Video = None on YT
Audio = Stream the audio from the video from the bar below ( includes 7min Kyroots)
Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0456 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = No t Yet ( Kneeded )
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = tbd
Transcript = See Below ( needs formatting = Tneeded )
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk 0456 - Feb 10, 1989 ** - 1:12
[Kyroot to :07]
[The indigenous usually seems to be of very little particular value. The "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" concept. E.g., exotic religions of the '60's; sexual attraction, etc. Nobody wants to remain merely as they were born. Their indigenous state is unacceptable, unexciting, thus the preoccupation with change. A new Bach talent with no audience has no value in life; it is only potential energy, inactivated, unmoved. His talent doesn't seem valuable even to him. This is an unrecognized law of physics: No matter what you think it doesn't seem to help; it has no particular value because it is indigenous. Connection to the allure of the exotic, remembered dictums from another source ("better to die like a man than a cowardly dog"). Connects to attempting to change behavior with new dress, hair-do, etc., but not thru changing the way you think and feel, since it is known to be ineffective, of no help, impossible. ]
[No plans = no time = no suffering (human fears, worries). Consider, if man could plan and act simultaneously, would that be the end of all human intellectual needs/functions? The modern expansion of the age-old emphasis on acting "spontaneously", without thought, to find spiritual salvation, is: no time = no plans = no thought. Connection to not telling yourself what you're doing. It renders planning impossible since there is nothing to tell, because no time gap to tell it in. Life has its own operational version of this going on right now, everywhere: man himself is the lag, the thought process itself is the lag of Life's acting/deciding. That lag is man's environment, like the water to a fish. ]
[If the original creator of the universe sold his stock in it and then later wanted to buy it back from the present owners, would it be appropriate for them to enquire as to the motivation, the validity of the reasons for the buy-back?
THE INDIGENOUS SEEMS TO BE OF NO PARTICULAR VALUE
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1989
Document: 456, GSIBM, February 10, 1989
2/10/89 - (#)
THE INDIGENOUS SEEMS TO BE OF NO PARTICULAR VALUE
I recently heard that one North African country was importing elephants from South Africa for a big wildlife park. They said that poaching had depleted their supplies, and, in fact, the tourists preferred the South African elephants. They had to import elephants to a place where they are indigenous. This is but one example that the indigenous usually seems to be of very little particular value. Here you have a fair corollary to my previous mention that to be of any value, things have to be moved.
On a more personal level, people develop tastes for exotic things, such as religions. In the western world, during the 1960's, many people took up with eastern gurus. They would save their money to travel to exotic lands. Why? No matter their story, their indigenous religion had no particular value to them relatively speaking.
People are fascinated with sex partners of other races. An American man might find French women more attractive than American women. He'll tell you, "I just like French women," but the real reason is that the indigenous, relatively speaking, seems to have no particular value.
I am not saying that the indigenous is worthless. Many people follow their forefathers' religion all their lives or stay faithful to their sexual partner, but there's no particular value placed on it. People can cherish their church and their spouse, but they give it no more thought than having grown up with their nose. "Well, my nose isn't that bad. It's not great, but at least I don't walk around with a hat over my head." That is how people feel about their religion or sexual partner.
People do not get as excited over their native religion as they would if they suddenly took up with an exotic (to them) religion. They'd carry around the books, learn to write and read the language and drive their friends and family crazy with strange words. They'd develop a passion for the exotic religion that their native religion would never have inspired.
What I am telling you is quite basic. Even common City sense recognizes the indigenous as being of little relative value. No one thinks of it. People always want to move or change their job. This is a basic dynamic which is almost axiomatic. There are adages: "the grass is always greener on the other side."
The ultimate example is that no one wants to remain/be simply as they were born, who they are. You can try to explain your way out of changing religions or sex partners or living somewhere new and exciting, but notice, no one places any particular value on that which is indigenous, insofar as what you are. Notice, everyone wants to change, at least to some degree. You cannot help it, that's part of being alive.
"Who you are" is the ultimate area of things being indigenous, because that covers whatever may be your interest in affairs religious, affairs sexual, affairs re: where you live. All of that fits into who you seem to be, and no one places any particular value on that. Of course, there are a few people, working real hard for Life, who are quite content with who they are. They do the poses, make up the games and name their children after themselves. And, you shouldn't mess around with such people.
