Jan Cox Talk 0314

Flaws Weave The Visible Fabric

Audio = Stream from the bars below in two parts.  The first 11 minutes of the audio stream contains  Kyroots that are not on the video.

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0314 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = Gallery
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = See Below  #142 and #143
Transcript = See Below

Diagram 142 video grab

Diagram 142 video grab

Diagram #143 video grab

Diagram #143 video grab


Summary by TK

Jan Cox Talk #314 ** Jan 21, 1988 ** - 1:48 

  [Kyroot reading to :11. ]
  [Comment re: translating (e.g., 'channeling), note that the material so treated is never anything new, needs no translation and thus no translator. The necessity of flaw/contrast. Example given of a critic's review of a Sci-Fi novel where time flow is reversed and characters become aware of it and act plot accordingly. Critic's point is that the novel is flawed because characters couldn't have an awareness of reversal because their consciousness would have had to be reversed also, yet continued to flow forward normally. What isn't seen by critic, along with everybody else is that if there were no flaw in the story there would be no story; nothing would be noticeable without a flaw such as the novel contains. If Life perfected itself to flawlessness it would become invisible to itself. The maxim "know thyself" is assumed to be the supreme end of increased consciousness and involving a process of gradual or abrupt perfecting of all personal flaws. But the final result of such would be invisibility --'to miss the whole point"; thus self knowledge would be impossible. The more clear cut and enduring a flaw in any process seems, the less is the consciousness of those who continue to notice and criticize it. The more rational and reasonable and valid seems to be the criticism of some flaw, the less do those who hold such position understand about what is actually going on. Such flaws are not going to go away in spite of the near-majority criticism and there is a reason for it to operate so. ]
  [To hear your own cellular voices is to render external voices/events (almost) moot. Your reaction to your cellular voice is more determining than the voices/events external supposed 'causing' such reaction. All metabolic processes are cellular level ones. If you could control cellular boundaries you could effect your own growth by controlling the materials metabolized; effect a greater synthesis at expense of disintegration. ]
  [Discovery of a 'new force': "The insulting force"; a new 'entity'. ]
  [Life as game. Definition of game: activity comprised of stated aim/purpose/goal followed by stated proscription/prohibition of certain goal oriented behavior (does this sound like the human condition or what?). In the human game the goal is 'change' but the rules/prohibitions are vague, shifting to the degree that the goal is impossible of achievement. The cellular level goal is to find and expand energy; this is the same as Life's goal. The ultimate definition of a game where the goal is impossible: rules = game. The rules are limitations just like a fence is the de-limitation of a field. This is the nature of consciousness. In the example of chess, man is a pawn while Life has all other pieces and attacks from any and all sides. ]
  [There is hardly any time in life for subtlety. Life is too short to be subtle. Yet everybody is busy being subtle, making no overt move, no definitive change. ]
  [The "exacto lips method": make your lips say what your tongue misspeaks; make the lips the watchdogs of correct speech. The second order of this: correct errors of thinking. ]
  [Any harboring of hostility precludes the vantage point required to criticize. To criticize anything requires 'squatting' to look at it, which necessarily reduces you to its level. The critic automatically has no superior vantage point. ]
  [If you attempt Revolutionary change and run up against a brick wall where no further profit is forthcoming from that particular change activity, take a 'comma break'. Turn away, don't suffer over it. 



Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document:  314, January 21, 1988

     I often remind you of the particular difficulty of trying to translate This information from the 4th dimension down into a 3-D reality that you can listen to.  It is like a religious prophet coming down from the mountain saying God struck him with lightning and gave him a message to deliver; the message is something like, "Be good, brush your teeth, God is love."  I came across a beautiful example of this where a critic was critiquing a science fiction story about "time reversal."  He called the story fatally flawed because the people in the story were aware that time was reversed; they realized that dead people were coming out of their graves younger, cigarette butts were growing back into cigarettes, etc.  He complained that the people's awareness was still going forward in time and they had simply learned to plan for the factor of time reversal.  The critic felt the whole process of causes should have been reversed too so that the motion reversal would not be operating in isolation such that the characters could be aware of it.

     But now note this:  were it not for the "flaw," were it not for the characters being aware of the time reversal, the reader would not be aware of it either.  Nobody would get the punch line of the story.  There is the flaw in the critic's consciousness, and there is the flaw in human consciousness -- the flaw of seeing contradictions.  If you wrote a story with a punch line that the characters weren't aware of, then nobody would be aware of it.  It would just be a dull story with no point.  But also note:  you could still call such a story "Time Reversal."  You would read the story and it would simply be that one person lit a cigarette, smoked it, put it out and some fruit fell off the tree; then his best friend died and they buried him -- end of story.

