Video = None
Audio = Stream from the bar below or download from the blue link.
Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0123 from Cassette
AKS/News Items =
Summary = See Below
Diagram = See Below #048
Transcript = See Below
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk 123, Aug 30, 1984, runtime 1:57
[Man is tri-conscious. ]
[Ecology within the decade. Awareness growing of inter-connectedness. General understanding growing of inter-connection that was once considered irrelevant. ]
[Triaxial awareness creeping in. Growing awareness that the irrelevant is relevant. ]
[ O.A.I.: O is the mechanical attraction to the object. I attempts to Analyze and thus turns into it. ]
[I am aware that I am a witness. If I am alive then I am observing. If I am magnetically drawn to something then there is a charge to it. The I becomes the A. Relation to quantum physics: the influence the observer has on the observed. ]
[I's every act splits everything into two. Cannot let I shift positions without knowing it. Attempt to remember how in this shifting of positions is tied magnetically to triaxial reality.]
[Outcome fosters true compassion. ]
[Consciousness is not a thing, it is a process. Continual shifting of the triads is moving faster than man can perceive (and slower). Must be aware of the triaxial. Triaxial model of the grid: right angle axes red, blue and yellow colored. Omni Drives(?)]
[Man is Life's joyful proof of its good health. Isolated instances may not contribute to the overall robustness of Life. ]
[If man was created in god's image then man has progressed beyond god since man can do and dream beyond what he originally could. ]
[How can parts of Life advance beyond Life in toto? ]
[To get above the 3 circuits is the joyous taste better than anything.]
[Proof of life's growth and good health abounds everywhere yet why the eternal feeling of doom and suffering by man? ]
[To think of anything you always think of it in the past. ]
[In a crowd, see and feel immediate agitation, but from sufficient distance above it, I is lost and appears to be stable. ]
["Love thy neighbor as thyself" could this be the dream of constructing a fully realized 3-D equation?
MAN'S CONSCIOUSNESS IS TRIAXIAL
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1984
Document: 123, August 30, 1984
I am going to raise the stakes, and expand the maps I have presented for you to consider, regarding what Man can be conscious of; and his binary existence amidst the triaxial nature of life. I will now turn up the heat, by superimposing a wider map on top of the ones I have given.
[Note that I present these maps to you rather like a sort of fruit -- perhaps an artichoke. I keep peeling the fruit until it seems that, surely, it has been peeled down to nothing, and we have reached the core but then I move elsewhere, to a new piece of fruit, a new map, and start all over again.]
The basis of what I will be discussing is Man's tri-consciousness. The development of the Yellow Circuit marked the beginning of Man's recorded history, as well as the beginning of his tri-consciousness. But, Man is just now becoming aware of that fact. Ordinary people are tri-conscious, but generally not aware of it. Consciousness seems to operate in a binary fashion: "yes" versus "no", "this" against "that". But I am jumping to another side now, and you must consider the fact that three possible forces are always at work. Although not cognizant of .pait, ordinary consciousness perceives three -- C force, D force and the irrelevant: That is tri-consciousness.
Two forces, two elements of any particular equation, or view of life, can be readily isolated: "What I want," as opposed to "what is resisting me," or, "I am saying or doing something, but another individual is resisting my efforts." Consider and accept those as two factors of an equation, and that everything else in the universe would be the third factor.
Humanity is vaguely conscious of the fact that everything consciousness falls upon has, within its nature, some preference. An ordinary person will readily concede, "I wouldn't be interested in our discussion were I not interested in the subject. It is self-evident. Having an interest is having a preference. It's natural." If the person were horizontally, reasonably sane, they would also agree, "Alright, we have two identifiable parts. But how about everything else? "We're discussing the virtues and shortcomings of one political party, as opposed to its competitor; but, the fate of the football league is irrelevant. The windfall apple harvest is irrelevant. A raging forest fire is irrelevant. We're talking about two political parties, and anything else is irrelevant, as far as this discussion is concerned."
This bilateral view of reality is gradually changing: Humanity is now beginning to suspect the importance of the apparently irrelevant. This change has been a gradual process. I could point out how this change historically popped up 1000 years ago: But I was going to show you things which all of you should be contemporaneously aware of; because through This Thing you attempt to stay just ahead of what is currently occurring on the ordinary level. The idea of an ecology has become accepted, even among nonacademic people. The idea of an ecological chain, that everything is tied together is now widely accepted. Ecologists will say, "If you introduce non-native plants in one locale, you can eventually affect the wildlife in another locale, far removed. You eventually begin to affect the weather over the whole continent, to some degree." Of course, ecologists are not priests: Nor are they attempting to become philosophers. But the idea that all things are connected in some way, is becoming more accepted.
Humanity's general consciousness, is beginning to point out the social and physical, worldwide, interconnectedness of everything. One country can no longer simply "turn a blind eye". Advanced nations can't sit back, suck in their guts, and ignore what is occurring 7,000 miles around this sphere. This general awareness is beginning to seep into consciousness. The non-irrelevance of the apparently irrelevant can be plotted, graphed and studied.
