Jan Cox Talk 0350

Reports Are Being Made and Sent In

Audio = Stream from the bar below

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0350 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = tbd
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = See Below
Transcript = See Below

 Diagram #165 video grab

Diagram #165 video grab

 

Summary by TK

Jan Cox Talk #350 Jun 6, 1988 - 1:50 

 [The Nervous System as a measuring device with Yellow Circuit as the hard printout device in speech and writing. It is the internal reporting of Life's unknown project. Human consciousness, i.e., 3-d consciousness cannot measure the infinite; also, it cannot measure anything that is too vague. Consciousness therefore cuts infinity up into pieces: names, because infinity is not 3-d. The vague is forced into specifics: characteristics, data. Every act of consciousness is a measurement. New model of Partmership: a talking Nervous System with vertical 3-part continuum where each part is working at a different tempo and measuring different areas. Consciousness can only measure what it can see and therefore can only see what it measures. There is no 'unknown': it is at least, named/known. The already-measured is useless to the Real Revolutionist. ]
  [New definition of Neuralizing: personal confrontation of certain data without any acceptance or consideration of its present measurements. Measurements make it visible but are not accepted as final. ]
  [When the ordinary attempt the extraordinary without the Aim, they achieve only the ordinary. ]
  [Sexual partners in the Group cannot beat up on one another, but also cannot end up as a tasteless mix of uncomfortable twinship.]
  [A great example of the 24 hr. lag between Upper Circuit and Loewr Circuit: report of death in the family, where Yellow Circuit gets 100% of the info while the Red Circuit will have the impact 24 hr later, at which time it is said to finally hit home with 'full impact'. ]
  [What if Life and man is exactly as everybody believes it to be? ]
  [1:10 Paradigm presents]
  [1:50 Excursion: take 45 min walk to consider "what if Life and Man is exactly what everyone believes? Also: fill in blank, three quarters of my life is made up of ______.
 


Transcript

REPORTS ARE BEING MADE AND SENT IN

Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document:  350, June 6, 1988                         

     In the City it is understood that he who has power does not have to explain his past in order to effectuate that power.  A Real King doesn't worry about his lineage or feel that he has to brag about his power, because everyone understands that once you become king you no longer need ancestors.  No one in the kingdom that is going to say, "You're in power, but boy are you an upstart."  I'm talking about a bad ass king, someone who's in charge.  No one questions such a king.  The only thing they say to him is, "Yes sir, Mr. King."

     In a sense a Revolutionist is in the same position as such a king.  Once you get somewhere it doesn't matter how the hell you got there.  Note, however, that throughout history and into contemporary times, activities that appear related to This, pseudo-systems are replete with talk by those involved about "how we got here."  It is all talk about "ancestors."  Such people are talking about the ship, not the cargo.  You can throw them down and search their pockets, or their nervous system, but you'll find no cargo.  Such talk seems natural.  Bon voyage.

     Can you see the human nervous system as a distinct measuring device and Yellow Circuit consciousness as its printout?  Could you see that Life, at least at the three dimensional level which you can presently observe, seems to have selected Man from all other things and pushed his nervous system up to a level that he now has higher grey matter, or what is commonly called consciousness?  We have molecules that can talk.  Molecules that can make noise, that are apparently malleable.  Yet if you can See in a certain way, Life is using consciousness to do nothing more than make continual measurements.

     Imagine the possibility that Life has this Project.  I am telling you this as one possibility.  This Project is not any particular goal that you presently have in mind.  But to do this Project, Life itself needs internal reports and measurements from a smaller level within its own body.  What if the reports and measurements are human consciousness?

     At one time I suggested, though some of you took it as a joke, that we acquire a piece of land, circle it with solid fencing, and put up a big old official looking sign that says "The Project -- Coming Soon."  Sticking up above the fence we would have some kind of structure made of pieces of rolled flashing or pipes.  Through a gate there would always be cars and trucks coming and going.  Dust and smoke would rise above the fence.  The only thing passersby could see would be the top of the structure -- the flashing and piping.  Every couple of weeks or so we would raise the fence a little higher and maybe add a smoke stack or more framing to the structure so that there would always be something visible above the fence.  Throughout all eternity, or at least as long as we care to keep it up, the fence would get higher and higher.  Noise, dust and activity would continually billow from behind the fence yet no one on the outside could tell what was going on.  "The Project -- Coming Soon."

