Audio = Stream the audio from the video using the bar below.
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk 0449 - January 25, 1989 - 1:21
[Kyroot to :04]
[The concept of "objective". Remembering that nothing is separate, apart, note that objectivity has never been adequately described in the City. The dictionary definition --free of personal feeling, based on facts -—fails to take into account that feelings are facts; more, which facts are selected. Always some predisposition is included. Life itself is not objective; it has a passion and a preference in everything. Its predilection is for growth and increasing complexity: intelligence.
[Passion/feeling/emotion is carried by the blood and where it does not penetrate there is death. Life's passion is what animates all human choices, preferences; without it there would BE no choices. E.g., the choice between apples and oranges is activated by the preference of hunger. So how is it that humans believe that "objectivity" is a real quality, has a basis in reality? To What End has Life arranged it so? The closest approach to objectivity is oblivion-indifference, which is the equivalent of death re: the object in question. Humans demand absolutes in their thinking of action(TOA) re: change and are thus condemned to Some Success because their action can't be absolute. Humans are injudicious in their TOA. Life's passion is for growth, increased complexity, i.e., intelligence. Ordinary people do not always share this passion for growth; they insult themselves. Do you share Life's preference for growth? The object of This Thing: preference for growth equivalent to Life's own preference; to grow more non-City complex and intelligent. But all other passions inevitably mix in; thus the Real Revolutionist must set a standard of which feelings are profitable to him and live by it. The Real Revolutionist must judiciously use the feelings in his blood, ignoring the atavistic. The messenger is the bad news; the feeling that some feelings are to be repressed and/or rehabilitated (i.e., the bad news) itself is the bad news—to be summarily executed.
01/23/89 — K012389.txt for talk # 0449 Copyright 1989 J. M. Cox
...and Kyroot said:
What everyone else imagines, a real revolutionist knows, and
what everyone else knows, a revolutionist forgets.
The only condemnation worth a damn is self condemnation,
(and even that is only worth half a damn).
The routine info/energy exchanges between men are always
reflections of prevailing official city reality, and do not begin
to convey, or touch, the level of revolutionary data.
If you don't think that sequence is damn near everything,
just try and change your place in line.
While sitting in a city park, a revolutionist overheard a
conversation in which one person told another in a most serious
tone, "I just PRAY that I'm wrong," and he laughed so hard he
frightened an old oak tree into wetting itself.
Everyone has a "secret vice" they believe they desire, but
which they never consummate in a manner that produces the
As gods and philosophies get older, they can't be as
History, to use the parlance of TV programming, certainly
proves the value of "lead-ins."
One ole city atheist said that the only down side to his
situation was that his only source of advice was his lawyer.
One guy sitting next to me on a park bench in the city
confided that he found the whole concept of death "droll."
People who can BE subdued probably need to be so-ed,
Why be a "ph" in an "f" world.
"I'll tell you what it is," he cried, "you want me to tell
you what it is? OK, I'll tell you. The human race is either
organized crime, or codified suffering."
There's this wiry guy who lives in Oslo who runs about the
neighborhood all the time shouting, "So what's it with you?"
Some of his neighbors wish he would move.
So why do you think they CALL it "small talk."
Numbers ain't shit...neither are most letters.
A real revolutionist might play it safe even when he knows
it's a waste of time.
One west coast revolutionist told his partnership, "Don't
call me, I'LL call me."
The home field advantage don't mean nothing if you're
playing the game in the tar pit of your own mind.
A real revolutionist sorta smiles at the original asking
Transcript by Dana
Jan Cox Talk #0449 - 1/25/89
transcribed by Dana in 2007 as part of his funny physics collection
Suggested Title: Objectivity with a Passion
People are not objective. There is nothing that you can absolutely refer to as being separate and this includes human intelligence. People continue writing about objectivity but it has never been satisfactorily defined, humanity does not have any definition or notation or discussion and does not find it to be adequate, even those who present the discussion.
Why they cannot satisfactorily describe being objective is because there is no such thing.
Objective is (dictionary) being free from personal (human) feelings, based on fact. The problem that cannot be seen with two eyes is personal feelings are facts. Even those in the city who are intellectual critics must have their brains warmed by the heat and the passions of the blood. There is no such thing as the dictionary definition of objective. Where are you going to go to get something free from personal feelings based on fact? You even have personal feelings on what I just said, you think you know someone who is objective.
This has nothing to do with me being any kind of critic.
This has to do with how Life works and which is invisible to man, even the parts of the electromagnetic visual area of the spectrum, the audio, the tactile, and the parts which can be seen remain invisible.