This awareness of an interconnectedness is not yet a continual part of walking around consciousness; and even those in the fields of subatomic physics and ecology can take it no further. But, aspects of the relevancy of the irrelevant are popping up, which are not arcane and not limited to scientific research. Human consciousness is gradually recognizing its own three-dimensional nature: Human awareness is gradually taking the approach that the irrelevant is relevant.
I have pointed out the triaxiality of consciousness. I called it O-A-I consciousness -- observing, analyzing and sense of "I".
Consider this a bit further. If you regard an individual person as a noun rather than verb, or a thing rather than a process, the idea of O-A-I will sound insane or foolish. What seems to be yourself, or your individual consciousness, cannot be separated from what it does, but that remains foolishness, if you see Man as a noun. The very act of being conscious splits everything, but that does not make sense, if Man is a thing.
The "I" part of this triaxial system is not a thing but a process, a verb. The "I" is the process of consciousness itself witnessing everything apparently "Not-I". This process of being a witness is absolutely unique to Man. As an imperfect example, consider a dog. A dog has no consciousness, no awareness resembling that of Man. There is no separation of the dog from the "not-dog". And you would be mistaken to think, "Boy, aren't worms and dogs missing a lot. Dogs go around looking at everyone's shins. They can't look up and enjoy the stars..." A dog will go past a TV set and apparently not see it. It only sees and reacts on a limited, mechanical basis of less than three circuits: Therefore, a dog misses nothing. The environment which he is not hardwired to respond to, accept and pass energy from, might as well not exist. He will not physically continue to run into the television set; but he can lay there in front of it, and the movement and the sound of the television don't exist for him.
The "O" part of the O-A-I consciousness is the mechanical attraction in life: It is what seems to be the "not-I" part mechanically attracting the "I" part. But this gets trickier: The "A" part is "I's" attempt to analyze what it has observed. "I" believes, "I am now observing something."; and part of the process of the Yellow Circuit is to analyze it. But here is what happens: As "I" attempts to analyze what it observes, it turns into what it observes.
A dog only observes that which is absolutely native and necessary to him, since he doesn't have a Yellow Circuit. But when "I" observes something, it is mechanically, magnetically attracted to it. The very act of observing produces a preference. So a human has a possibility of having all three aspects of O-A-I operating: The possibility of triaxial consciousness operating. I could label this triaxial consciousness something else; but for the time being, I am labeling it the O-A-I.
If you are conscious, in the ordinary sense, you feel, "Here I am, and I am a witness. I can reach out into the "not-I" and manipulate it." Man is the only creature on this planet that can do that. Nobody else reaches out into the environment -- nobody.
So, apparently, "I" is a witness to itself being separate from the not-I, and is conscious that it can reach into the environment, doing things to its own detriment, wasteful, foolish or unnecessary for continued existence. That is one of the three possible processes.
There must also be a running static, for "I" to be alive. The interactions, or the electrical and chemical flows within the circuits, continue. They continue whether you are thinking about something specifically, or you are daydreaming. The static even continues in sleep: It is going on all of the time.
This running static is the "O" in my O-A-I map. I have termed it "Observation", which, using ordinary terminology, is whatever you are thinking about, whether actually looking at something, or driving your car and daydreaming about something in the past or future, or laying in bed at night staring at a blank ceiling, before you go to sleep. You are always observing something, or "thinking about something", as ordinary people would say.
I have described two aspects of O-A-I which occur simultaneously and continuously: Observation and "I". According to the way I am mapping it for you, the third aspect would be going on as well. You are observing something, but there has to be a magnetic attraction in order for you to personally observe it. There is a magnetic attraction based upon where you have been situated in life. Remember that all men are connected through energy forces, in a way which resembles a grid. Your attraction to something is based upon your position on this grid; and that is the basis of the varied interests of different people. That is why you can walk into a party of strangers and be drawn to one or two faces out of a hundred.
So, the three processes occur simultaneously: First, the process of "I", the sensation, "I am a witness, separate from all that surrounds me."; second, the observation of something; and third, the process of analysis. Ordinary consciousness sees these processes as something separate from itself. It seems as though "I" is drawn to something, drawn to observe that something and then, to analyze it; however, "I" BECOMES the analysis.
An opinion is seen as something that somehow "exists" on its own. You may be at a party, and someone says to you, "Well, what do you think about the nomination of a woman for vice president of the party ticket?", and you respond, "Well, I'm in favor of progress, but they should never have done that. It's going to cost them the election." You apparently would have made an analyzation of an observation, and you have stated a "fact", or a darned good opinion on the matter. "I" accepts that this reality, this opinion, exists apart from the "I" who stated the words. But "I" and what would have been "A", have now become one; "I" has attached itself to the analyzation. Consciousness cannot conceive of this shift in the dance, and the third aspect, third force, hence remains missing in the eyes of ordinary consciousness.
Ordinary humanity is beginning to display a growing sensation of its own triaxial nature; and this awareness is apparent in the field of quantum physics. Physicists have now noted a peculiar relationship between the subatomic particles they are observing and the equipment used in the observation. The equipment has an effect upon the thing being observed.
