Jan Cox Talk 0439

Complex Thinking / Simple Doing

Audio =  Stream in two parts from the bars below.


Audio Download =  DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0439 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = see below
Summary =  See Below
Diagrams = See Below
Transcript = pending
Curation = 4D Science

 0439A model of "The City and the Bushes"

0439A model of "The City and the Bushes"

 0439B video grab

0439B video grab


Kyroots for 0439


     Ordinary knowledge is just another way of saying, "I don't  
know."

                               ***

     Be forewarned:  Anyone who seriously bad-mouths the life of  
the flesh for long is only a step or two away from exploding into  
a poet.  So, be alert, and watch that stuff.

                               ***

     As he sent him off to his first day of City school, one Man  
advised his son, "People with little squinty eyes have little  
squinty minds."

                               ***

     You and your so-called friends and partners ponder this one:   
Would anyone ever suspect you were intelligent if you didn't  
purposefully let on?

                               ***

     In the grips, I suppose, of some passing enthusiasm, a young  
Man declared, "Regardless of what they may say, I, for one, have  
faith in the future."  I further suppose that the future must be  
thoroughly delighted at this vote of confidence.

                               ***

     See if you can remember this (and remember why you tried to  
remember it):  At one time all maps were drawn by explorers; now  
they're drawn by the promise of profit.

                               ***

     There's this one guy, with a sizable collection of white  
sidewalls, who avows that it pays to know where you're going  
even if you're not going anywhere.

                               ***

     A citiary, litiary-artist, bowing perhaps to at least one  
inevitable, so sang,
          "I think that I shall never see,
           A poem quite obtuse as me..."

                               ***

     Eatin' soul food won't do you any good if you ain't got a  
soul.

                               ***
     A ruler, even an absolute monarch, without the ability,  
resolve, and insight to change is in for a short reign (and if  
not, then an uncomfortable one).

                               ***

     One of the local sore-heads recently exclaimed, "How 'bout  
this, I read that some guy says all businessmen are crooks...hey,  
what's he got against everybody else?"

                               ***

     For a while at least, all REAL good info IS classified.

                               ***

     In some Revolutionist Camps fun can sometimes be the O.D.

                               ***

     The nearest to a verbal vapor-trail you might ever discern  
regarding a Revolutionist admitting to having a reason for  
anything might go something like this, "I did it because I did it  
because I did it."

                               ***

     More of the insane -- I mean, serene, beauty of it all:  Do  
you fully realize that City justice can even extract a judgement  
on a dead man?

                               ***

     3-D death can be seen as the ultimate merging with the  
environment.

                               ***

     When a Revolutionist's intelligence runs out, conclusions  
want to come visit.

                               ***

     One City soul recently exclaimed to someone, "Hey, forget  
UFOs, Atlantis, and the living dead, the REAL spooky question  
would be, 'Who's REALLY in charge here?'"

                               ***

     Don't look for metaphors in a brewery.

                               ***

     You could say that this kind of activity is the sole human  
endeavor indivisibly based on a good idea, with real  
possibility.

                               ***

Summary by TK

Jan Cox Talk #439 - January 2, 1989 * - 1:28
  [Kyroot to :05]
  [Under City conditions people can survive quite nicely with little or no success, i.e., failure is part of their hobbies. A Real Revolutionist cannot do this; his attitude should be: “If I can say it, I can do it." And he wouldn't say what he cannot do. How much of what you do correlates with what you think? Repetitive thought is terminated by action. Those apparently successful in life feel no more successful than the failures; their action equally doesn't match their thinking. The Real Revolutionist can tell himself what he is going to do if he means what he says, i.e., can do what he thinks. It's a Do-or-Die method. ]
  [The only possible measurable, discernable success in the City is failure. Real Success can't be perceived in the City. Real Success disappears from view. ]
  [Ordinary intelligence suffers from an unreal sense of the complex. It thinks life is too overwhelmingly complex to be understood. But the purpose of even ordinary intelligence is to make the complex simple; this is so to the third power for the Real Revolutionist. Ordinary human intelligence is not satisfied, pleased with its own successful functioning of simplification of the complex; not pleased with its own naturally ordained conclusions. Real Revolutionist Intelligence however is satisfying; what is seen and understood by a Real Revolutionist simply gets forgotten. To speak of it, that you understand something, is tacky in the extreme Revolutionary sense. A Real Revolutionist has got to be prepared to understand/simplify everything. ]
  [The Partnership is a kind of "dual throne" where one prince is in charge of planning and the other in charge of doing. A Revolutionary exercise of power requires complex thinking/planning but simple doing. Simplicity is the most efficient, correct, excellent exercise of power. Everybody wants to submit to power; that is what life is all about: submitting to power. ]
  [1:20 Answering of questions. How to impose discipline and quality standards on those you supervise? Realize that Life supports/demands your activity for its growth and you assist by non-hostile iron handed supervision where required.