     What if Life has a project?  Not necessarily that one.  What if Life needs internal reports and measurements in the course of doing its project?  Can you see all human institutions, inventions, technology, philosophy, religion, the arts, all fitting into a form of measurement?  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you," or, "God is good," are forms of measurements.  On this basis, all human consciousness can be classified as a measuring device for Life's purposes, not your own.  Everything the Yellow Circuit does for the nervous system can been seen as a kind of hard copy, a printout.  Speech itself is a printout.  Every time someone says, "I do not like X," or, "I approve of such and such," it is a measurement.

     Everything you can be conscious of -- opinions, ideas, daydreams, nightmares -- all have three dimensions or you could not be conscious of them.  This is to say that consciousness itself is synonymous with the three dimensions it perceives.  You can look at the three dimensionality of consciousness as a limitation; there are things that three dimensional consciousness simply cannot do.  I'll tell you two very specific things:  consciousness cannot measure the infinite nor can it measure that which is too vague.  Consciousness must cut off the infinite somewhere around the ankles, or hair line because the infinite is not three dimensional.

     You may find it interesting to consider why Life would develop the idea of the infinite in Man's nervous system, specifically in the Yellow Circuit, yet leave ordinary consciousness with nothing more than a verbal understanding, a dictionary definition, of that concept.  Three dimensional consciousness will say, "The infinite is something with no beginning or end."  Man apparently has some Yellow Circuit understanding of the infinite but can't do it.  Also, consider why three dimensional consciousness cannot measure that which is too vague:  All measurements that consciousness makes must be hard printed, named.  You simply cannot be conscious of a person that is too vague.  I'm not talking about a person's corporal, material aspect as if they're so vague that they're about to melt out of existence or be sucked into some universal black hole.  By "too vague" I'm referring to your conception of another person.  For example, someone at work tells you that a new manager is being brought in to your office from a branch office.  They tell you he is "the guy from Cincinnati, ole Geesenslaw."  Having met him once at a party a long time ago you're not really clear on just who this Geesenslaw is.  The person describing the new manager to you may not have a clear grasp on who this new person is either.  Assuming both of you are wired up to have an interest, because he's going to be your supervisor, then after such a conversation where nothing is pegged down you'll both leave feeling dissatisfied.  In order to take a measurement of someone, he can't be too vague.

     Continuing with this work example, suppose later in the day another co-worker who actually knows something about Geesenslaw tells you, "He's a tyrant, petty minded, absolutely conservative, antisocial, has an economic and political degree and is going to drive us all crazy."  You've now taken a measurement.  People must become "some kind of guy," with specific characteristics, or you're not fully conscious of them.  The infinite and the vague have got to be pulled into focus.  It is part of human life, that which seems to make Man singular:  consciousness forcing that which is too vague into specifics and cutting that which appears infinite into pieces.

     Note that even if you're lacking data about this new person, that won't stop you from taking measurements.  For instance you may stop after work for your usual after work martini and start thinking:  "Why the hell did the company pull in this guy from Cleveland?  I should have been made manager.  I've been around the business world too long for them to pull a fast one on me.  This Geesenslaw guy is probably someone's relative or something."  You are taking measurements of this man.  By the time Geesenslaw actually shows up for work you are conscious of him.  The nervous system is wired up in such a way that you can apparently begin to construct almost nonexistent measurements.  Ordinary people might attempt to write off such activity as "psychological hallucinations," or, "the adverse effects of alcohol on a depressed sorehead."  Such descriptions are alright for barroom talk, or for children, but you have been subjected to such gibberish in you all of your life.

     The nervous system of Man is literally, physically, a measuring device.  It just so happens that it is not made by the Stanley Company.  Its true job description is measuring.  It just travels by different names:  opinions, thoughts, theories, random talk.  They are all measurements.

     I have described consciousness as a partnership.  Such a description is more germane to our time than ideas of Man having a "good" and an "evil" part.  It is more precise than ideas of a "conscious and subconscious mind."  I have made up examples using "Smith and Jones":  that it is as if everyone has two people in them.  Humans have been accepting this division of Man into two parts as long as he has been Man.  It has a valid basis.  Someone could say to you or any random group of people, "I have a good side and a bad side," and all will nod in agreement.  Or perhaps today you'll hear someone say, "I have an exciting, forward looking, progressive side and a conservative, anachronistic, old sorehead side that tends to surface now and again."  But all of these descriptions are in some way lacking, including my own of "the partnership."