     Were it not for a constant, inevitable flaw everywhere, could consciousness see anything?  Or would it be like the story called "Time Reversal."  You would read the story and then say, "It is as though the story were invisible, and I absolutely missed the point."  Were it not for the so-called flaw, would not everything you look at become, as it were, invisible?

     Let's dig into this further.  Is it possible that Life is feeding people like me This kind of information for the purpose of perfecting itself?  Well, that sounds reasonable so far, doesn't it?  But what if Life could perfect itself...could it become sans flaws?  Might Life then become invisible to itself?  Humanity believes that the source of This kind of activity, of all spiritual, weird activity, aerobics, natural foods, etc., is Life trying to perfect itself.  Can you see that if you could undergo an abrupt change and be rid of all your flaws you might become invisible to you?  If you were flawless might you look upon yourself, upon your consciousness, and find you'd missed the whole point?

     Let's push it just a little further.  There's another aim besides attaining perfection that humanity has pursued for thousands of years:  it is to create a level or form of super-consciousness of oneself.  Humanity has searched for this both in the Yellow Circuit realms of "know thyself" and in the more passionate Blue Circuit areas of trying to be more conscious.  Presumably, this knowledge of oneself, if that is the payoff, has to come about after a cleaning up of one's flaws, right?  But if you did away with your flaws by yourself, you would have to become less conscious of yourself.  The only way you can write a viable story is to make one of your characters see something wrong.  If you managed to shed all your flaws, then instead of becoming superconscious of yourself, you might become a living phenomenon of, "I missed the whole point."  "The story makes no sense.  I am not superconscious of the point; I can't even conceive of what the point is."

     This is a good place to mention some examples apparently "out there" because it is something that goes on continually and people miss it on a larger scale.  The more clear cut the flaw seems to be in some apparently external situation in contemporary history, the more certain it would be that the situation is going to continue "a tempo" for a while in the direction that it's going.  Let me give you an example.  Large segments of the population in modern countries find fault with their government saying, "We have to fight a war with that other country or they will be on our doorstep and we'll be pulled into an even bigger war."  A large faction will rise up and say, "That's hogwash.  This war is 10,000 miles away.  That's all foolishness."  But see how the government will just continue with its war.  Notice that however reasonable the protest, the government's actions aren't really expected to change.  Then try and remember my hints and suggestions about collusions.

     You as yet have no knowledge or even a good suspicion about the nexus of things.  You do not in any way know how things actually work, because the more clear cut, rationally, and logically something going on in the world can be critiqued, the more that thing usually seems destined to roll right along.  You need to learn how to stand over in E's back yard somewhere and realize that you do not understand how things work.  Of course an ordinary person could blame it on all kinds of things; on his imagination of some 3-D banking collusion, some secret power structure running the world, etc.  But with a little glass of white wine, later after the protest demonstration he might say, "I've got to admit I'm not sure that anybody in our lifetime's gonna stop them ramrodding atomic energy down our throats for peacetime use."  And yet they feel the criticism is well-founded.

     Let's change the subject.  If you can hear your cellular voices, then you can personally feel without further debate what is the actual non-event nature of events.  Again, cellular voices could be described as your own internal, natural chemical reaction to your perceptions -- it's behind the fact that what seems to happen to you in the world of events is almost of no consequence.  Now I can't verbally convince you that what happens out there is of no consequence to you.  But you can literally feel it, and hear it.  If you can continually hear and feel your cellular voice it would be the other side of a coin, in a sense, from the world's voice, but you can hear, and physically feel it's like the difference between very distant piercing sounds and sounds that are almost mink-lined.  The cellular sounds are vague, gooey, very personal.  They're the ones that talk to you, and you can feel it as soon as you hear about an event out there that affects you directly, for example, when you hear that so and so died and it almost knocks you down.

     If you listened right when the words were being said, you'd notice that the actual sound, the words that enter your ear are not really what you hear.  They are almost of no consequence.  Your cellular voices immediately speak to you about the event, and once you begin to hear the difference there is no further discussion, there is no possibility that the two are the same.  When cellular voices suddenly hear some external news and then speak to you from inside and you see that it's what they say that is of real consequence to you, then you see the reality behind the persistent old ideas that, "It doesn't matter as much what happens out there as it does your reaction to it."  Such ideas only last when there is a reality to them individually.  Only a few people can truly discover that.  The description absolutely breaks down in the 3-D world because I am attempting to say one thing while apparently saying just the opposite.  To hear that somebody died is certainly of consequence, but the voice of Life telling you that in the form of the so-called event itself is not what affects you.  How long has humanity been trying to explain why the same event seems to affect two interested parties in such diverse ways?  I am telling you it is not the event speaking to people individually, it's their cellular voice reacting.