Transcript of Talk 0439

                 AN UNREAL SENSE OF THE COMPLEX

                 Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1989

             Document:  439, GSIBM, January 2, 1989

                          1/02/89 - (#)
1/02/89

                 AN UNREAL SENSE OF THE COMPLEX

     Under City conditions people can survive quite nicely with little to no success.  Much is said while little is done and failure becomes an integral part of the hobby.  A Real Revolutionist cannot, as everyone else can, continue to accept the status quo of their own Partnership, the situation between thinking and doing.  For a would-be Revolutionist to be successful he or she must be successful.

     With everyone else, much is said and little is done.  But a Real Revolutionist's attitude has to be:  "If I can say it I can do it," because if you cannot do it you never should have said it.  Almost everyone in the City believes that what they think correlates to what they do.  But if I asked them, "How much of what you think is repetitious?" they'd answer "Well, a good bit."  Then, I would have them (if they could be had) and I'd say, "Well, in that case, why haven't you done what you think about so that you wouldn't have to think about it any more?"

     As long as there is this continuing distinction between what you think and what you do, you never get more than some success.  Look at the stuff that is easy to spot:  "I should get more exercise," or, "I should call my mother more often, lose weight, go back to school."  Everyone has at least two or three that have been churning around their system for decades.  What you think in these situations does not correspond to what you do.

     Yet people are apparently successful.  They fix their roof, go to school and get degrees.  But people who finish school, who actually manage to do something, don't feel all that successful.  Because down at the absolute molecular level, success is judged by the degree to which what you think correlates to what you do -- and the two never correlate.  The "successful" feel an even greater disparity between what they think and what they do.  They are typically driven by feelings of inadequacy:  "I'm not doing enough.  I have an expensive car and I know people think I'm successful, but every day I think, 'I have to get up earlier and work harder.'  To tell you the truth, I feel like a failure." 

     Apparently people are born successful only to feel less successful than those who judge them to be successful.  So there are two kinds of people and the complexity of the situation leaves both sides incapable of understanding anything, which of course is the way it's supposed to be.  That is some success.

     Real success is to no longer be driven by the internal churning disparity between what you think and what you do.  It matters not if you outwardly succeed or fail.  You may become rich and famous, you may actually fix the leaky roof and get your diploma, but all of that is just some success.  And some success will not fuel doing This -- not some success, or no success or even feelings of failure.

     Don't listen to yourself say, "I should lose weight."  If you've been saying that for 20 years either do it or shut up.  Don't say, "My whole family's kind of fleshy.  You know, I think it's my metabolism.  I don't think I can actually lose weight."  Just quit listening and shut up.  "Yeah, but then again I do eat too much."  Okay, okay, shut up.  "Maybe I should take a course or read a book on how to love yourself anyway..."  Tell yourself to shut up.  You cannot listen to that, do nothing, and do This.

     To put this in a little more positive way; set aside the kind of nervous system chatter that has been going on all these years, no matter what the areas:  weight loss, exercise, calling your mother, making more money, being a better person.  If you actually can do one of those things, just do it.  Never mind the noise, never mind telling yourself what to do.  Just do it -- or shut up.