In Newtonian physics, the laws just exist "out there"; for instance, gravity. If an apple falls off a tree, according to Newtonian physics, it was irrelevant whether or not someone observed its fall. The law of gravity continued, even if nobody was there to observe it in action. The apple wouldn't just stop in midair. In explaining quantum physics, physicists have come to a conclusion based upon their new observation. Put in semi-philosophical terms, they began to understand that, under these new rather specific and exotic circumstances, in subatomic physics, that the observer himself, by observing, has an effect on that which is being observed. I must point out that subatomic physicists are not secret priests. They are fulfilling a role in Life. What I am showing you is another area where a kind of growing awareness is surfacing in bits and pieces.
This example lies very close to what I have been describing regarding "I" suddenly taking the place of "A". The observer is tied to what is observed. I'm now giving you one description of how you can see the interchanges of the "O", "A" and the "I" taking place. All you have to do is be alive, and the interchanges take place. The process continues whether you are dreaming at night or dreaming during the day: You cannot shut it off. To do so would mean cutting the power off. To do so would require a .357 magnum. Otherwise, it continues.
The very act of being conscious splits everything into two. But if humanity had a greater awareness, the recognition of three aspects would be a part of ordinary knowledge and consciousness.
Your "I" is there, as long as you are alive. "I" is "analyzing", even when you sleep. But it is in no way a sort of scientific analyzation. This "analyzation" is not scientific or objective, and it does not lead to what humanity has always thought of as "higher states of consciousness". This analyzation is biased. Wherever your attention is drawn -- from the kind of job you have, and the people you hang around with, to the kind of books you read, and the kind of TV shows you watch -- it's all based upon preference. What you observe has a mechanical attraction to your "I".
Let us assume that you watch the news on TV. You have a television set, you are always home every evening at seven o'clock, and you find yourself compelled to turn on the TV and watch the network news. Someone has to watch the news, and you are among those who have to do it. Your "I" is mechanically, magnetically drawn to turn on the news. Anytime you are around the news, if you have the time, you'll listen and watch it. So, at the ordinary level, this mechanical magnetism precludes real analyzation; because ordinary analyzation is not a process of analyzing what you observe, but is, instead, "I's" response to what you observe. Your "I" says, "That fool doesn't know how to run this country." That is not analyzation; because, "I" has penetrated what "A" should be.
However, an ordinary person will still insist, "You're right. I am conscious. I know that I am me and that I'm not the table. I know that I am not these other people. So I have an "I". And you're saying I observe something. You're right. I'm always thinking about something. I know what you mean by "observe". Then you say that there is a third one -- analyzation. Alright, that is true. I do all three. If that is what you are talking about, I do all three; because I'm continually not only thinking about something, observing something, I'm thinking about that which I am observing. That is, I am looking at it objectively. I'm listening to people's opinions. I'm listening to politicians. I can find the flaws in their reasoning. I can tell when they're lying. So, I am continually analyzing. But, an ordinary man cannot analyze. He is close to the reality of it, when he says, "I am continually analyzing." "I" has now shifted into the "A" position.
Ordinary people feel that "I" exists apart from "analyzation". They will say, "What I just said about the president and the Russians, and the economy, is a reality, a floating fact. I've expressed something and this something exists, and that is analyzation." But it is not analyzation. "I" has jumped over to where "A" would have been: And I am trying to get you to See from this mapping, that you cannot let "I" blindly shift positions in this way. Life is arranged so that "I" continually shifts in this way, but you must attempt to remember how "I", and its shift in positions, is magnetically tied to the triaxial reality. You must continually take into account all three.
In pseudo-religious terms, this remembrance of the triaxial reality would lead to a state of "true compassion". Ordinary people cannot be compassionate. True compassion may be attempted, but such attempts are humanity merely dreaming, for Life, that which Life cannot yet do through humanity.
You may say, "We're all our brother's keeper", or, "Don't attack someone until you're in their position", or you may take sacrament, pray, chant or do anything you want to; but it will not lead to "true compassion". If you had any possibility of ever becoming my fictitious, reasonably insane man, you would be aware of the fact that you are not compassionate, and that real compassion is not accessible to ordinary consciousness. My fictitious reasonably insane man would realize that if he gave to the church or the temple, he would still not be compassionate -- broke, perhaps, but not compassionate. At the ordinary level of consciousness, you are magnetically drawn into what your "I" observes. You are dead to start with, because you already have some preference.
Can you see the difficulty of me attempting to divide this O-A-I process into three parts? At the very minimum I describe it as being triaxial; but what I am actually talking about is quadraxial.
If you look back upon the history of humanity, you'll see that nobody has been able to satisfactorily explain human behavior. Religion has attempted to explain it, and psychology has attempted to explain it; but neither can explain human behavior. One way to describe how this is so is to look at the drawing of the three circles.