     I now point your attention to this:  there are no two people inside of each person.  I had drawn for you in the past a map of the human nervous system and divided it into a three part continuum.  For now I'll simply define the parts as the Yellow Circuit or higher sections which conform roughly to your idea of intellectual activity, the Blue Circuit or mid-section or what ordinarily is called the emotions, and the Red Circuit or lower section which corresponds to the physical body itself.  Your nervous system is not actually separated like this.  There is an overlap and interweaving of these three functions.  However, it is a fact that the various sections operate at different speeds.  That is, they take different measurements.  Can you See that the basis for the apparent duality in Man is the existence of the extreme ends of the continuum, the nervous system, itself?  The sense that one has of possessing a "conscious and unconsciousness mind," "a good and bad part," "a progressive and regressive part," "a part of me that's happy and forward looking and a part that feels like 'oh forget it!'" is nothing but the extreme ends of the nervous system itself.  If I told you to forget all ideas about the Partnership, can you see that there are extremes in each person's nervous system that produce an inescapable feeling of duality?

     The extremes of the nervous system are of different ages genetically.  They operate at different tempos, vibrate at different speeds, and have different areas which they are charged to measure.  Individual sections of the continuum, of the nervous system, especially the upper talking part, have no idea what is going on.  The classic example is of a person who is primarily in charge of taking measurements from the upper circuit, a more intellectual person, trying to talk to someone primarily from the other extreme, a more physical person.  The intellectual quickly finds out that the other person is not even sure who his congressman is, or of anything that the intellectual would consider common knowledge.  Were such people to meet, the physical person might talk about Merle Haggard and his latest record.  He might look at the intellectual as if to say, "Do you even know that they moved the Grand Ole Opry from the original building in Nashville?"  While the intellectual might think, "Jeez, it's frightening that I'm surrounded by people like this."  Of course the physical person would look at the intellectual with his own brand of disbelief.  They are both measuring differently, they both have different responsibilities in Life.  Where the person at the lower end of the continuum is hollering about all of the things he likes and dislikes, how depressed and mistreated he is, the person at the other extreme is saying, "Is this person from another planet?  What is he talking about?"  Of course the person situated lower down in the nervous system looks at so-called intellectuals and thinks, "Heartless, heartless...the person is almost psychotic...except he seems so calm.  They obviously don't understand the severity of our situation as humans."

     Can you see that an ordinary person, an ordinary nervous system, can only measure that which it can see, and vice versa.  That is, you can only see, be conscious, of that which you can measure.  Where does that leave you?  I don't want to give you the blues, but everything that is likely to be measured has already been measured.  People say, "There are things that we have speculated upon but have yet to see."  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Or they say, "There are theories about forces, cosmic entities that we have yet to see."  Wrong.  If it has been measured it is not unknown.  The name may be unknown, but if it has been seen, heard, or experienced it has been measured.

     An ordinary person might say, "I can measure (that is, think of) that which is unknown.  For example I believe in flying saucers even though I have never seen one."  Or he might say, "I believe in the gods, even though I have never seen them.  Therefore your theory is wrong.  We can measure things we can't see."  They don't understand what is going on.  The notion that flying saucers exist or not, or of gods existing or not is simply not the point.  It is all measurement.  There is no such thing as not seeing flying saucers.  "Not seeing flying saucers" is a measurement just as is "seeing flying saucers" is the same with "believing in the gods" or "not believing."

     Consciousness ordinarily finds itself in the position of feeling that, "All of this has got to be serious business.  Why else, in the end, will it cost me my life?  Living is serious business and therefore all of this must have some significance.  I just feel it.  There is some significance in believing or not believing in flying saucers or the gods.  And since I can imagine things which I'm sure are real even without seeing them, any theory which says otherwise is wrong."

     This activity has nothing to do with any of that.  Indeed if everyone in the City understood what I am now talking about there would be bedlam.  I am not talking about "believing in" flying saucers, gods, cucumbers, love, compassion, charity, refried beans, reupholstered chairs, steel belted tires, or "not believing in" any of that.  That is all beside the point.  What is going on is this:  Reports are being made and sent in.  Individuals don't know how much Life is using their information since ordinary people aren't even aware of the fact that they're in charge of making measurements.  They are charged with sending in reports continually, and they don't even know it.