     Actually, a Real Revolutionist can tell himself what he's doing, but he only says it when he means it.  This gets into a subtle but dangerous shift from my saying that the Revolutionist's attitude has to be, "If I can say it, I can do it."  If you could mean what you say then you could say what you were going to do because if you said it, you would do it.

     The situation simply becomes:  "If I said it that's the end of it.  It's do or die time.  I am going to get up every morning and do such and such (or cease to do so and so) and that is the end of the subject."  You have to know what you're doing to know what you're doing and you've got to know what you're doing to do what you're knowing.  You have to know what you're doing to be able to do what you think.  And if you can't, there's no such thing as success.  You may be rich and famous, but in regard to This Activity, you haven't done anything.

     This is almost antipodal to what the ordinary level of intelligence believes about self improvement.  In everything from itty bitty projects like losing weight, to grand metaphysical and spiritual matters in the City -- what passes for success?  Failure.  Not even just some success.  When it gets down to real metaphysical, spiritual "doing good" in the City, what is success?  How do you know you are a gut-wrenching hand-wringing pious person, the serious kind that falls on his knees and crawls through glass or stays up all night lighting candle after candle?  Such behavior is emblematic of failure.  "I'm so weak and pitiful and I stray from the good path, so bless you lord for smiling on me and making me such a puddle of insignificant pee."

     Failure is a form of some success in the City -- that is a molecular truth, very subtly but just glaringly true once you get beyond binary sight.  Historically, in areas such as religion, the more people fail, the more they are recognized as successful.  Saints of all stripes whine and moan and write awful poetry, then want to jump up and smile and kiss Life, all on the basis of having a big hunger for the spiritual because "I'm weak, insignificant, horrible and pitiful."  Better yet, after they die, people read their poetry and think, "What a great man."  They are responding to a man admitting he's a failure.  City people take this failure as uplifting and challenging.

     This has gone on historically and goes on today.  Any so-called cult built upon a spokesman or teacher is based on the followers never measuring up.  If the people don't whip themselves enough, the leader does it.  Their failure is a sign of success.  That is how the City is set up:  "I can't do it, I'll never measure up.  What should I do?  I know what I'll do -- I won't do anything, I'll just struggle."  "Good boy, good girl."

     The feeling of no success is built into all organizations.  If the pope were giving a sermon about how "we all don't measure up," and someone stood up and said, "You know, I just realized I can do all those things that us catholics are supposed to do," the pope might say, "Bless you son," but he'd keep on reading from the Bible about how "we've all fallen short."  Suppose the guy persists:  "I really mean it, I've listened and I've worked on myself and now I can do it."  They would haul the boy off to a clinic or perhaps even lock him up.  The only alternative to some success, to failure, is success -- and success is beyond the perception of ordinary intelligence.  This is just as weird as can be and is also just as true as can be.

     Another little aspect:  ordinary intelligence suffers from a certain USC -- an unreal sense of the complex.  Here are three quick examples, though there are many others.  Ordinary intelligence doesn't know that man is captive.  Ordinary intelligence doesn't know that talk is energy transformed and transferred.  Ordinary intelligence doesn't know it doesn't know what it's going to say next.

     Ordinary intelligence thus has an unreal sense of the complex.  People begin to think that Life is too complex for mere mortals to understand, but that is only so for the ordinary.  Life makes a lot of sense.  This Thing makes a lot of sense.  Many people here have suddenly seen and understood specific areas that previously seemed unfathomable.  I put something a certain way and it suddenly makes all the sense in the world, as much sense as "2 + 2 = 4," while at the same time it's insane.

     Whereas, in the City everything takes on or results in an unreal sense of the complex.  The purpose for humanity's intelligence is to make the complex simple and usable.  There would be no such thing as technology, language or civilization -- man would not be transforming more complex forms of energy in the 3-D world in order to become more complex himself -- if it were not for an intelligence that made the complex (that is, what he thinks he perceives, out there and in here) more simplistic.

     How else could man do anything human?  How else could you use the discovered laws of science?  How could you use apparent observations of peoples' behavior?  It takes an unreal sense of the complex, and an intelligence that makes the complex simple.  If suddenly we could wipe your mind blank, and you looked around with a virgin intelligence, you would be overwhelmed, to say the least.  You'd experience instant information overload.  You'd have to blank out large portions of what you perceived.  That's what intelligence does.  It makes the complex simple.