     A real description of Man could describe him as a state with notoriously unsecured borders.  Man cannot prevent other people or the weather from doing what they do, or reacting to him the way they do.  What if you had that knowledge and could affect some control over your own borders?  Could you see how it would then be possible on a basic level to affect and direct your own growth by what you allowed across your borders, and what you allowed your own cellular level to metabolize?  What it metabolizes is going to affect you -- in fact it is you.  Remember:  brains are complex combinations of tissues and the tissues are complex combinations of cells.  If you are metabolizing energy, which you are, it is done first at a cellular level, then into tissues, and then into organs and then into whole systems.  At the present stage of human development, there are cellular systems that believe they are functioning outside this pattern; that they can discuss cellular systems and therefore they must be superior to them and separate from them, or they wouldn't be able to see them.  There is some validity to that -- there is a 3-D hierarchy in which the brain can talk about the metabolic processes of a digestive system, but it couldn't take over the workings of it.  No matter how you attempt to cut it, you are still dealing entirely with metabolic processes.

     The use of energy throughout the system known as Man occurs at the cellular level, so if you had any control over your borders, what would you choose to metabolize?  If you had that kind of control, would you then have some direct control over what is normally, laughingly, loosely referred to as "change and growth"?  Let's use the standard biological description for growth and say it is the degree of synthesis, or building up, of more complex molecular structures as opposed to the degree of degradation or tearing down of larger molecular structures into smaller, simpler ones.  The question of growth in any particular cell is whether it is engaged in synthesis or degradation.  There's your answer.  Forget about sins and goodness and all of that.  Simply ask yourself, "Am I tearing down more complex structures into simpler ones or vice versa?"  There is the final judgement day.

     I would like to briefly introduce the discovery of a new entity tonight, "The Insulting Force."  What could be its possible purpose and where did it come from?

     Now I want to give you the description, definition and revolutionary use of "games."  To constitute a game, you must have a purpose or aim and immediately follow that with a set of rules or prohibitions.  These rules forbid certain actions that are oriented toward the goal.  It actually wouldn't be a game if the goals were not coupled with prohibitions against certain goal-oriented actions.  Does that sound at all familiar regarding the human condition?  The goal of the human game is to change -- no matter how you describe it, no matter what language you speak whether metaphysical or not.  The goal of everyone's game is to change.  But Life immediately established prohibitions about what a man might do to actually change.  These prohibitions are vague, unstated, uncertain, shifting ones that make the goal impossible.  It's the kind of game that would give the Parker brothers headaches.

     In the city there is nothing you can add to those two facets of a game that is pertinent by itself.  Without both of those, nobody could understand a game and no one would play.  The molecular goal in the game of Life is to find and to expend energy.  In the case of Man it is not just survival of the observable organism.  Life's overall use of energy in metabolism through man is synthesis; that is, the building up of more complex molecular structures -- Life's own growth.  Man believes the goal is to change; to whittle away some of his flaws.  But it is no game until you have the rules, the prohibitions, and the ones that Life has placed in the game of Man range from being impossible to follow to being too vague and changeable to understand.  Under ordinary circumstances the prohibitions absolutely forbid that anyone ever accomplish the goal.  Now that is a Real GAME.  Nobody could ever invent it; it would defy the patent office.  It is a game that sets Man up as the dreamed-of perpetual motion machine.  If the goal, the checkmate, were ever achieved, the game would stop.  The game cannot be "won" or the metabolism in the direction of synthesis (growth) would reverse itself.

     Are any of you sharp enough to See that the rules of a game are actually the game?  If you could See that and make it an Operational Directive, then you would have to live differently from now on.  You would abandon even the cellular outcry, "Hey, remember the goal is to change!"  All you have to address is the prohibitions because that's the game -- you're not ever going to get the goal.  Another brilliant piece of misdirection, wouldn't you say?