     You feel as though, "I personally believe or don't believe so and so."  It seems to be of extreme importance to you.  It is the delivery of a report to the home office.  The president may not even hear it consciously, but it keeps you busy.  "Busy work" takes on a whole different meaning in this context.  What do you think you are doing when you're sitting around watching TV by yourself, in your underwear, with 3 year old socks on, and suddenly across the screen flashes, "Lakers beat by Pistons in the play offs," and internally you respond, "Oh, those smart aleck Pistons"?  You have got to have a little more than your fair share of goofy dust in your hair if you think for a second that there aren't countless people sitting around on their potato couches across the country saying the same thing.  If Life needs a report, a measurement, like, "Hey, the Lakers wouldn't have lost if owner so and so had gotten off his checkbook and signed so and so to the damn team," Life is going to get it.  Surely you understand that within a minute you and X amount of other guys in their underwear and smelly socks were supplying the report.

     It would be a form of bedlam if the nervous system could be tricked into Seeing that all of what appears to be the substance of conversation is simply beside the point.  This is especially true when you proclaim, "I believe in X," or, "I absolutely disagree with X," or, "A lot of people believe in gods; therefore, I'm an atheist."  So what?  So What!  You might as well be talking about flying saucers.  You might as well be saying, "Personally, I guess it is because of my cultural background, I don't believe in zippers."  It is the same thing.  The same thing in quite a real way.

     Do you understand that if what I'm saying is valid, and I or someone else could make you understand this, it would not necessarily be all that comforting right off the bat?  You might find yourself disquieted for a wee bit.  Your nervous system might suddenly turn into an accordion and you might think, "Well, I believe I'll go back to the City for a while until things calm down."

     In the City, for the general purposes that humanity is serving, the information, the measurements that the ordinary nervous system deals with are more than adequate.  Well, why be dramatic?  The measurements are adequate in the City.  In This, however, you must suspect, such measurements are less than adequate.  If such measurements were adequate for This, you wouldn't be fooling around with me.  This would simply be in a library.  Answers would be in a book.  You'd ask your question of your mother, a rabbi, a priest, a man selling aluminum siding, and they would say, "Sure little boy, little girl, what is it you want to know?  I'll tell you.  What are grownups for?"

     Anything that can be measured in the City is inadequate for This.  I remind you that if it is in the City, it has been measured and such measurements won't cut it in This.  You have got to face that fact.  However I'm not saying that This is tied into metaphysical or New Age ideas.  This kind of information has got nothing to do with flying sauces, planets or spirits.  If you think otherwise you couldn't be more wrong, wrong, wrong.

     If I was foolish enough to play a question and answer game with This it would probably go as follows.  Someone might ask me "What are you up to?  What is this stuff that you have been telling a few people?  Is it...?"  I could say, "What do you want to know?"  If they said, "Is this about religion?"  I'd say "Yes."  And if they said, "Well, I heard a tape you made and I don't think it is about religion," I'd say, "You're right it is not."  They might say, "Well you said it was about religion," and I'd respond, "Well, it is."  I'm not trying to be funny.  Obviously I would never engage in such a conversation.  It would serve no purpose.  But that's how it would go if I did.

     I'm pointing you toward the fact that whatever it is that you have read, heard or apparently made up yourself, if it is immediately comprehensible, it is...well what is a synonym for useless in the fourth dimension?  It doesn't matter what the idea is.  Whether your question is about the "future of humanity," or, "ideas of the gods originating in flying saucers from another part of the universe landing on this planet," it is useless.  Even if your idea did have some validity you have to see that such information has already been measured.  If you were to ask me questions about such ideas my answer would be yes or no.  Whichever you prefer.  If you can ask it, it's a waste of time.  You are not asking a Real question.  Such a question amounts to no more than you saying, "Well, I read this book and it said such and such which I believe is true."  So what?  You have got to ask yourself:  "To what avail?"  What if it's a fact that in the past you didn't believe in flying saucers and now you do or vice versa?  Don't you feel a lot better?  Aren't you a lot better off?  Don't you feel real satisfied because you can say, "Yeah, I used to be an atheist, but now I've gone back to the mother church," or, "I grew up in a family that followed a very strict religion and it just ruined me psychologically, but I've finally overcome it"?  If you're satisfied, what are you doing here?  Between me and the would-be Revolutionist my question would be "So what?" and your answer should be, "You're right, so what.  All of that doesn't matter at all."