Consider the drawing of the three interlocking circles. Then imagine another little circle below the three. This circle below sees only two of the original circles. It still has the possibility of using three circles, or, in reality, actually using the three aspects. But this circle cannot see that possibility. But I can also draw a circle above the three. The development of this area above the three circles is what I have described as the beginning of a new circuit in Man.
This circuit of Man is beginning to grow contemporaneously. This growth is why I am here, and why you can hear any of what I say. Humanity is experiencing growing pains, and you can see examples of this growth in subatomic physics and in ecology. It is evident in the general feeling that this is "spaceship planet Earth", that we're all locked in it together, and we're going to survive together, or die together.
Consider the old axiom "You are your brother's keeper". That is no longer simply some religious idea: It is a scientific fact. Such ideas are beginning to directly permeate the consciousness of the Western world, and indirectly permeate the consciousness of all humanity.
Here I have drawn the three circles labeled "O", "A" and "I", and above them four circles together. The area of the fourth represents the new circuit in Man. To develop this circuit requires a continuing awareness of how the three operate, because the three are still operating in you. You must see where "I" is, and what it is ordinarily doing in you. And simultaneously you will See, without any religious or psychological training that the "I" is operating in everyone. Once you see it, all complaints about humanity stop. You are then in a 20th century version of a religious or mystical "higher state"; a state which your forefathers dreamed of, where great prophets and so-called "holy men" could look at their accusers and smile, tolerating and understanding insults. You then exhibit behavior which was previously proof of a godly connection: You understand, on your own, the manner of Life's operation.
You cannot understand your fellow man if you ARE your fellow man. You cannot understand your fellow man if your "I" is attached to the person or people you're observing. Viewing Life from this area above the three circles allows an undeniable, inescapable, non-debatable, instantaneous recognition of what is going on three-dimensionally. Such a view shows that the apparent "I" in you and in everyone else is not what it seems. The "I" is fulfilling all of its functions; but the functions are misnamed, and one is misplaced. One of the functions cannot be seen or named correctly, ordinarily.
But from a full 3-dimensional view you can see the three functions extant in you and everyone else. Then you understand fully what Life means when it speaks through Man about tolerance, love and compassion. You simply See it.
I can also describe the O-A-I in terms of C, D and E. "I" ordinarily see itself as "C", as the creative force. But "I" conceives of itself as being separate from the other two forces. "I" will say, "This is the right thing to do, and I'm aware of it. I'm also aware of the things that are opposing this right course of action." The "I" part has merged with the C force. The "I" is not observing the C -- it IS the C. "I" cannot see the three forces functioning together, because it is a part of the functioning of the three. The ordinary can see the opposition and the irrelevant, but not the process as a whole.
When "I" shifts and becomes "A", you are only left with two aspects: what "I" is attracted to, and what opposes it. Ordinary people can discuss the social, financial future of a country and focus on the problems between two political parties, but they cannot put the parties together and come up with 100% of the picture. They would have to include the Detroit Tigers and the cultural possibilities of ever getting something other than a cement duck on display in the Albanian National Museum. You have to add everything else into the equation in order to come up with 100%. When viewing only two aspects you have continual dissatisfaction. You are supposed to be dissatisfied. This dissatisfaction keeps Man struggling and Life growing.
Binary consciousness produces a variable reality, or what ordinary people term "your imagination". It is a variable reality because it is different from person to person and from time to time. The continual shifting of triads runs faster than the electrical system of Man can perceive, and this continual shifting produces a view of reality which seems variable.
This variable reality is the explanation behind things that cannot be explained satisfactorily by religion, science or psychology. Man's institutions have attempted to stabilize this variable reality through the use of externally placed maps. "Surely somebody, someday, will be able to take this map and impose it upon reality. Someone will take the map, make it big enough, color it enough, get it precise enough, until no difference exists between the map and reality." But a map, in itself, means nothing. Man attempts to stabilize the variable reality with a map, but fails to See the basis for his variable reality.
The institutions of science and religion could both be viewed as attempts to stabilize the variable reality. That is part of what Life is doing through religion and science. They seem to be antipathetic, yet, from a certain view, religion is attempting to stabilize reality with words, and science is attempting to stabilize reality with numbers. They speak two different languages and come from two different places in time, and both are attempts to stabilize reality. A religious person would say, "Listen, you can draw those kinds of equations, but I can't follow it. I didn't study that: I'm a minister. The gods called me here to give out the message of doom and despair, and to tell all of you people to watch it. I'm just a minister, so I don't understand algebra and I don't have a telescope. But I can tell you this: The Good Book says the gods created Man. They just went "zip", and created him. So you can take your equations for a ride, because I have the truth!" But the scientist has numbers, which explain Life differently. He says, "Well wait. That may be a nice piece of poetic writing, but that does not fit, and I'm sorry." This can be called the supreme challenge between the world of science and the world of religion; but not in the sense you might immediately think. Some of your inner voices might say, "Well it's good people against atheists". But when I speak of two different languages, I am making a gross understatement.