     Ordinary intelligence makes the complex simple and for a Real Revolutionist this is also the case -- cubed, and around the corner with time in hand.  I cannot in some profitable way say that the situation is opposite for a Real Revolutionist, because he or she is also using intelligence to make the complex simple.  And yet it's different.  Other than the advances of technology, the fact that humanity has done what is necessary, in the City, making the complex simple is all based upon failure.  Human intelligence is never satisfied with that which it simplifies.

     Human intelligence observes the nature of Life and nations; kings doing battle and conflicts between and within families.  An ordinary person reduces these observations to a simple idea, either, "People can't help what they are doing, there's some reason they are the way they are," or, "People are evil, they could help themselves but they won't."

     This dual view has been present throughout history.  Everyone used to think people were spiritually ordained by the gods to do good or evil.  Nowadays the same duality is presented on a more psychological basis -- people are believed to have adverse backgrounds or self-defeating attitudes that account for the disparity.  These same two general choices are accepted as the only two possibilities, whether they're couched in religious or psychological terms.

     Is anyone satisfied with those?  No.  It is all based on complete failure.  Someone ponders, "How can this war go on brother against brother?"  One intellect -- a human -- can simplify that into an apparently real conclusion:  "War just proves that humans are still animalistic barbarians."  He may believe that for years and even have followers who say he is right.  But, does that simplicity satisfy the person who thought or adopted it?  The answer, of course, is no.  The ordinary intellect's purpose is to make the complex simple.  But notice, I didn't say to make the complex simple in a satisfactory manner -- .pain the City all activities are always unsatisfactory.  What alternative is there?  What choice does anyone have?

     Even though a Real Revolutionist uses intelligence to make the complex simple, in a sense his intelligence is far removed from City affairs, because the simplicity a Real Revolutionist must take from the complex has to be successful.  What a Revolutionist does is, in fact, satisfying, though not by any objective external standard.  Only someone with an alternative new intelligence knows when he is satisfied.  Everyone else just knows when they are not satisfied.  You see something and that's it.  You're so satisfied you never think to say, "Boy, I'm satisfied!"  When you actually see something on that basis, you forget it immediately.

     Someone says:  "You used to talk about so and so and now I never hear you talk about it.  You haven't mentioned the subject in years, has something happened?  Do you understand it?"  You don't just say, "Yeah," even if he's a good coffee drinking friend.  The real answer is you don't think about it.  One sign that you understand something is (in a City sense) you forget about it.  Another sign right past forgetting is when someone asks, "Do you understand this?" and you do understand it, but you'd almost die rather than say you do.  To admit you understand something is revolutionarily tacky.

     Only the tackiest kinds of spiritual leaders would actually tell you they understand something.  "You say you want to know what happens when you die?  Well, you've come to the right place because I understand what happens."  It's tacky if they tell you they understand.  Now you may be in a situation where you really want to tell someone about what you understand.  But to do so is almost certain death -- death is not that bad as long as you don't have to die in a tacky manner.  If you admit that you actually understand something you should be slapped (though you may have no peers to slap you).  That's how tacky that is.

     The Real Revolutionist uses new intelligence to make the complex simple and satisfying.  The Revolutionist is successful, or he has not correctly done it.  Any time you feel, "I am struggling, with this problem.  I've had a few ideas, I think I'm close to an answer, but I still find the whole thing a little disquieting," that's just chatter.  Give yourself a break.  You're just saying, "I'm failing right along and feeling City-wise."  There is nothing to debate about understanding.  The Revolutionist does not wonder, "Am I doing this correctly?  Do I understand?"  You either do or you don't.