     I once described how an ordinary human intellect uses the confines/contrast between what it knows and what it doesn't know as a basis for operation.  But it can't conceive of the fact that it can't think the unthinkable, because the very system is constructed from its own limits, and hasn't the machinery to see beyond them.  You cannot educate yourself past a certain point because you're fenced in by the fence that is you and it won't move.  The fence is the part you are talking to.  I could describe consciousness as electricity running in a fence and likewise the game is not something with prohibitions and rules, rather the rules are the game.  Take away the rules and what have you got?  I could say the freedom (goal) that people could actually verbalize a desire for would be to move up in status, to dominate those who now dominate them, to have more money.  In other words, people are always trying to find a way to cheat the game, to get rid of their restrictions by breaking the rules.  Now that may apparently work at a chess table or with your friends or in Las Vegas, but I'm asking if you can see the idea of cheating at Life, of believing, "Were it not for the rules it would be an easy leap from here to being without flaws, to me being able to change."

     As long as I am talking about games, let me suggest this to you as an opportunity to put some 4-D information into a 3-D reality.  You could look upon Man as a player in a chess game.  You could picture him as only playing with pawns.  (A pawn can go forward and backward, but it's one move at a time in a straight line.)  But Life has every possible piece and it is always making surprise moves on Man, coming at him from many directions, and often from the far corner of the board.  Does this sound like life in the city?  And yet people are always shaking their fists at Life, trying to plead, whine, threaten and convince Life to do what they want it to.  They display the assurance, power and insight of a sleep walking pawn.  And Life owns every possible piece on the chess board.

     Try and see this dimensionally.  It is not only Life being able to work in the 3-D reality of the chess board with experience, information, and possibilities.  What I am pointing to is to make you look somewhere you wouldn't ordinarily imagine, and then take a right angle from that into 3-D allegories that are almost 3.5-dimensional.  Whenever it wants to, it will attack you from any direction.  That's not as bad as people would think, because it still makes 3-D sense; it doesn't really force you into the fourth dimension.  But now visualize what's actually going on four-dimensionally (because Life is acting on you not just three-dimensionally with the information, experiences, and possibilities people are normally aware of in the 3-D chess board).  Try to stretch your brain and See a right angle to all that.  Don't just picture it, "Somewhere I wouldn't ordinarily imagine," -- it is that, but then it's got to be a at a right angle from that.  You have to go somewhere there's no description for because that's where the information is coming from, that's closer to the reality of how Life is working.  What you experience down at the chess board level are 3-D allegories which barely make it to 3.2 dimensions.

     There is hardly enough time in life to be very subtle.  I remember this when I get correspondence from people in other cities who have read the books or seen a few tapes and they believe that I am using subtle tricks and metaphors.  They believe that I don't literally mean what I say, but that I am weaving allegories, and speaking figuratively.  Once someone got a bad audio tape of a meeting and misunderstood my mention of AMv12 (the chemical substance which is This in the blood), as saying "vitamin B-12."  They thought I meant we needed vitamin B-12 injections.  I wrote back that they must have gotten a bad tape and their next response was, "Ah, I understand it was a subtle trick on your part, to get me to see something beyond both of those two substances."

     Another example of how you can't be very subtle with This:  people try to milk great importance and complex intention out of some simple ad hoc action taken by their holy man.  When Budda just didn't feel like putting cream in his coffee one morning, or Jesus lost his temper at someone, it prompted history books to publish explanations and long analyses about the subtle meanings of the actions.  It is built into the human wiring system to want to believe in hidden meanings, in underlying intentions.  And a short step it is from there to supposed intentional collusions in the 3-D world.  (I like the notion that you believe I could set up and control a complex misdirection in order to put a point across in time-delayed fashion.)

     Now, as always, Look at how you think you treat yourself in many cases.  Notice how you do business with your own internal guru, how you keep issues hung up in TOA while you burrow in your little brain to explore all the subtleties of possible action.  All of you treat yourself very subtly when it comes to Real Action.  You stall off action by using up the energy of the impulse in repeating tentative and weak considerations.  I have yet to have any of you people come to me and say, "I have taken some drastic action along what seems to be a proper code of conduct for me and uh, it's almost killed me.  Do you think I"ve overdone it?"  On the other hand, at least you've become less inclined to come to me with subtle questions and problems.  I've about got you trained to hide it with, "Should I do so and so?  Yes, or no?"  Of course, that doesn't mean you're going to do it, and I hate to waste my time and energy, but we have cut way down on you wishing you could spend hours talking to me in private about your personal problems and thoughts.  Those of you who can really See something are starting to realize that the answer to all of it is always the same:  that answer is you, and what is there for you to ask about you that is subtle?  The only non-subtle question is:  "Doctor what can I do, it hurts when I do this."  "Well, how about just stop it?"