You can see how religion is dealing with words to stabilize a variable reality: They say, "Here is an explanation..." The explanation, in words, vibrates and has a mechanical attraction for many. But the scientists are describing the shifting of triads with numbers: And such numerical descriptions have a growing attraction.
A shift has been going on since the beginning of the Yellow Circuit's existence. Attempts are being made to understand tri-axial consciousness. Read any decent book on history and you will see these ideas popping out at you. Life is talking about variable reality.
The earliest recorded words were written by a person with an activated Yellow Circuit. It doesn't matter if he had a forehead down to his eyebrows, he stunk and had terrible table manners. The man or woman had an operational Yellow Circuit in order to be able to write. Life has been talking about triaxial consciousness since the beginning of the development of the Yellow Circuit. But heretofore this has been philosophical, theoretical speculation. It has been denounced or ignored by the majority of humanity, because the time was not yet right for humanity to Hear it. But the time is now becoming VERY right.
To bring about the development of a true, activated, quadraxial consciousness, you must hold the irrelevant dear. Or, from another perspective: You must be able to give the irrelevant a number. If you're not doing one of the two, you are perceiving me as a preacher, or a disbarred mathematician, and you remain the critic of Life. You have no choice: If the irrelevant is not dear or you do not give it a number, you will still sense doom. Life will still be a pain, and you will waste your time listening to me. You must hold the irrelevant VERY dear.
Mechanically, everybody else holds the first two aspects dear. That is, they hold that which they think they should hold dear. Looking at it in terms of the O-A-I, the ordinary hold dear that which has mechanically and magnetically attracted them. "Yes, I'm in favor of my political party.", or, "Yes, I'm in favor of people being religious. But I am not, of course, in favor of people being heathens, or non-religious. "The ordinary hold dear both that which they approve of and that which they disapprove of. If you were religious, you would hold "goodness" dear, and if you were scientific, you would hold "the truth" dear. But the religious also hold "unrighteousness" very dear; and the scientist also holds "error" very dear. Without error, how could you ever find the truth? Without evil, how would you ever find goodness?
I am trying to get you to see the mathematical, physical, scientific (with a capital "S") reality to what I have been describing. The thing that seems to be "I" splits reality and then becomes one of the portions of the split, and it holds them both dear: The embraced and the denounced. If you continue in this mechanical precedent, you are ordinary. You might as well be a kidney stone in Life's bladder. But with quadraxial consciousness, you can look down and see the three aspects, and each is holding two others dear. If you attempt to point out anything else to the three, they will say, "Well, that's irrelevant to the matter under discussion, the matter I'm observing. The rest of it is irrelevant."
You must hold the irrelevant dear. That is the door to understanding. That sounds like a proverb; but it's the key to understanding the reality behind ideas of compassion and humility.
You must hold the irrelevant dear and never forget it. It is not necessary to give attention to the first two parts; because they are already latched onto by "I". "I" is already holding dear "C" and "D", as "I" perceives them. It is like your heart beating. It is automatic. But you must find a number for the irrelevant. You must look in the very place where no one else would look; the very thing everyone else dismisses, you must .paembrace. When you do, everything makes sense because then you have an equation that equals 100%.
I'll describe to you a physical model that I prepared. This model is three short wooden dowels, painted red, blue and yellow. They are connected to each other in the center, and run perpendicular to each other. The yellow runs horizontally from side to side, the red runs vertically, and the blue runs horizontally from front to back. This model is a quadraxial model of the overall grid system. Ordinary 3-D level of consciousness wants to picture it as a big piece of graph paper -- a grid composed of little lines going at right angles to each other. But the grid is more than that. Consider the three-dimensional model I have described. You could call the red axis "streets" on a grid system, the yellow, "avenues", and the blue, "boulevards".
So, we have these three dowels that appear to be at right angles to one another, while still crossing in the center. But how about all the space between the avenues, streets and boulevards? Can you picture these three pieces and see where "Omni drive" is? It would appear that these pieces would cover any possible direction that things could be moving, in time and in space. But there are many invisible "Omni Drive's".
The internal and external operations of ordinary existence are almost totally consumed, day and night, by fears and problems. But I could not preach that to humanity. I could not simply say, "Well, listen, you're spending all of your time suffering. I'm telling you, don't suffer. You don't have to suffer, if you just look around." If I started a religion based on such, people could show up every Sunday, and I could make jokes, poke fun and just go on and on, if they came long enough. I could use examples to cover any aspect of how they lived and experienced life. Piece by piece I could point out the suffering and how it wasn't necessary. But such an approach would not work. "Suffering" is just a word, until you start to get free from it -- until you can start getting to a place where you are not frustrated from being three-dimensionally conscious while not aware of it. Until you have some freedom from suffering, the whole notion of not suffering sounds like some sort of nice dream, or a hidden paradigm for some kind of "secret idea". The word "suffering" is almost meaningless. A better description, or one that is as good as any, is to simply point out that all of life is suffering. You might as well say that "suffering" is a synonym for "being alive".
If I was attempting to imitate a religion, I might point out to you that the irrelevant is three-dimensional salvation. You need not look any further. You need not look for some dead prophet, or some secret book. You need not look for some god. All you need is the irrelevant.
