of moral is that? A turtle can outrun a rabbit -- if he shoots the rabbit. The slower loses the battle to the quicker -- that's expected. But I suggest that if you could expand your awareness, if you had 4-D time consciousness, you would see that often what appears to be a loss -- a losing force, the losing side -- was the ultimate winner. And that force may have seemed, in 3-D city sight, destined to lose. I'll leave this with you.
Let's go back to our original discussion about hierarchical concerns in the social structure of humanity. There's a curious phenomenon I want to point out to you: Given the tripartite division of humanity into lower, middle and upper classes, only the real extremes -- the real lower class and the real upper class -- never try to impress one another. Only these extreme positions in the hierarchy are clear. If a poor peasant is called before the King, nothing he can do will change the situation. He can borrow his brother's suit, take diction lessons and learn to bow, but My Fair Lady notwithstanding, no one from the real lower class will ever impress somebody from the upper class. They won't even try. Likewise, a truly rich man would never drive his limousine into the ghetto, get out of the car and ask someone on the street, "Do you know who I am?" He doesn't have to try to impress lower class people; his mere existence impresses them.
The real extremes never try to impress one another. That would be impossible and they simply do not. But for almost everyone else in the bell curve -- for the great middle class, the bourgeoisie -- it is a different story. Everyone else is continually involved in positional problems, trying to impress up or down. I'm not talking sociology or politics. People in the city have two problems which seem to motivate them: actual illness, and concern about their position. More than 90% of the people on this planet are constantly concerned with imitating those above them and making those below become more submissive. I'm not talking about concern over making money to buy food and shelter -- the necessities of survival -- but a continual "problem" of "how to move up," "how to impress," "how to improve my position." Consider, is that a fitting concern?
Whatever it's called -- getting more education, buying a new car, learning to talk without an accent -- the primary motivation driving almost all of humanity is the desire to impress those above and below them, to improve their pack position. Notice that you can almost simultaneously be both dominant and submissive in this attempt to impress: an upper-class person comes into the 7-ll store at midnight looking for chocolate milk and it's, "Yes, sir! Right over here sir!" while the clerk's yelling at the stock boy, "Get that milk or you're finished!" People in the city are simultaneously trying to imitate rats higher up the ladder and impress those below. Thus, everyone's desire to drive a new Ferrari -- and to drive it over to the old neighborhood.
Could any of you find a possible use for this information internally? Only the middle class -- the tofu and grits of the city, the great stabilizing influence that holds Life together -- is concerned with it's position. If you are part of the middle class, you will be driven the rest of your life by the problem of, "Where do I stand?"