     A Revolutionist must be prepared to understand everything.  A Revolutionist must be prepared to simplify everything, to take the complex and see the simplicity of it.  And, he or she must see that which is complex and that which is simplistic in their proper doses and in their proper forms.  Sometimes I do that for you accidentally.  There you are with some complex thing hanging around your nervous system, some big moral issue and I accidentally simplify it for you.  This hits you like a body blow.  Suddenly I took the whole thing and broke it apart, threw it down, picked it back up and showed it to you.  There's nothing to say.  You go, "Yeah," and that's it.  You don't even have to say, "I agree," or, "Thanks a lot."  I just held up a piece of a 5-D holograph and you saw it and there's nothing else to say except "Aha!"

     Sometimes I start off simplistically, pull out a piece and you go, "Oh, okay."  Then sometimes I pull a piece out and no one gets it.  Maybe later I go in and pull out another piece from somewhere else and you go, "Aha, oh, yeah, yeah."  There is an appropriate dose of the simplicity or complexity of everything vis a vis your intelligence at that particular time.  I stress that there's no such thing as a period because when you actually see something you have no question about what it is, and you also know that ain't the end -- you can almost smell something even better coming up.  You begin to see things that you realize are presently more complex than they will later be.

     Let's move on to the Partnership.  I have described the Partnership as the apparent two parts of your nervous system, the two voices in you.  There have to be two parts for you to talk to yourself; the thought process requires an observer.  Combining the Partnership with my description of man's nervous system as a government -- a state with a City and potential virgin revolutionary areas up on the hill -- the Partnership could be looked at as a dual throne.  The Partnership could be viewed as two brothers splitting their sovereignty, like the beginning and the end of the Roman empire where you had the Eastern seat of power in Constantinople and a Western prince in Rome.  The Partnership would be like two kings, two people, splitting their sovereignty over this dual throne right down the middle.  May I further suggest to you that one prince seems to be in charge of planning and one seems to be in charge of doing.

     Consider now what would be a fully willful exercise of power -- someone with a stable monarch, a real ruling power that could mean what it said.  Such a king would think complexly and do simply.  This is so "out there," historically.  In you this would be triply so, at least.

     That which is simple and crude in you can come into power and sure can give a lot of your population the blues.  Historically, such individuals are often referred to as deranged fanatics, leaders who seem responsible for very questionable episodes of Life's history.  I suggest to you such leaders both thought and acted simply.

     An excellent ruler, out there and in you, would think complexly and do simply.  That is the whole dance of power people submit to in Life.  Even people who dream of anarchy and say, "To hell with power," are still involved in the dance.  Anarchy has to have something to push against, something to attack.  Everyone submits to power.  Everyone loves to be dominated.  That's what Life is about.  You may get to dance forward for a while, but ultimately you and everyone else wants to dance backward.  It's just a matter of degree.

     The real exercise of power is simplistic.  Simplicity is efficient.  An excellent ruler does not get involved in long harangues.  A real king doesn't give long-winded explanations.  He does not decree, "Everyone on the street after 5 o'clock will be shot," and then ask, "Does anyone have a problem with that?"  And he does not walk off the balcony and hide behind a curtain to see how the people take the decree.

     Simplicity is the most efficient way to exercise power.  The correct exercise of power, the most correct joining of what you think to what you do, is to just do it.  Such is the minimal necessary success for you to press on with This Thing.  If you continue to whine, you miss This.  You may continue to hang around and be intrigued, you may get a sense of cardboard bravado, of, "Yeah, I think I will lose 40 pounds and learn how to sing tomorrow, and maybe I'll get myself to grow two inches."  But unless you can just do it you've missed it.

     The correct, most efficient exercise of power is simple.  But does anyone in the City operate that way?  No.  Just observe your own nervous system.  Maybe one day you decide, "I've had it, I need to lose some weight and get more exercise.  I know, I'll take up aerobics."  So you go to a class and what happens?  The hobby expands.  You have to get your credit okayed when you sign the sales contract.  Then they have to show you around the place and you have to fill out a questionnaire about what you eat and what your goals are.  You look around to see what everyone's wearing and decide you have to buy clothes.  Then you think, "I'll also need new shoes that are color coordinated with my leg warmers."