The growth of a new circuit involves a kind of quadraxial consciousness, capable of seeing the full operations of tri-axial, O-A-I consciousness in you and everybody else. This triaxial consciousness is a process; rather than the "I" you always thought it was. There is no Sam, Dick, Fred, Bob or Mary. There is only a process: a processing/transmission plant, a transformation garage or point on a chemical and electrical grid system, naming itself "me". When this fact becomes indigenous to your quadraxial consciousness, you also begin to See that every human being, no matter their apparent position in this grid, is absolute, joyful proof of Life's good health and growth. But it is not possible to See this at the ordinary level. At that level, only two pertinent forces are in operation at any time, in any situation, in any person.
Each person, even at the ordinary level, is absolute joyful proof of Life's good health. This is even true of the voices in you. The O-A-I process, in you, responds to a comment heard on a street corner, to a politician's speech, or to someone's opinion. The voices in you respond as the "critic on Life's daily newspaper." The voices say, "Good grief! What an idiot! You fool! You anachronism! You throwback-to-man's-primitive-days!" These voices are proof of Life's good health at the ordinary level.
Also, consider that a man holding up a store, and shooting somebody, at this very moment, is serving a purpose. To ordinary consciousness, such a notion is almost staggering. Try to fit it in with the maps that I have drawn showing that everything serves a purpose, and the maps of the Three Forces.
Part of the joyful, astounding proof of Life's good health is that isolated instances may not be ultimately profitable to Life: Yet Life grows in spite of them. It continues to grow. But you cannot see the growth, while at the ordinary level. Ordinarily you can't see the continual overall growth and good health, the robustness of Life; but the proof is everywhere.
We can pick out isolated instances which seem unprofitable to Life: For instance -- somebody stabs their husband or wife over a burned pork chop. Such an instance seems unprofitable. And speaking very loosely and crudely, let us say that such an instance is not profitable to the overall growth of Life: Yet, Life continues to be robust, and to grow and prosper. That is astounding.
To see Life's good health produces a kind of rejoicing at the wonder of Man; and it has nothing to do with saying, "We should all look upon Man as the gods' little creature." Let me give you some hints at aspects of the absolute wonder of Man.
Consider the two apparent extremes of science and religion, and their attempts to stabilize variable reality. Each has a general, attempted explanation for man and his existence. How about the general religious explanation -- the idea that a "god" or a force outside of this system, created Man. One version is, "The gods created Man in their own image." Supposedly the gods told somebody that, who then wrote it down and told everybody else. So, let's take that explanation of creation. Suppose there was a "god", a force outside of this system that in some way created something outside of himself, or itself; and he "created Man in his own image." How about the wonder of this: If such stories are true, then humanity has now progressed beyond the gods who originally "created" Man. Now, man can talk about, and attempt to do that which the gods couldn't do at the time they created him.
If you accept that story, can you see that Man has, in some way, grown, progressed and evolved in a profitable, "C" manner? The gods got mad, according to the same story; because the thing they created in their own image turned on them. What does that tell you about the gods? If we accept the story, we can see that the people the gods created were better than the gods themselves; because after they created Man, and Man turned on them, they got mad about it. There were people on this planet a minute after that story was written who could "turn the other cheek", who understood what so-called anger was. If that story was true, then a minute after the story came down, somebody here on this planet was better than the gods. Is that not a wonder?
What if we carried the story a little further? Forget the point about "creating him in their own image". Here is a variation. According to the story, the gods got mad, they cursed Man: But Man has survived the curse and grown. I am not simply making fun of the story. I'm trying to take the story the way it's been accepted; the way it has permeated the consciousness of humanity. If the gods "cursed" Man, they were superior to him; because only a superior can curse and do some damage to the cursed. The gods cursed Man, yet Man has evolved and grown in spite of it. It's a wonder.
Let's go to the other apparent extreme: i.e. the more scientific explanations. We can look at the Big Bang theory, or other scientific theories of the creation of the Universe. Astro-physicists, looking into space and into the limits of traveling light, sense that some kind of explosion happened. Energy began to collect into matter, and matter then began to split up. There were explosions and star dust was strewn out in the universe. One element turned into several, and the heat and friction developed other elements. It became more and more complex; and Man, in a sense, just grew out of it. That's the general scientific idea of where Man would fit into the Big Bang theories: Man came from very elementary, if not single particles, and is becoming more and more complex.
You can take this idea and rejoice in the wonder of it. If the theory is true, it belies the basis of scientific thought. It says that a greater grew from a lesser. It's a wonder.
So you don't have to choose sides. You don't have to line up with those saying, "Isn't it wonderful that the gods produced us?" Nor must you take the side of the scientists saying, "I am bewildered and staggered. The more I learn the more I realize that I don't know how all of this came about." You don't have to choose sides.