     You can look at my term "Neuralize" from yet another perspective.  You remember my definition that you can apparently consider, ponder, remember, things without thinking about them?  How about this definition of Neuralizing:  it is a personal confrontation with certain data without acceptance of present measurements.  By "certain data," I am not limiting the definition.  It would be a confrontation with any data but without acceptance, without any consideration of its present measurements.  You may ask, "Whose present measurements?"  Yours, to start with.  You have present measurements of the information or you couldn't confront it.  You couldn't think of it.  It can be measured as information worth thinking about or as not worth thinking about.  Perhaps it is measured as, "I had forgotten that, and I'm glad you reminded me," or, "I had thought of that before and it gave me a headache, so to hell with it."  Whatever the case may be you have present measurements of all information you confront.  You even judge, that is measure, how your measurements stack up against apparently external measurements.  For example, you may have learned not to express your belief in flying saucers to general audiences because it never seems to pay off.  That is to say, you have a measurement of other present measurements apparently not your own.

     This new definition of Neuralizing is a great improvement if you have expanded since the last time I defined that term.  Although I will admit that Greyhound buses can slide sideways and also that people have been known to stow away on Trailways, in general, those who don't pay their way don't go anywhere.  So we'll leave it to you as to where you have gone since the last time I gave you a definition of Neuralizing.

     This new definition relates directly to my talk of measurements.  You have got to forget such useless inquiries as to whether you have "good or bad" measurements.  It doesn't matter.  To study something in a Revolutionary manner, you have got to be able to ponder, consider, think of something without holding on to its present measurements.

     You have to understand that anything you can think of arises from below the level of humanity's genetic DNA development.  That is, whatever you can think will come from below the Line of ordinary consciousness in you.  The information will arise from the same pool of genetic information that connects you to all of humanity.  Yet you can be conscious of that information, that data, while absolutely ignoring all present measurements.  It is a willful, unnatural act to ignore present measurements because they will always be present.  It is like turning on a computer and ignoring the output before it is even booted.  Whatever is displayed  on the screen, "I like X," or, "I dislike X," is irrelevant.  It has nothing to do with This, it is simply a given.  And what you think about the display is irrelevant.

     It is a hard thing to do, as hard as trying to get toothpaste out of a tube in colder climates, as hard as crossing the county sitting next to a man with a little brown paper bag in his hand.  Perhaps you have been that man with the brown paper bag, only with This it is like you're trying to cross the universe in a Greyhound.  I'm just trying to give you some idea of the difficulty.  It is not something you pick up and just do tomorrow.

     Here are a few quick "hit and runs."  The last time we met I said that a Real Revolutionist has no business wrestling gnats.  I pointed out that even if you win it is still disgraceful.  I told you that I had read from sources, that is from other measurements, that the gnat population is 60% that of the human population.  I want to correct my numbers.  (As you know I like to keep things as strictly statistical as is possible...ha ha.)  At any given time the gnat population is actually 60% above the human population.  For every human you've got at least 6 extra gnats.  You are nowhere close to outnumbering the gnat population.

     Periodically new people to This try to tell me that they have seen ordinary people apparently using, just naturally, some of the methods I have given.  An example recently brought to my attention was of someone noticing a person continually sticking his foot in shit by forgetting particularly important things in his daily routine.  The person forgetting wrote it all off as, "Well, I just deal with one day at a time.  I don't worry about what I did in the past."  The person informing me of this further noted that this forgetful person didn't appear to derive any great benefit from such behavior.  You have all heard me speak of ordinary memory as a waste of time, as parsley on the plate of Life.  I've also said that the Real Revolutionist, in a sense, has no past.  It is not some flamboyant attempt to verbally create some kind of hero by saying, "A Revolutionist has no past."  He simply doesn't.  He can't operate on that basis.  That is a fact and I have indeed said such as that.

     You have got to see that anything I can describe, put into words, in Life, someone has done it.  So what?  If they are not involved in This, whatever their intent may be, it doesn't matter.  They can use any methods.  They can do or refrain from doing anything.  Someone is going to be doing the very things I talk about.  But if your aim is only to be ordinary, you are probably going to succeed.

     As vague as This may seem to many of you, This does have an Aim.  If you need comforting, look at it this way, at least you know that you are attempting to do something that is so extraordinary that you just can't see the Aim.  Everything else in Life seems to have an aim:  "I'm on a diet because I have an aim," or, "I'm going to school at night because of an aim I have."  What else in Life would you do if you couldn't get a fix on its purpose, except This?  That doesn't happen in Life.  In itself that is quite extraordinary.  But if you do have a feel for what This is about, if you do sense the Aim, then you know how extraordinary This is.  If a person is not involved with This, then they can use any method I, or anyone else understanding something, could have described and it won't have a purpose.  If you do not have an extraordinary Aim, you can do anything I say and it is meaningless.