Other than those exceptions, the run of the mill, the hoi polloi of Life do not find what they are indigenously to be acceptable. They don't want to be who they are, they can't even accept themselves passively. No one can say, "I am what I am, I'll accept me." Actively, negatively, they talk about the deep desire to change and better themselves, how "I'm going back to school." Such talk sounds fine in the City, but another way to view this is that no one finds what they are indigenously to be acceptable.
Everyone wants to move, not just literally to a new neighborhood, but within their own wiring. Humans are constructed with an unknown awareness that their indigenous resources, their iron ore, their gold, has to be moved to be of any value.
If some guy was the literal reincarnation of Johann Sebastian Bach and he sat around at home humming new, more up to date complex fugues, the music would be valueless if no one else knew about it. He'd have to be a Revolutionist for it to have value without an audience. He has to move it, pass it on. It doesn't matter if the fugues are so good they'd make Bach cry with joy. It doesn't matter if the person is an expert on music and can judge independently the value of his work. The music would have no indigenous value to the person.
The only way the music has value is if the composer hums the four-part invention to someone who can say, "Wow, that's amazing!" Then it has value.
It's not a matter of being validated by critics and the intellectual artistic community; it's not a matter of psychological needs. Those are just childish City observations which reflect only a small part of the dynamic I speak of. There are unrecognized laws of physics -- until the guy plays his fugues for some other human, there is literally no energy executed. It is all potential, no more than the mechanical potential energy of a rock on a cliff. And Life cannot live off potential energy.
No matter what you're talking about -- sex, religion, philosophy -- that which is indigenous to any ordinary human doesn't seem to that person to have any particular value. Do you wonder why no matter what you think it doesn't seem to help? Under all ordinary conditions that which seems to be indigenous to you generally also seems to be of no particular value.
Another example: A guy spent time as a prisoner of war and he survives to return home. The reporters query, "How did you do it?" He passionately tells them about the tough sergeant in boot camp who drilled into his head, "It's better to die like a man then live like a cowardly dog." The guy goes on to say, "That stayed with me. There I was being tortured. Some of my friends cracked, but what kept me going was seeing old Sarge's face, hearing him say, 'It is better to die like a man then live like a cowardly dog.'" How come the guy didn't think of that himself if it was so important? If he did, would the words have had as much of an impact? No. The words had to come from an external source.
Who can be religious on their own? Nobody. Anyone born with the urge to be religious has to find a religious organization, someone to tell them what to read, what to say, what to believe. So now consider: Why does anything you think ordinarily seem to be of no particular value? Why don't your indigenous thoughts seem to help? Ideas seem to only have value when they originate non-indigenously.
At an early age people catch on they can't change the way they think and feel. But they still want to change their behavior, and they go around wondering why they cannot. Eventually, they realize: "I'm not even sure I can ever change the way I behave, but apparently I can get a new hairdo and dye my hair," or, for men, "Apparently I can buy a new suit and shave my moustache." That is a form of behavior as opposed to thinking or feeling. There is almost this awareness, even in the City human system, that "anything I'll ever think or feel ain't worth spit." You may even encourage your children to think creatively and praise their cute little original thoughts and ideas. But the kid finds out: "If my ideas are so great, why don't I feel better? Why don't I understand more? Why am I not different than I was?"
So everyone looks afar -- if not across the world, at least to the next person. "If I can't be a Hindu, at least I'll try the Lutherans." "If I can't meet an Indonesian woman, at least my next door neighbor don't look too bad." Women, of course, have their own version. However the desire is expressed, what it always amounts to is, that which is indigenous in all areas generally seems to be of no particular value.
Now for another corollary. I have told you: If there were no plans there would be no need for time. Then, if there were no time, there would be no worries. If it were not for time -- what you feel as time -- you would have no heartbreak, no nightmares, no unfulfilled dreams, no regrets. You could not. There has to be a lag to think about the things that seem to be the cause and effect of heartbreaks, nightmares, daydreams and regrets. No plans, no time. No time, no human worries.