Of course all of these comments about scientific and religious ideas are an aside: I am not presenting this as a hint at how humanity came to be. I was trying to lead you around on two possibly tricky paths. If you took sides, you could drag out two apparently conflicting or separate attempts to stabilize variable reality into some understandable form. But if you pursued it through a triaxial conception of reality, it's a true wonder. If consciousness had reached the level where people knew what they were saying...if the preacher somewhere in the hills or the physicist with three Ph.D's was aware of the full three dimensional thrust of these apparent diametrically opposed proposals, they would see the wonder of Man.
Ordinarily the "I", or the O-A-I process will fall upon something which it feels worthy of criticizing. For example: a preacher singing a hillbilly song, hollering and crying about the unholy nature of Man and screaming, "My lord, what's gonna happen to humanity?" Some "I", some voice in you, could speak up and say, "Good grief! How far behind the times! How far removed from reality!" But it's not true.
If you could move above the O-A-I level, above the triaxial level of consciousness, you would receive a most pleasing shock. What you are looking at may prove to be an isolated case in Life's life. It may not stay in Life's long-term memory. The isolated case may be no more than Life flicking something out of its teeth. It may be no more than a small burp. The one isolated instance or experience may be less than profitable to the ultimate growth of Life. But to see that small instance or aspect of life from above the O-A-I level, is better than the first time you ever smoked pot or chug-a-lugged a fifth of Jack Daniels.
The "I" in you is magnetically attracted to observe and then apparently analyze what it sees in a negative fashion. But if you simultaneously see that process, it is an absolute joy. It is a wonder. There you stand, and Life is doing this process through you; but the person opposing you is no longer your enemy. Their religion, their philosophy, or political ideas are no longer "a display of individual ignorance." You just rejoice in the wonder of Man and what Life has done through him. All of this goes on whether you see it or not. Life is healthy; Life is robust and it's getting healthier.
Kids have something new now: It's a candy or bubble gum that gives some kind of little explosion in your mouth when you bite into it. Seeing the wonder of Man is like that. Suddenly nobody is your enemy; and especially not the person that your "I" consciousness is focused on. It"s just a wonder.
Of course, what I'm talking about almost sounds like some variation of what's been heard in churches for thousands of years, about the "great wonder of Man". But, at their level, a preacher, priest or rabbi couldn't explain the presence of Attila the Hun, or Hitler, or the guy stabbing his wife down the street. Above the O-A-I level you can see Life growing: You see that you can't question each isolated instance. It is no longer necessary, from that position, to attempt to justify a person's actions in a horizontal way, or to use cause and effect to explain them. One instance may be less than truly profitable to the overall growth of Life, but Life goes on in spite of it. You've stayed sane in spite of the fact that you wanted to kill your mother, stole, cheated and did everything that the external standards, in their attempt to stabilize variable reality, told you you shouldn't do. You're as full of conflicts and short term aberrations as Life is. It just looks worse in Life because Life is so much bigger. You say, "How could this group of people start a holy war and kill all of those people?" You don't have to look out in life for the answer. You know where to look -- right there in you. It's all in your nervous system, your circuitry. You can see the answer to such questions yourself. .paBut it's a wonder, an absolute cause for rejoicing, a pleasure. "There it all is, and I'm freed from it."
How about another small aspect of this. I'll use another scientific approach as an example. Consider that a true machine could never name itself; a true machine always knows less than its inventor. Someone could program the machine to name itself, but it would never do so on its own. That almost fits doesn't it? If we're talking about evolution from the scientific viewpoint, the machine wouldn't want to name itself, would it? That DOES work out, doesn't it? But, if we shift back to the religious side of the story, Man has named himself. He's not only named himself, he's named his creator. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad we stumbled upon that little example, aren't you?
The proof of Life's growth and health is everywhere. Just look at history; look back 50 years: Look how much longer you live than people did in the past. You can chain smoke, drink coffee, drink booze...you can do anything, and you're still going to live thirty years longer than your grandfather did. You could live on fast food, pot and cheap wine, and you'd still be taller and in better health than your forefathers. Just read anything about history and you'll see that there has been a continual growth, a continual expansion.
But how do you explain the fact that everyone at the ordinary level senses a "D" domination? Why is the prevailing feeling one of doom and fear? Ordinary people might, for a split second, hear of the growth of Life. But then they immediately start to point out the "continuing, overshadowing fear of atomic destruction and what we are doing to the environment and Man seems to have no greater love and tolerance than he did 5000 years ago." I might be able to drag somebody up to the point of Hearing something by saying, "Look, I don't care whether you're religious, scientific or atheistic. You have to see one thing: Man is a healthy creature. Just follow me right quick. He is growing; he is getting better; he lives longer; he is healthier; he knows more; Life is easier; everything is better. Just trust me. You're ready to hear it." I could get a crowd to go, "Yeah!", but, by the time I rustled some papers, picked my ear, or pulled my hair, everybody's voice would take back over and say, "Yeah...But...". They would be right back with the feeling of doom.