     Something else -- something I've been trying to get to for a long time:  it's called the Exacto Lip Method.  Remember the curio fictitious code of Revolutionary conduct saying, "Do not say, I cannot, say I will not, or I will not try."  The Exacto Lips Method is to make your lips correct the upcoming attempted misspeaks of your tongue.  (We're talking about the cellular level again, about reality -- I'm not just being funny.)  Your tongue is continually about to misspeak, to say, "Well, I'd love to, but I simply can't."  Exacto Lips Method is:  Don't play with your tongue, don't try to rehabilitate or reform your tongue.  Jump up to another level, or at least over to another place.  Make your lips correct it.  Make your lips say what your tongue seems incapable of saying at that moment.  Your tongue's too old, too set in its ways.  Why be subtle?  Don't try to reason with your tongue.  Your lips are somewhat virgin areas because they haven't been used for this purpose before.  You've got to turn your lips into Revolutionary spokesmen and watchdogs.  It must step directly to the point.  And it is non-fail.  Once you put your lips into Revolutionary use, they'll never be mistaken or confused.  Your lips will never say, "Wait a minute, how exactly is my tongue wrong?  If indeed it's wrong this time."  For those that undertake it, it is an immediate bypass of all the mind's attempted forms of misthink.  But I'll let you take that off on your own.

     Tonight I want to point out something specifically that I've used as a kind of reference point or springboard many times talking about the arts, people's behavior, etc.  I want you to look at what would appear to be mental activity, the thoughts, opinions and theories people have and Hear this:  as long as you are harboring any animosity toward a thing or a process, you absolutely physically, literally and scientifically lack the proper vantage point to study it.  This sounds like weirdness and allegory and that's because it is weird, so be careful.  Here is how weird it is:  to criticize anything you have to bend over.  You have to get down to a lower level, or it could not be open to your criticism.  You have got to appear to yourself to be superior to the thing or it would be up to your specifications and you would not be criticizing it.  Once you bend over to criticize, you're at the same level as what you think you're criticizing.  Then all of your so-called ability, position, your apparent right and duty to criticize, if there were such a thing, is shot to where?  To hell.  It's gone.  You are physically at the same level as what you were attempting to criticize.

     The 4-D flaw that cannot be seen and cannot be logically proved in the lateral world to ordinary people is the flaw of hostility, of righteous indignation.  Humanity, in the city, believes you can learn from that; that the primary fuel of a true artist is indignation.  In the city they'll point to the artists of history, or to spiritual teachers, and claim that all the great movements of thought were based upon indignation.  Somebody somewhere looked upon life in general or upon their life in that place and said, "This is not right."  And their righteous wrath and intellectual ire was raised to such a degree that a work of art was produced -- but that's not art.  It's on the same level as what it was criticizing.  I don't mean that it is not graphically attractive, or pleasant to listen to, but to say that it's art, to say that it's superior to what it is criticizing -- that is merely 3-D truth.  It is not Correct, because the artist or critic has squatted down.  It's not spiritual, it's not religious.  It's a fact.

     One final thing I want to bring up that concerns any of you who are involved in some personal attempt in connection with This to do something unnatural to you, whether it is changing jobs, undertaking a new skill, or changing your social life outside the group.  You know that the time can come when you feel you are up against a brick wall.  When you get that feeling, take a comma break.  It is not desertion from duty and it is not any form of weakness.  Just temporarily turn away.  You have got whatever you could out of it for the time being.  To continue further is just a form of slow torture that's unprofitable.  I'll leave the decision to you, but if you are there, and you feel what I'm saying about reaching a brick wall and you just don't seem to be getting anything more from it, then turn away from it.  You may not ever have to go back, but either way, look at it as temporary, as a comma.  You might go back, but there comes a time in those things when there are only two possibilities.  One is that you've got every possible piece of benefit, knowledge and new information you can, and when that's so, you won't feel that it's a brick wall.  The other would be that the whole thing may disappear like "I missed the point," that is, you have eaten it and now you can no longer try to be subtle about your efforts.  So don't keep standing there when you are pushing against a brick wall.  There is nothing to feel guilty about, there is no excuse to make, and nothing to suffer over.  There is no benefit in doing something which is of no benefit.  It does not matter that it may have started out based upon a sound Revolutionary principle of doing something that you would not have ordinarily done.  As soon as you feel that, "I am just up against a brick wall," do not try and rationalize it and don't feel guilty, just turn away.  If you Understood enough to undertake something really new and then this really new activity begins to feel as though it's a brick wall, turn away from it.