     I want to point something out again from a slightly different verbal angle.  Those of you who are sexually involved and attempting to do This simply cannot beat up on each other.  It is almost inevitable that it will happen unless effort is put forth.  I am not talking about anything physical.  But if ever I found out that something physical did happen that would be the end of you and me, period.  You can not let your relationship become one of "beating up" on one another.  At the other apparent binary extreme your relationship should not be some kind of innocuous, bland oatmeal.  As if in some way you've gotten to be uncomfortable twins.  I am not telling you to do that.  Some of you may think, "Hey, I know what you mean by beating up on one another.  Relationships always get kind of tense and people begin to pick on each other.  But me and my little girl/guy, well, we work at it.  One day we'll be as tight as skin on your body."  No one is that close.  You're not living in the Great Cigar Factory of Life.  You are not that tightly wound yourself.

     It is part of the dynamics of Life for you to think that you can stick two rotten apples together and get a fresh one.  You can't take two loosely wound people, jam them together, and come up with one "great person."  It's like having one busted car in the garage and parking another busted one along side of it and saying, "Hey, now I'm in business."  No matter the level of your lust for one another, no matter what kind of love you have for one another, no matter what incredible friends you seem to be, mechanically, give it a month, six months or a year, you are going to be beating each other up.  Families do it:  children and parents, uncles and aunts, everyone.  That is the nature of Life.  You've got to be aware that this happens and don't let it happen.  And conversely, just because you are involved with This, you are not destined to become a faceless, bland, tasteless mixture of oatmeal.  It's not that you and your mate end up like Grant Wood's good ole American Gothic painting.  It is not that "Me and the little woman got all squashed together and now we're just like 'the cake that got left out in the rain.'  We don't beat each other up...but you know we don't seem to have anything going any more."

     I have received many comments about the "24 hour lag."  Let me give you another example of the 24 hour lag with which everyone has at least some indirect experience.  I am speaking of death.  Suppose someone close to you dies.  Perhaps it is your mother, father, or lover.  It is known in the City that it takes about a day for the news, as they call it, to "sink in."  For example, a person is told by another, "I have something to tell you.  Your father was killed in a car wreck."  People close to the recipient of the bad news may ask, "How's she taking it?"  Or, "How's she doing?"  Often the response goes like this:  "Well, I stood there and talked to her, and she kind of looked blank.  I held her hand for a while and asked if she understood what we were telling her and she said, 'Yeah.'  But to tell you the truth I think she's in psychological shock."  People don't always say "psychological shock" but they imply that as opposed to physical trauma.

     After hearing of her father's death, the person may start acting kind of spooky according to those who know her.  She may start cleaning the house without apparent reason or just act as though nothing too out of the ordinary has happened.  She may start preparing food for the people who have come over to give her the news.  Her company may say, "Look honey, just take it easy.  We're not hungry at a time like this."  They agree that she is in shock.  In fact they have a phrase for this.  They often say, "The full impact hasn't hit her yet."

     "The full impact hasn't hit her yet."  Think about that a second.  The recipient has heard all of the information.  She may be told what has happened to her father numerous times by different people.  She even accepts the fact that the news is true and her father is dead.  Yet she may stay up all night talking to someone or cleaning.  Finally she gets some sleep.  As she starts getting into the next 24 hour period they say, "It begins to hit her."

     This phenomenon is not limited to death by any means.  Another common example is a man coming home finding a note from his wife saying that she has left him and taken the kids with her.  The same scenario that I have described above occurs.  The man, having received all of the information necessary to understand that his wife left, still wanders in a daze until, as they say, "The reality begins to hit him some time later."  This is all part of the 24 hour time lag.

     I am going to wrap this up by reminding you of what I said earlier.  In the City humans simply don't realize that they're being forced by Life to measure in very specific ways for reasons beyond their understanding.  The ordinary measurements of the City apparently have some particular validity and importance to the individual.  This is so because it is part of Life's use of everyone as a kind of collective Stanley tape measure.  Life pulls out its tape and takes measurements, makes reports and just like carpenters goofing around, may even use the tape as a yoyo.  You take it all to be personal, important, and original to you.  You say, "Yes," "No," "I believe," "Hello, my name is..." and so on.  In fact it is just Life asking for another report.