Conversations: Inconclusive and Conclusive Transfers
August 12, 1988
AKS/News Item Gallery = jcap 1988-08-10 (0378)
Condensed AKS/News Items = See Below
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below
Summary
8/12/88 0378
Notes by WB
The submissive is food for the dominant. All structures support the dominant. People believe the lessor can be fed at the expense of the greater–nay nay.
In internal bureaucracy there is continual shifting and shuffling of responsibility. You will never get a straight answer because it benefits Life to avoid straight answers. Everything has to be inconclusive–the Dance must continue.
Consider Constitution–agreement about how submissive is to be dominated. See religions as ‘constitutions.’
Domination is more tolerated if seen as inevitable.
And Kyroot Said…
A Revolutionist’s true address is whatever he SAYS it is.
***
An ordinary person’s address is whatever they’re TOLD it is.
***
Asserted one curious smelling City speaker, “And lo, I
beheld and be-heard the million, billion, trillion footsteps of
the little feet of the human intellect marching across the plains
of history, and lo, most of them were out of step.” Lo, indeed.
***
The supreme marketplace of fair trading, inequitable
exchanges, balanced transactions, and coercive transfers is in
the belly of Life itself.
***
More from Ole Mister Sorehead Number 2: “Yeah, I read a
quote once; didn’t like it.”
***
To the Real Revolutionist, all is permitted, (except for
those two or three things you already suspect.)
***
Which should be more cogent, a lesson or a celebration?
***
Tommy Rot is not a fitting name for an agricultural leader.
***
The axiom, “Everything in its place” could mean much more to
a Revolutionist in that it might serve to remind him to be on the
lookout for things that are not, so that something might be done
about it.
***
Aggression with restrictions is aggression for children,
(and can result in severe tire damage when you try and back up).
***
Never let one desperate for approval carry the flag.
***
If you can get up close enough, there IS no in-between.
***
I will now quote for you, from that fabulous City, more,
“Famous First Words,” and I quote, “There then began a LONGGG
digression…”
***
Never trust a god who calls collect.
***
Never wave to the enemy unless they’re retreating, or you’re
on the way home.
***
A one-time, would-be Revolutionist, whilst having a few, no,
make that a many, confided to a City General the way to keep any
Real Rebels from hanging around the edges of town, “Just go out,”
he said, “and paint the Bushes beige.”
***
One aspect of the Real Revolution is right there between the
partners.
***
A Real Revolutionist never actually hates the foe. (How
could he dislike mere resistance when that is how HE himself
began?)
***
Out in the glorious Bushes, much talk signals little sense
of duty.
***
This may sound obvious at first, but I’ll note it just the
same: If you don’t know what you’re talking about — don’t.
***
Only the Revolutionist can continually live with the fear of
the known.
***
Transcript
CONVERSATIONS: INCONCLUSIVE AND CONCLUSIVE TRANSFERS
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document: 378, GSIBM, August 12, 1988
Life presently requires that humanity indulge in inconclusive conversation, and I am speaking now on a more personal level. I have spoken before of bureaucracy, of the infinite shuffling of responsibility that occurs, but now I’m speaking on a more individual level. Ordinarily people, and they don’t realize it, are engaged in a kind of individual social conversational bureaucracy; everything is inconclusive. The reality of this still furnishes soil for ordinary people in the City to make accusations at one another using, for example, a phrase such as “your failure to communicate,” whether it be wives, friends, children, etc. “But I thought you said we were going at seven on Tuesday,” — you know, that kind of thing. What are conversations? Of course, they are energy exchanges, but note that in the City people are driven to find fault with conversations; they’re sure that something really went wrong; that they failed to communicate. No one can analyze or see conversations as inconclusive, as a part of the continuing process of Life growing.
There can’t be conclusive conversations. Of course you could have something essentially conclusive on the level of, “What time is it?” “Six o’clock.” But that conversation is simply of no consequence. Can you see that a conversation between a man and a woman who have lived together for 20 years is actually one sentence, an inconclusive one. This doesn’t mean that one or both parties felt continuously irritated or frustrated; it means that the conversation never came to a conclusion. It is an open ended, oral, verbal energy exchange — and Life needs it as such.