Now, for the corollary: Would there be absolutely no human worries if you were as you are (that is, you were a thinking creature) but instead of planning, which is a function of thinking, you could "simultaneously" decide and jump, decide and execute?
I put simultaneously in quotes because ordinary intelligence says that one of those two -- thinking or doing -- always has to come before the other. You've got your own laboratory to tell you that. Old intelligence insists either you decide a split second before you do, or that you do, and then go back and tell yourself "I meant to do it."
What I am pointing towards is another kind of simultaneous -- simultaneous into another dimension. What if you could absolutely, simultaneously, without one variation of a nanosecond, decide and act? You then would not only be non-planning, you would be outside of ordinary time. Could you see that as a possibility of the signal of the end of all human concerns?
It is not a matter of acting and cutting off your intelligence. It is simply that thinking could not precede acting if they both happened instantly, simultaneously. If that were possible, could a man then in some way properly behave? Could he properly live in that fashion? Would it be possible to live without planning and fulfill and feed all necessary intellectual needs? Would there be any need for an intellect?
What I am pointing toward comes up in the many descriptions of attempted versions of what This is, in all sorts of mysticism from whirlers to heavers, to throwers, dreamers and chanters. Each one has their own description of continually living on the edge. They talk of picking up a rock and throwing it: "If you just 'throw' the rock you'll hit the telephone pole every time. You can't plan to throw it, you can't check the wind and take aim, you just have to 'throw' it." That kind of talk strikes a chord in people and they'll sigh, "Yeah."
Everyone's done this one time or another, just picked up a rock and hit the telephone pole. But then you go, "Wow, I should have pursued a baseball career." And when you try again you can't do it. Once you start planning you can't ever hit the pole again.
It's but one step from that to a would be mystical enjoindre to "reach a point where you can just act spontaneously, and you will always hit the target," or, "seek the truth without actually seeking the truth," etc.
I have just given you, for those who can hear it and need it, the world's best, most up to date explanation of such things by asking: is it possible, in a way that can't be described when I say simultaneous, that decision and action can be simultaneous? Planning will always have some lag in the City unless you're talking of just a motor habit. What if you could do everything instantaneously, with no lag? None. The decision to jump and the jump itself -- simultaneous.
If you could think and act simultaneously can you see that would usher in a whole new era of time for you? You would have no need to tell yourself anything. The next step: it wouldn't be possible to tell yourself anything. There would be no gap. The same time you decided to do something you'd do it. What's there to tell unless your life were to be some kind of running ex post facto monologue to yourself? You'd be talking to yourself about a non-ending string of fait accomplis.
This kind of simultaneous action/decision is impossible to even think about. Ordinary intelligence can hear the words, but cannot think and do instantly. That's not a challenge. Just check with your own brain. It says, "What you're saying is somewhere between insane and dangerous. Besides, it just doesn't compute. Planning is what makes humans what they are! There is no way to decide what you're going to do without at least a gago-nanosecond between thinking it and doing it." Your 3-D brain says: "That's the way 3-D life is," and your 3-D brain is correct.
City intelligence might pursue this further and say: "Oh, now I get it. You're saying the animal instincts, the feral urges, the uncivilized, unspeaking part of man comes to the surface and you do whatever it tells you. You see food in the grocery store and you just grab it and eat it." That's not even in the ball park. That's the best you can do with old intelligence, but what I'm talking about is not known, is not possible, and can't even be thought about using old intelligence. Old intelligence insists I'm either saying, "Do without planning," or, "Whatever you do, say, 'I planned it.'" But what I'm describing is neither one of those two.
What if Life can and is doing what I'm describing in a more complex dimension? Life instantly, simultaneously does what it decides to and we are part of what Life is doing and planning to do -- we are the lag. What if Life is already right in front of you? Is it possible that you are right in front of you, that you are right all around you? Any time you have thinking you have a lag between planning and execution, and we are the lag. Humans are the lag not as a noun, but as a process. Our thinking process is the process of the lag, and all we feel is the lag. To us that is what Life is. Or, as the down-home philosophers say: "It's just one damn thing after another." They say that figuratively, but it fits. It has to fit or else everything would run together.