If we had a national publication, people who are respected thinkers, Fred Smith of the NY times and he is one of the intellectual writers of the time, and he has to come up with and article the blood diffusing through Life itself and coming into man’s brains and individual man’s brains and the man says what will I write, and the subject of population comes up, and there are books out saying the problem facing man is not the ozone layer breaking up or the danger of atomic war, it is the population bomb. We are going to eat ourselves into oblivion, starve ourselves. You would believe the information Life puts out ( not the lecturer) that the hordes are coming. You also must know that there are books out saying that is a bunch of intellectual falderal. There are always people starving on this planet and they could point out its just political warfare and can show, If you get on their train, that it’s a matter of distribution and of intent. There’s no such thing as hunger by itself. Because there’s enough food stockpiled in this country to feed the hungry of the world but they can’t get it out. It’s just a matter that the system of Life is not arranged for every human or group of humans is getting adequately fed. But the idea that the human race is so over-populated that its going to destroy itself, is just ridiculous.” And you hear it and say what a relief.
So heres this intellectual American writer who comes out with some of the figures, and says the biggest danger is not the greenhouse effect or the deterioration of the American economy, its over population and for some reason we won’t face up to it.” And it may appear to be objective, analytically correct statistically detailing of this problem.
I’m pointing out that there are facts that will support either position, there is a danger of over-population or there’s not. Why did he pick one or the other? He doesn’t know why. Let me point it out psychologically rather than electrochemically, what if this man is wired up to be an upstanding misanthrope, at least non-gregarious. He’s read enough to come out with an article either way.
Some will say their side is objective while the other side relies on passion and prejudice, misinformation. But back in the city take anybody that is apparently the epitome of a thinker that would present you with the information free from personal feeling based upon facts, how did they pick out the facts? What made them pick out that subject? A gregarious person might have the attitude of the more the merrier, we need more people.’
Its impossible to talk about anything freed of any passion. It there’s no passion I wouldn’t be here.
If I said you’ve got to listen at least for a few minutes totally objectively to the facts I’m going to send out. Which facts am I going to send out? Well what ever I feel like sending out, and which ones are you going to hear, well the ones that you feel like are deserving of good hearing and accept the ones blah blah blah.
Does everybody understand that what seems to be the core of something in the 3-d world could be the periphery if you get around the corner, if you could see it beyond the 4-d world and see just a 5-d complex, and what seems to be the core could have suddenly fallen over here. And it could now be part of the periphery and it could appear to you to be part of the fringe element of something. If you could unfold it at least one more time into the fifth dimension it might suddenly jump in at that dimension, at that level to be the center of it. But that’s another story isn’t it.
Even those who do not use the word objective as being too philosophical,
If I had all of humanity there and said most people feel like that you should do better or change yourself, what would you say how would you describe real quickly what is it you would change personally, lets strike out physical attributes about what seems to be you personally, one of the most common would be” well, I wish I wouldn’t go so much by the way I feel.” I wish I wasn’t so much a victim of my feelings, these are people who wouldn’t know the meaning of objectivity who are not all that literate.
I could say to them what you mean is you wish you could be lead more by your intelligence, that you wouldn’t react so much by the way you feel, but by getting the facts.
Even those who do not use the word objectively everybody on this planet is made to think about. And made to feel I’m too emotional, bad love affairs, they are made to believe “if I was not so subject to personal feelings.”
At the other end of the intellectual end of the city they would say directly they have to stay on that line of being objective, they can’t get too involved with their personal feelings, but base their life as much as possible on facts.
Life has arranged things that way but Life is not exempt from itself. In everything that happens life has a preference predilection or it wouldn’t have two choices.
Life has a preference, life has a passion life is not objective.
The facts are there are no facts without personal feelings because you can’t arrive at which facts you‘re talking about unless you have some personal feelings. Because for whatever group of facts you’re talking about, you’ve got a group of opposing facts. For every word you got an anonym for every anonym you’ve got a synonym. You’ve got to have some feeling.
Life has a passion for growth, for increased complexity and intelligence. That’s what everybody is here for. But intelligence is not without feeling. You can look at the human brain the far end of the nervous system up above the hypothalamus at least as being human intelligence. But you can’t cut it out. If the blood gets there it’s carrying passion. If the blood is not getting there it’s dead. If you’re alive you’ve got feeling which includes the brain.
Life has a preference and passion so how do you believe that anything within that could be exempt in any manner.
The closest thing is you have no interest in something someone is saying so there is no energy transfer, say you’ve got no interest in sports and someone is talking about it. That simply is that you’re not involved in a heat exchange with the other person, with the subject. But if you’re going to dance to the tune it is a foregone physical fact that you already have a passion a preference or you could not be interested in it.
If you are hungry you have a preference. The rest of it is peripheral, the dust and smoke coming out of the exhaust.
Life has it arranged to not only believe in that ,but they believe its possible to have a choice but have no preference, no feeling, no passion.