I know this is perplexing so let me take it down the street to another block: let’s go to villains, to antiheroes. As an example we’ll use films which is as good a history as any, and in particular I’m referring to the speech of gangsters. In the great classic scenes of the mafia, the don sits there, motions to one of his henchmen, and whispers to him, “Go find Charlie. If he don’t have the money, kill him.” The henchman goes, “Gotcha, boss.” He pauses and then asks, “What if he got the money?” “Get the money, then kill him.” The tone is villainous and it’s not that the words sound like impending mayhem. I’m telling you it is the medium itself, sound waves interchanging energy, giving the unequivocal appearance that this person is speaking in an absolutely one-sided, conclusive conversation. (This is not exactly the same as a hero being a man of few words.) The gangster is speaking in conclusive statements, with no conditions and giving no alternatives. He offers no room to maneuver, no court in which to appeal. You can find this portrayal of villains all the way back to Greek plays, early Roman literature. Your own nervous system knows what I’m referring to, it’s just never been pointed out in words: there is a living, vibrating threat, a villainous tone and tenor to conclusive conversation. The movie doesn’t have to show the don ever actually killing anyone, all you need is to have him speak in conclusive language, and that will suffice.
If you can look fast enough you can see that conclusive conversation is not a sign of life in the City sense; it is not a creative reflection; you are not producing a verbal child. Conclusive conversation is not a lie, but it gets out of somebody’s mouth, and just drops. It’s as if it were stillborn. The movie may continue, the plot may weave into other relationships Charlie has, etc., but there is nowhere else to go with that particular scene with the mafia don. Now, forget the movies — where are you going with a scene if conclusive conversation enters into a dance between two people? The answer is nowhere. Life currently requires that man indulge continually in inconclusive conversation. Much of what goes on under the name of self-criticism or critiques of others is the reality of inconclusive conversation. All of which is most appropriate and of no concern except to a handful of people out in the Bushes.
Jump real quickly to this: I have used some of this with you people, especially individually, where I said in an absolutely blunt condensed manner, “Do so and so, and spare me the details.” But you still tried to dance with it: “Would next Thursday be okay?” or, “What if blah de blah de blah?” Some of you almost felt offended, and wondered if I might finally be coming apart because I refused to engage in any conversation about whatever the little project was. I’m mentioning this for you to see that this occurred and you felt something was truly amiss. I didn’t bring any of this up to discuss my methods — you experienced someone dealing in a conclusive statement and you felt something was wrong. It was unnatural. And I ask you, what would be the possibility and benefit of using this on yourself? I recently pointed out that the bureaucracy (whether you’re looking at a little doll nestled in a bigger doll, or you’re good enough to see a bigger doll nestled in a smaller one) inside people was a protection against something very untoward happening, such as sudden change (as in, “I’ll do it,” and then actually doing it!). How does this bureaucracy operate? It specializes in inconclusive conversation, regardless of whether you feel run by one or run by the many. Looking even further at it, many people are wired up to attack the bureaucracy on what basis? Because you can never get a straight answer! They are attacking the very purpose Life has for it — things are not supposed to be conclusive in the City.
Internally, you have a never ending conversation with you, and you talk to yourself and decide to do something: “Tomorrow I’ll start running. If I can’t do it tomorrow, then definitely the day after. I guess I better buy some running shoes first.” And you go on and on and on to the one big place where all bureaucrats go, to their great one word motto: “Well…” What if there is some use to dealing with yourself on a conclusive basis? Of just DOING something! (Nawww, that’s not interesting enough.) I can even point out here that dealing with yourself on a conclusive basis would literally suit the definition of a fanatic. It’s not that he knows anything, but he’s absolutely sure of his ignorance. A good villain is a fanatic. The rest of ordinary life in general is based on inconclusive statements.
You can also see a larger structure in the conversations between nations, between epochs of history, between religions. Wars aren’t conclusive — they’re not meant to be. The vanquished is always ready to immediately fight to get revenge. The Chinese and Russians continually fight over Mongolia or Tibet; first the Chinese take over, then the Russians, then…it’s never finished. If it’s finished, then that was the end of one conversation, and that would happen only when one nation completely absorbs another — there is no more energy in that exchange, and it fades from history. If Attila had really swept down and just trampled all vestiges of Greek and Roman civilization, if the Huns had really totally done their business, then Attila, the Huns, and the Greek and Roman culture would never be remembered. What’s remembered are the inconclusive conversations — that’s what history is. What’s remembered are, for example, the great philosophical ideas that nobody can ever do. Somewhere in Life’s body they couldn’t let go of the idea, and it keeps popping up, but it’s always inconclusive. If it died, it would, at best, end up as a footnote to history, because history does not really remember the dead, the conclusive. There is no good 3-D description of this, and although you may think I’m giving one, I’m not.