     In other words, you immediately distance yourself from the direct, most efficient exercise of power.  You fall into failure by becoming part of the hobby.  Eventually you quit going and your spouse says, "You've stopped going to class.  Do you realize we're in debt $1,200?"  "Well, these new shoes hurt my feet."  I'm not attacking people, I'm not telling you that I'm right and the world's wrong.  I'm just describing the nature of man, of Life.  What would have been the efficient exercise of power?  If a Revolutionist wanted to lose 10 pounds, he'd probably just quit eating, because that's efficient.  Plus, it would only take about three days.

     I'm not saying hobbies are evil, or that you shouldn't pay to be around other people and exercise, but it is not the most efficient exercise of power, of doing.  Your thinking becomes complex.  You spend a couple of weeks shopping for clothes.  Then you tour all the facilities in town and go back to a few to see the locker rooms again.  And, if you're ordinary, you think, "I'm moving closer to my goal."  But, do you understand -- you have already partially failed.  Failure is built into the hobby.  The hobby is no longer to get in better shape.  The hobby is now picking out the best place to get in shape, the best place with the best price and "my kind of people.  Oh yeah, and a place that's close to the house."  The hobby goes on and on.  The thinking becomes more complex and then becomes self-defeating.

     Such complexity eventually becomes the basis of an unreal sense of the complex.  "It's no easy matter to lose weight.  It takes effort and planning.  You have to know what you're doing."  No, to lose weight requires that you cut down or stop eating.  Believe it or not, to exercise requires that you exercise.  "No, no, you have to know what you're doing.  You have to have the right support and the right place."

     A proper and efficient, an excellent king would think complexly and he would do simply.  But, you have to know how to properly think and plan in a complex manner to do simply.  Or else you end up with an unreal sense of the complex.  That built in failure becomes a preordained, inescapable part of your hobby.  Whether you do lose a few pounds and get into shape becomes irrelevant.

     But if you're involved with This Thing, you cannot operate with an unreal sense of the complex.  When you know exactly what you should do, if you stand around and talk about it you're suffering from an unreal sense of the complex.  "I think I'll wait a while longer and think about it."  You're playing the same game as, "I'm going to have to check out one more of these aerobic places before I start my exercise program."  It's the same as saying, "I think I'll quit smoking.  Where can I go to quit smoking where they let you smoke at the meetings?"

     Someone asked a question about how to handle people working under them.  They said, "There are certain standards of work I've got to maintain, but to what degree should I go around and 'kick at peoples' machines?'"  In such a case you're not really just kicking somebody's machine, because what you're dealing with is pushing part of Life's machinery in certain necessary places.  Someone may have put you in charge, but it's Life that's in charge.  If Life is supporting the endeavor, then you have to help push if you're going to stay there.  You have to push those under you.  But you cannot go around kicking peoples' machinery on the basis that you mechanically want to do so, that is, on the basis that your machinery wants to kick their machinery. 

     It's not a matter of mistreating people or demanding the impossible of them.  There is nothing wrong with pushing people.  Another part of the person's question is, "How hard should I push?"  Hard enough for success.  And if that becomes too hard either the endeavor was too hard for you, or too hard for the people you were pushing.  It's simple enough:  If you don't like hogs, you just get out of the hog closet.

     Another similar question:  "I like to do and usually do good quality work.  What I can't do is work with someone who does sloppy or substandard work without being bothered."  Nor should you.  You are not mistreating someone for that to bother you.  You may never say anything to them, or you may eventually have to say, "Hey, we're jointly responsible for the quality of work here, and if we turn out the kind of work you've been doing we're in trouble."  Of course, if you're in a supervisory position you can say, "If you keep up like this we're going to have to let you go because I'm responsible and I cannot leave things operating at this level."  That is not mistreating someone.

     You've got to face up to a kind of City-wide inevitability.  Ordinary people, generally speaking, have no conception of a distinct difference between good work and substandard work.  They don't.  If you're in a position where that affects you personally, even just internally, you should not overlook it.  You don't necessarily have to do something or say something on a personal basis.  Just operate on the safe assumption that people do not, within themselves, have a clear distinction between good work and semi-good work.  Because, in the City, semi-good work is good work.  Some success is success.  But a Revolutionist, for himself, does not have to leave it there.