What is human intelligence? It's being aware that there is a lag between what you say and what you do. You say, "I'm leaving," and there is at least a split second until you do. Or you're downtown and you hear "rumble, rumble, rumble" and you realize, "My god, it's an earthquake, the building's going to fall on us!" And it does. But you had at least a second to realize that. Or, there you are, you've worked yourself up into high society and then at some party, you bend over to pick up a napkin and out comes a rude noise. You think, "I'm ruined!" but at least you had the lag to make your comment. What if that lag is what human thinking is about?
Is it possible you might be able to act on what seems to be plans of acting, in a more complex way, absolutely simultaneous with the thinking about acting, without any lag? What kind of process, what kind of thinking would that be? It would not be old, or ordinary. It definitely wouldn't be the standard.
Just notice all the ordinary things that people take as part of the irritating rash of being human and mortal. You are thinking all the time. Then you think, "Oh, I shouldn't think that. Stop thinking that, you. But wait, I can't stop thinking that!" You think of stuff and you think, "That kind of stuff's driving me crazy." Then you tell someone your thought and think, "Boy, I wish I hadn't said that." Then you walk off and you think, "I should have said so and so." Then you run into that person again and you think, "I'm afraid of what I might say." All of that requires a lag, some space, some movement between what you apparently wanted to do, intended to do, said you were .pagoing to do, said you should have done; and, that which you actually did, or will do, or are afraid you're going to do.
And so, within that, even if it's just a nanosecond, you've got enough space, constantly, to suffer as much as any human needs to suffer. There's enough space to have as much regret as you need to have. The lag is always there, even if you only get to suffer in little small doses.
What if you could cut that out? What if you could get to a place where you didn't have room for suffering and regrets? The structure would still be there. Like the marrow in your bones, this regret, fear and trepidation is supposed to permeate you like a kind of dialysis. Let's just call this "suffering, inconvenience, irritation." There has to be a space that fits between your decision to do something and your actual doing of it. There is this gap, a little hole, like a sponge, and Life is pushing peanut butter or syrup down in there and it keeps getting into you, between you, each split second when you think, "Well, I'll do so and so," and then you do it. What if you could simultaneously think and act and there were no little holes there?
What if this kind of suffering, irritation, being human, were just like water surrounding fish? It's all around us, but what if you could close up your gills and not let the water in? What if you could do that and yet live? What if you could stop the gap up so nothing can get in? You see all the regrets out there. You remember how it was. You know everybody else suffers and says, "I wish I hadn't said that." "I wonder what I'm going to say next." "What'll I do?" "Should I try and change?" Your whole being, from the old line down, would still be that same way. You could, if you wanted to, loosen up and let all the water rush back in and feel normal again. But then what if you could just tighten it all up and the fear and suffering couldn't get in?
What if everything you did was simultaneous in a way that's not even possible to describe with old intelligence, in that as you decided to do something, it all happened simultaneously? There wouldn't be room to say, "I shouldn't have done so and so." You literally could not neurally do that. You couldn't have any fear. There would be no place for fear to fit. You could, of course, get killed. You are going to die like everyone else, but there would have to be time for you to have fear.
The only way to fear death is to know of death and be able to think of it. There has to be a gap between deciding to think about something, and then the thinking about it. People don't say, "Thinking about my own demise upsets me," and then go, "Okay, I won't think about it." People can't do that. But if you could push it all together then you could do that. You couldn't tell anyone, though, because that would open the gills back up. You wouldn't brag, but at least you couldn't pick on yourself. It just simply would not be possible.
I wouldn't have to tell you: Don't tell yourself what you're doing. I'd be talking to a closed iron trap. If there is no gap between what you decide to do and what you do it's not possible to tell yourself what you're doing.
In closing here's a little story that you can ponder: Imagine a hairy old bearded god that created the universe. Some time back he sold all the shares in us and then left. Now he's returned and wants to buy back at least a controlling interest in humanity. He's offered to come back and repurchase this universe.
The current owners of the stock want to know why they should sell it back to him, what makes him a worthwhile candidate. They want to know what it is about his past operations that makes him a reasonable, worthwhile candidate after all this time. They know he started the company and sold out once and left, they don't know why, but he did and now he wants it back. They ask him, sincerely, to justify why he deserves to get his stock back. They want to know, "How is it in the best interest of the company, the humans, to let you have creation back?"