The future entered man yesterday (nobody can see it), but in the City this is reflected verbally on the basis that there are “psychological and cultural things that happened in my past, and what I’m doing now is affected by what happened to me yesterday.” The future entered man yesterday, but four dimensionally speaking it is not cultural, psychological or external…I’ll just have to leave that with you.
Now back into you: What do you remember about your life? The only things you remember are those that are inconclusive, otherwise, they’re of no importance. In the City, that’s the way it’s supposed to be. If you remember something as an important, historical, personal occurrence then it was inconclusive; it is STILL inconclusive, or you wouldn’t remember it. You’re still whining about the way your mother treated you. If you had any possibility of using the Yellow Circuit, you would, with a little prodding, take this in absolutely the other direction; you would attempt to see how ordinary life operates and then base your life on that which is conclusive. “I can see how all the inconclusive things have affected me, but what if I could look at in the opposite direction? What if I could find maybe just one (and the Yellow Circuit may have trouble finding even one) conclusive something that happened to me and make that the cornerstone of me?” What would be less entertaining, less complex…what would be a shorter movie than to tell yourself, “Why don’t we quit smoking,” and then just quit. That would not be entertaining in the City at all.
The ultimate manifestations of inconclusive conversations are religions, or in our time, psychiatry. What could be more inconclusive than the big religious payoff of life after death. The contract between god and his bureaucracy, people, is that you work and sweat for sixty years, give up all the fun, and you’ll have everything you want to know. When? After you’re dead! Or what about the classic example in psychiatry. The patient says, “I’m so glad I saved all my money for analysis. Now that I’m here you can explain so much to me.” And the psychiatrist says, “And why do you think I can do that?” Or, “Doctor, do you think I’ll ever get better?” “I don’t know, do you?” “I don’t know. Do you think I’ve improved after coming here all these years?” “Do you?” As with everything in the City, it’s all inconclusive. Life needs its arteries of communication left open. People gotta dance — some gotta dance forward, some backwards. One group has to holler, “We should be doing so and so!” And another must respond, “When will we start? How do we actually go about it? How do we know when we’ve finished…?” All sentences must remain open-ended, all bureaucracies must have an infinite number of desks and people through which all the responsibility is infinitely shuffled.
Let me finish with something else that is, of course, totally unrelated. This comes up periodically. I get communication from out of town and some notes from the people here, in both cases it’s a communication from someone who has only been around for a short while. Very soon after finding This many people feel compelled to communicate their utter delight with being around those who have been involved here for a long time, or they want to express their terrible disappointment with the behavior of those who have been around for a while. It’s either, “Boy, it’s just great hanging around these people,” or, “I’m quite disappointed in certain people in this group.” Let me ask you the rhetorical question: What am I to do with this information? Am I to spend my energy on the obvious, cubed? Should I be concerned? What am I to do with this?
And one more thing. Everyone involved with This should be careful of a certain always present possibility, and that is the possibility of falling into a kind of self-structure trap. Consider self-structures in light of what I was talking about regarding structures between two cellular entities, whether they be individuals, nations, ideas, or anything. For example, you have got to watch out lest you become “an unrecognized composer of 127 great symphonies.” I’m talking about someone who’s been sitting in some dark basement for years, having composed hundreds of five hour masterpieces that no one has ever heard. No one will pay any attention to them. Rather than being this artist who was so interested in his art or hobby that he wrote 127 symphonies, you become a small piece of a larger structure. You’re not a composer, you don’t feel that way about yourself, you have become the “unrecognized composer of 127 great symphonies, thank you.” You’re almost an example of a living whine, but it’s not just self pity; it’s not just any ordinary emotion, it’s being locked into this structure and you’re no longer an individual. It is the structure of you being unrecognized, you being a failure, you as a small piece of this larger, mechanical, organic structure. It is you as being the continual inconclusive statement that, “I want to do so and so, but I’m not doing it.” — and now that is a part of what you are.