Jan Cox Talk 0347

Characteristics, The Common Denominator

Audio = Stream from the bar below

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0347 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = tbd
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below


Summary by TK

Jan Cox Talk # 347 May 30, 1988 - 1:38 

  [Question: what's the primary characteristic of anything existing? Characteristics! (characteristics = obvious). The Real Revolutionist seeks to become sans characteristics. Man's job is to fight/debate over these characteristics; decide whether 'true or false'. To the Real Revolutionist, characteristics are moot, they can't be changed without destroying the thing itself -—there is no place to put undesirable characteristics. The Real Revolutionist with no characteristics is internally unlived-in. Recruits want to have more characteristics. ]
  [He who travels alone travels when he wishes. With a partner he must wait until the other is also ready. Everybody travels with another. ]
  [The Real Revolutionist must act in a heroic manner for himself—not wait for external heroes to show the way; act out his own heroic image. ]
  [Ignore the feeling of 'losing control' in This Thing: This Thing is not about losing control. ]
  [There has never been a mention of Yellow Circuit reward in the afterlife--only Red Circuit and Blue Circuit reward in the promisings of religion. Why is this? J. makes up new data like the preceding --from out of nowhere. ]
  [Those who can, do; those who can't, don’t --and only those who do, know there is no difference. ]
  [Miraculous faith healing—cure thru mind power—undeniably exists, but note that nobody attempts same. Ordinary people are not insistent on living; the Real Revolutionist exercises perfected hatred of death. ]
  [Romance is not a suitable hobby for the Real Revolutionist (love is a hurting thing type romance). ]
  [1:00 Paradigm presents (RH, LO, KG, JMe) ]
  [1:38 end 


Transcript

CHARACTERISTICS, THE COMMON DENOMINATOR

Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document:  347, May 30, 1988

     Question:  What is the primary characteristic of anything that exists?  Answer:  The primary characteristic is that it has characteristics.  Man cannot be conscious of anything unless it has characteristics.  The world is full of discussions about characteristics -- of humans, philosophies, ideas, attitudes, history and religions.  Is such and such idea good?  Is that person evil?  Is so and so intelligent?  The common denominator of everything man can perceive is that it has characteristics.  If you can think of something then it has characteristics -- whether you like it, use it, laugh at it, grow tired of it or lose it.

     You cannot think of anything without it having obvious characteristics.  Just because the particulars of the characteristics are continually debated by people -- so and so is the truth, that is a lie, this is good, that qualifies as evil by our standards -- such debate is not the point.  The point is they have characteristics.  That's the only point.  Without characteristics they do not exist; they cannot exist.  Without characteristics they could not have filtered down to be seen in the 3-D world.  From a certain view outside the 3-D City limits, someone attempting to do This is attempting to become a person without characteristics.

     You must see at the bare level that you can't be conscious of anything, unless it has characteristics.  From a Revolutionary view, any debate on the truth or falseness of those characteristics is irrelevant.  Within the City, where characteristics seem very, very important, it is part of humanity's job to endlessly debate, if not fight over, any and all characteristics.  To the Revolutionist all such debates are moot.

     In the City there is another uninvestigated belief regarding characteristics:  you can change the characteristics of a thing and still have the thing itself.  No one is wired up to see that the characteristics themselves ARE the thing -- to try to change the characteristics would be a version of the old joke that the operation was a success but the patient died.  You think that were it not for that person's temper he or she would be quite likeable.  Without the characteristics you would not have the person.  Nothing could be defined, nothing could be seen, without characteristics, yet everyone believes that if you could simply remove certain characteristics from someone, he or she would change for the better.  If you could change those characteristics what would happen?  It would be like taking a fox skin and turning it inside out -- characteristics would seem to pop up somewhere else.  "Well, my mother's changed and I like her a lot more.  But suddenly my father's driving me nuts."  Characteristics don't just go away.  You can't sand them down.  Doctor Scholls doesn't make any ointments you can rub against characteristics so they'll just disappear overnight like an inflamed corn.

     Recently I mentioned that a person attempting to do This should literally (and more so) have their residence look as if it was not even lived in.  That you should willfully pick up after yourself and exist in such a way that you left no trail.  Try to see the connection between this and the idea of attempting to become a person with no characteristics -- internally, in a certain way, it's almost as though you're not lived in.

     The initial approach of most people attracted to This is based on the dreams and expectations of getting more what?  More characteristics.  "I'll become more interesting, develop new and powerful abilities.  Maybe I'll be able to read minds and listen to the radio without a tuner.  I would light up every room I walk into like a 100 watt bulb.  People would know that they were in the presence of someone with mucho characteristics -- someone of great depth and complexity."  Everyone believes, without question, that if they can in some way evolve, it would produce within them greater and more astounding characteristics.  What if it's more like you become a house that appears almost unlived in?  You know somebody's there, you can tell by the magazines on the coffee table and stuff, but it looks as though nobody lives there.  It's as if someone fixed it up, then left and didn't come back; or if they did come back you don't ever quite seem to catch them because they keep straightening it up just as it was.  What if you become a house that is almost not lived in?