The proof of Life's growth is everywhere, and yet the prevailing feeling is fear and doom. And more can be seen on a personal level than just the verbal descriptions I have just given you. The verbal descriptions and the hints were quite appropriate, but you should have a continuing nonverbal conversation with your own understanding. "Yeah, it's true, and yet the voices in me at the triaxial level of O-A-I consciousness just ignore it." The prevailing sense of doom is everywhere, and it's responsible for you not being able to give up suffering. You should continually undergo a nonverbal investigation; a consideration of the strangeness of that arrangement. You can see the continual irrefutable health and promising prospect of Life. History shows that man is just growing like a rocket: He is just amazing. Yet the sensation of doom is all over you. Do you not find that interesting? If you do find that interesting, then pursue it, because salvation exists.
Examine my diagram of the three circles placed side by side; of O-A-I consciousness. Another way that you can see this tri-axial nature manifested is in the sense of time: That is, the sense of a past, present and future.
Imagine you are out for your daily jog, and you pass somebody. O-A-I consciousness is activated. You pass somebody, something about him attracts your attention, you have a feeling, and then you remember him. Perhaps he waves, "How're you doing? Awfully hot!" And you say, "Boy isn't it?" That seems to be the extent of it. Fifteen minutes later you're getting through with the jog and you're walking the last half mile home, kind of cooling off. The normal or increased running static that goes along with that kind of physical activity is running its normal course, and the instance of you passing this man fifteen minutes ago comes back to mind. It runs through the circuits and you have to listen. Now, this is very subtle. Your consciousness conceives of him now, as existing in the past. You can think of him and remember him; so, in a sense, the past is alive, right? But you conceive of him as he existed in the past. Let's say he is still where he was, in the yard cutting the grass. And fifteen minutes later, your circuitry mechanically remembers him, the whole picture, the scene of him saying, "How're you doing? Awfully hot." You walk and the circuits run in a mechanical fashion; the static is talking and recreating the picture of the scene. For no particular reason, he now exists. But your perception of him is in the past. At the same time you are walking and remembering him, he exists, but he conceives of himself as existing right now, parallel with your conceptions of him existing in the past.
Consciousness cannot think or remember anyone not physically present. It doesn't conceive of anyone existing in the present. Consciousness can only conceive of someone existing in the past. You sit here and think of your mother, your uncle or some friend you see once a year. They just "come to mind". You never notice this: You can't remember them in the present. You don't remember them by saying, "Right now, here I am, and they are in New York or Montana." You don't think of them existing concurrently with you. You only think of them in the past.
In the world of three dimensional consciousness, distance is synonymous with time. Consider again, the man you mechanically remember passing, while jogging. You passed him two miles ago. Two miles in distance is fifteen minutes in your past. Here is an expansion of the diagram of O-A-I consciousness. In this expansion there is an oblong box below the three circles which are in line with one another and the box takes up about the same width as the three circles. The box represents the limit, in time and distance of what consciousness can perceive.
In a further expansion of the diagram, there are four circles, and they take up more room than the three did. The four circles represent what quadraxial consciousness would perceive. In addition there is a larger box, containing the smaller.
If you could physically distance yourself, or, as I have been describing it, could grow a circuit on top of the present circuitry, you could encompass what ordinary consciousness sees or conceives of as being something happening in immediate time. If you could move up higher, to an activated fourth circuit, you would have a quadraxial consciousness encompassing triaxial consciousness. The four circles encompass a wider range than the three circles, and the perceptions of the four include the perceptions of the three. If you were higher in the nervous system than O-A-I consciousness, your conception of reality would be less variable. Your awareness would be expanded to see that what appear to be the limits of the present as normally perceived, are not its limits.
Ordinarily the man you passed two miles ago exists in the past; even though he is existing to himself simultaneously two miles back. You think that he no longer exists to you: He existed fifteen minutes ago and he is now a memory. But simultaneously, he is back there in his yard still cutting the grass. To him and his O-A-I consciousness, he is existing in the present.
Getting above the ordinary way of seeing is not some kind of science fiction tale. What it takes is a conception and feeling of how time is divided up into three obvious aspects.
I'll speak biblically. It would be like unto...(isn't that the way biblicals used to talk?)...it would be like unto being in a crowd and suddenly confronted by a very excited, agitated individual moving about. You might come up with all sorts of speculations as to why he's moving that way, all the way from religious to psychological. But you're in this crowd. Maybe it spreads and you end up surrounded by two or three agitated people. You're just surrounded: they're pushing and excitable, and you can't really tell why. Perhaps you find it annoying, or disturbing, or frightening. How about this: Pretend you could physically go up in the air and hover over the crowd. If you get up far enough and look down, you can see the crowd. Not just one person; not just where you were standing with the immediate four or five people...but you actually see the whole crowd. It would look much more stable, predictable and comprehensible. You wouldn't see some isolated example of a pocket of excitable people moving around -- not from that distance. The crowd would appear to be moving slower. It would be plodding, prodding and perhaps plotting; but it would appear to be stable. There would be no agitation. If you go far enough up, you cannot physically see the agitated movement of one man out of a thousand, or a thousand men out of a million or ten thousand men out of fifty billion. From that vantage point, you cannot see the isolated instances of agitated behavior.