To what end do people believe they feel too much, that their feeling should be in the control of their intellect. Facts about relationships or business
How has life arranged it to believe its possible not only preferable.
How is it arranged objective being free of personal feelings based on facts.
What is Life trying to do through men to make men believe it’s possible. Life is stirring things up not Attila or Stalin or me or you.
There is nothing nobody that was arranged in the so called environment in life that made you feel what you feel. You can’t take the way you feel personally. Your mother didn’t make you feel that way. At the very least you do not know why you have the feelings you have. And I don’t mean that in almost a theoretical way. I have wasted my time if you still think that the way you feel is attributable to anything that you could begin to point to. There is simple no explaining how you feel.
So it is not a problem that you are too much a victim of your feelings, its not a problem of getting free of feelings. If you could you’d die. Life is wired up in the city for men to be not judicious. If you ask how do you feel too much and you’d say in all ways. Which habits do you want break and you’d say all habits, I don’t want any habits. Life is arranged in the intellectual nervous system of man to scream out for absolutes, free me from all habits, all feelings, that is the way men are driven to think in the city and for a reason which won;’t fit in the 3-d world. By demanding so much its not possible to have full success even at that level. By demanding complete success its foreordained that all you’ll get is some success. In the city ordinary intelligence cannot be judicious. It can in behavior, it can make halting steps, but when it thinks what it should be doing, when it is planning for action its actions may be judicious, but the planning is always whole hog. By their own thinking humans can never achieve full success because they demand in their thinking full success. And there fore it can’t be had even in the 3-d world which even then wouldn’t be full success.
You have got to be judicious. The body of life has a preference, it has an interest in everything. For which you can be aware. It would not have tow possibilities unless it had a preference, and the preference is to grow. And it is doing that through humans at least you can see. Not individuals, not the human race although they are being dragged along. Life is becoming more complex and to be more complex is to be increased in your intelligence. It is a gradual process but when it happens in one persons life time I have to designate a cut of line to make it a quantum picture. I call it new intelligence. You can see it. This is not the way I have always thought and its really got nothing to do with information ofr facts. What its got to do with is enriched blood. A judicious way your preference for being alive.
Ask yourself this do you share that feeling with Life. People commit suicide and people do less than destroy themselves on the 3-d level, they insult themselves. The collection of molecules referred to as individuals in the human race each one of them is not at any given time or even in their life time is taken as a 4 dimensional holograph. You can’t look at any person and say they’re representative of growing their whole Life. But now I’m talking to you, if your preference is not to grow and become more intelligence here, which is what life is talking about through man, if you do not share that persona feeling for your own life, that has got to be the common denominator of tall the people here. They do share life has preference in any situation to grow. If you belong in This that is your reason for being alive. The passion is to grow to become more complex.and increase your intelligence. Its life not you you didn’t decide it. Because of the preference and you can not continue to hold the preference without being a person who feels. So your preference cannot be to be objective. You cannot be objective and be alive. Everything that id do is based on personal preference. Then the question is what feeling do I entertain, what feeling will I let direct me, which feelings should I be resisting. You can do some correct measuring of the feeling s that are native to everybody.
The feelings are in the molecules in your blood. Life put them there, your parents didn’t put them there or the environment or your childhood. And life’s preference is that it doesn’t bleed to death, and there is one creature in the 3-d world that is involved in becoming more intelligent; man. You’ve got to judiciously use what’s in the blood. There is nothing to be gained tro try and selectively start dealing with your own blood as it is now, that is your feelings. To clean up some of your feelings, cut off some of the bad feelings you‘re wasting your time. It’s a chump game, its what Life wants your to do, it’s a kind of stability predictability, it is the correct exercise of power, but you’re struggling against that, and its not enough for Life to keep people from doing it. There is nothing to be gained whatsoever by trying to trim up reshape clean up the feelings you presently have. If you could be intelligent you would then judiciously consider the feelings you do have and some of them you simply would not entertain. There’s nothing to debate, go back to the city and become a minister and denounce them.
You have got to realize that it is a waste of your energy to think about feelings on the basis that some are good and some bad and that’s your natural feeling about it. You cannot trust that as an objective criteria.
Forget about you mother or your father, just cut yourself and there it is. There is the history and the passion of man, everything you need to know. Right there. so the very thing that carried the message that “some of your feelings we should do something about”” the messenger is the bad news. That saying about killing the messenger.
The feelings that go to your brain and say s some of your feelings are not right, not decent, and you say which ones. The feeling that brought you that is now telling you that the messenger is the bad news. Every time that messenger comes in its always bad news. How do you classify what is needed to suppress. They are the bad news they are the news There is nothing to be done whatsoever by operating on that basis.