     Here's another one for you to consider.  There's a saying that goes something like this:  "He who goes alone can travel whenever he wishes, but he who travels with another must wait until the other is ready to go."  Can anybody see any possible significance to that and the Revolutionist and his Partnership?  The saying, taken at City level, is true.  Even if you were ready you might have to wait hours and hours for another if you were traveling together.  Back to the Partnership:  If you've got a partner you're forced to wait until he is ready to go.  It doesn't matter if your partner is talented, can write music, tap dance, or has a Ph.d. -- you're forced to wait if he's not ready.  And who has ever had their Partner ready to go at exactly the same time to the very same place you wanted to go?  You laugh because you can't remember that ever happening.  If it ever happens in your lifetime you can't remember it, because that would have been perfection.  It would have been a completed action.  It becomes a thing with no characteristics, a completed act, and it turns a 3-D corner and disappears.  What you do remember is that, "Every time I want to travel that other son of a bitch says, 'I'm tired,' or, 'Let's plan this out some more,' or, 'We'll go tomorrow I promise.'  It just won't cooperate."

     Change of subject.  I may use romantic relationships to delineate what I'm about to mention, but the idea is in no way limited to sexual relationships or any other specific type of relationship.  People, especially women, are often involved with someone whom they look up to, look to for guidance and strength.  You can no longer look to someone else to be your hero.  Force yourself to act in your own heroic way instead.  Don't wait for someone else to play out your imagined picture of the strong hero.  The way things have been historically and still continue today, to some degree, is for women to assume that the man will be the strong one.  It's not right or wrong that this happens -- it's Hormones, with a capital H.  It is hormones that dictate your idea and particular image of a hero.  Your hormones know what they are and so have pictures of heroes, related to your own unfinished business.  Everyone has their idea of a hero, but you can no longer entertain your internal babble of, "If only I could be like so and so.  He always seems to know what he's doing, how to act, what to say.  If I could be like him, I'd act heroically."  If your idea of a hero is someone who never complains, it's your duty to act that way.  If it's someone who never admits when he's sick, then require that of yourself.

     Even if you find somebody to be "your hero," all you've done is taken another traveling partner, and no matter how grand he may be you still can't go when and where you want if you have to wait for him.  If there is going to be any apparent heroism, you have to do it.  For yourself.  Just go ahead and do those very things you consider heroics in another, because in certain ways you eventually must travel alone.  You reach a point where you can no longer entertain any internal travelers who say, "Wait just a minute.  Can't we do this differently?"

     Let me mention several other loose ends.  It is not uncommon for those involved with This to go through periods of feeling as if they're losing control.  If you ever feel like you're losing control, immediately regain it.  No ifs, ands or buts.  I fully understand what is occurring with you and I'm telling you now that if you feel like you're losing control, just regain it.  It's almost as simple as spitting.  If you feel, "I'm on the verge of an unusual state," and then it becomes, "But it's getting too great; I could be losing control" -- just stop it.  If you're frightened, just stop it.

     A Real Revolutionist has to remember that there is a bottom line to all of this just as in a business, and he must think of profit.  Not fiscal profit, not social profit, not status profit, but Real Profit.  If you've been up for three nights drinking coffee and feel you're on the verge of "seeing the very edge of the universe if I don't go crazy first," that is not a profitable way to act.  If you have any doubts or fears about what is happening to you, then it is unprofitable.  Stop it right then.  You're not blowing your one great cosmic chance.  If you once read some graffiti on a bathroom wall that said, "Those we would enlighten we must first make mad," let me tell you, you ain't one of them.  You were mad enough before you started This, you don't need to go any madder.  You're not doing This if you lose control:  What, may I ask, do you think This is about?  If you're losing control, regain it immediately.  Next paragraph, thank you.

     Here's something I've talked around the edges of for a long time; I'll put it in the form of a rhetorical question.  Have you noticed that nowhere on this planet has there ever been mention of Yellow Circuit rewards in an afterlife?  All of the talk in all religions and cultures on this planet, in all times and places, has been about rewards of a Red or Blue nature.  Nowhere, in any faith or mystical system, is there mention of an afterlife with Yellow Circuit rewards.  What can you make of that?  And in This (even if you just consider only the verbal content and not the reality behind the words) I'm giving you unbelievable challenges and stimulation to the Yellow Circuit.  What is Life up to that it offers promises of rewards in the afterlife -- joy, peace, robust health -- all of a Red and Blue nature, with no mention ever of any Yellow Circuit reward?  No one ever notices this.  In fact, if I told a group of ordinary people about it, they might say, "Yeah.  You're right.  That's kind of interesting, but I got a dental appointment.  Bye."

     What I keep hinting at when I refer to extraordinary topographical surveys is that you should be looking around for this kind of stuff.  There are indicators of information never seen at the 3-D level.  Something in the nature of Man is crying out for completion, as evidenced by the intrinsic need to believe in an afterlife that would be different from man's present existence; the afterlife can't be just "this" all over again.  Surely if you do something like join the church or be charitable then it's gotta be a little bit better.  And in what ways would man be rewarded?  All the descriptions are of Red and Blue Circuit rewards.  What is Life up to, I ask again?  The information is talking, except it's right above the Line, in the close captioned area, above the place you hear with 3-D ears.

     You can and should begin to notice such things on your own.  I bring these things up for a reason.  Although I may preface my comments with statements like, "The other day I read about..." or, "I saw something recently that..."  I just make it up -- because it's true.  It's correct.  I didn't get this information from anywhere because it's not available.  It doesn't really exist in fact in the way in which I'm describing it.  What I'm doing is taking a 4-D reality and squishing it into three dimensions.  In a sense, if it's new information it had to come from somewhere, but it is equally correct to say that I made it up.

     An update on the topic:  Those who can, do, and those who can't, don't, and only those who know the difference know that there is no difference.  Let me give you another example of the obvious being absolutely overlooked.  The example is what is referred to in the City as faith healing (and don't any of you refried new-agers get carried away because I'm using that term).  I'm not going to get into any discussion about faith healing, but all of you should see that there must be something to it as evidenced by Life's continued interest and use of it, and by your own interest in it.  Even current medical practitioners and scientists are beginning to admit that the human mind "seems to be able to affect one's health and well being."  The point I want to make is this:  there is growing evidence and awareness in the City that suggests some validity to faith healing and the ability of a person to treat, if not cure, his own body of its ills -- YET ALMOST NOBODY WILL DO IT.  They'll lay down and die.  Nobody will do it!  Nobody will do it even though humans are driven to talk about their fear of death and desire for a long, healthy life.  What I want you to see is that if humans were wired up by Life to actually feel and experience what they say they want to feel and experience, to pursue what they say they want to pursue such as a healthy life, they wouldn't just lay down and die.  And they do!  If Fred found out from the Doctor tomorrow that he had inoperable cancer, he'd say, "I don't want to die a slow horrible death.  I'm not ready to go.  I'll do anything, any fucking thing."  Will he?  No sir.  Oh, he may sell the house, sign his life savings over to the doctor, etc.  But beyond that, people will do nothing.  There are a handful of people who may attempt seriously to cure themselves or see strange healers, but the number is so small as to be insignificant.  Again, the point I'm making is that there is a kind of molecular knowledge in people which knows that there is some validity to the idea of healing yourself or faith healings, that miracles do happen, yet people won't do it.  They cry that they'll do anything and they will bankrupt their family going to doctors and hospitals, but all they will do is the obviously unprofitable.

     People will not do the one thing that might succeed.  They'll just lay down and die, and go broke doing it.  Do I have to give even a post mortem caveat to this?  I'm not talking about faith healing, doctors, religions, finances, or treatment for illnesses -- none of it.  People are not insistent upon living.  Ordinary people can not properly exercise perfected anger at being slaughtered.  They will not try everything possible to live; they will, in fact, try only the things that have no effect.  I'm not talking about medicine, I'm talking about something else.  You don't really want to live.  Life doesn't really want you to live any further than you're going to live.  But part of the hobby is to talk about it:  "There's this new treatment in Switzerland..."  Just as they always have, people lay down and die.  Humanity cries out, "I'll donate money for a new bingo wing at the church.  I wanna live."  Do they?  Why is it that Life makes people, in general, insist upon feeling as though they want to live at all costs when it's not true?

     Someone asked me to elaborate on my comment that romance is not a good hobby.  The person felt that surely when people fall it love it can be fun and productive.  What I said previously is that ordinary romance -- love's a hurting thing romance -- is not a fit hobby for someone in This.  In general, the hobby of being in love is always a hurting thing.  That is the nature of it, and it's not a defect in man.  You have two people trying to travel somewhere together, and they're going to rub each other the wrong way.  If you're in a "love's a hurting thing" situation, you're trying to travel with another and you can't move when you want to.  You'll find out that it's not fun and not profitable.  In the City it's a suitable hobby.  If you took away "love's a hurting thing," what would happen to literature?  To the movies?  What would be left?  Just John Wayne and the cavalry against the Indians, and a couple of all male jailbreak movies.  Without "love's a hurting thing," world literature would go down the toilet.  In the City, it's a grand hobby, more popular than bingo and bowling.  But it's not suitable for a Revolutionist.

     And back by popular request:  "At times on the floor above I hear the sounds of strangers dancing."