Stream the audio from the video using the two bars below.
Audio Download= Not yet (from Cassette)
Summary= See Below
Transcript= See Below
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk 146, Feb 21, 1985, runtime 1:55
"There is no such thing as Neuralizing”. Nothing named truly exists. Cannot name This Thing, cannot describe This Thing or it would then be ordinary.]
[You must be able to Remember your glimpses of the Extraordinary in your: mind,muscles,and respiratory system. To Remember in only one or two of these is useless, partial memory. i.e. the "accidental" mystic.]
[The only thing that has any value regarding This Thing is that which does not exist yet. Yellow Circuit dominance of Red Circuit in external populations: technologically superior race subjugation of more primitive. This is an ongoing process yet Life-thru-man cries out against the "injustice" of this arrangement. Those of This Thing see beyond this; see the reality of Growth and in a sense are more aware than Life itself. There is a direct reflection of this Yellow Circuit dominance in your internal circuitry, i.e. the quelling and assimilation of rebellion at Red Circuit level.]
["How beautiful is the view of the city of Athens from the Parthenon." Meaning and profundity dependent on contextual frame of reference. This phenomena is absolutely pervasive and the essence of consciousness. The moveable, floating frame of reference behind your own eyes.]
[The voices: one voice has a repertoire that is never performed. Has a full score and spectrum of songs but never performs them. Relation to internal voices from the "gods". Why is the "what I should have said..." voice never articulated aloud? The syndrome of Monday morning quarterbacking vs. doing it right in the original event.]
[In Group: if you feel that someone is putting out the message that they are more conscious than you are, superior, holier than thou, THEY ARE NOT SO. Humility cannot be taught. Remember: you are experiencing yourself.]
[Those of This Thing have no equals. They aren't superior--just have no external standard to be judged against. Not gods unto themselves...but goodbye fear, heroes, villains, faith, hope and charity.]
[TASK: With no goal you never arrive anywhere. Must have a goal. Mail in, in 3 days an 8.5 x 11 sheet with your name detailing what you have received from This Thing and what it now means to you. Part II. Write down your goal; a specific personal present goal that you have (probably will find it related to first part of task).
IF YOU CAN DESCRIBE SOMETHING IT DOESN'T EXIST
Document: 146, February 21, 1985
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1985
Let me admit something: Neuralizing doesn't exist. (If that were actually true, what difference would it make?) Anything that can be named, any description that even resembles being reasonable at the ordinary level of consciousness, doesn't exist in a Real sense, even if the description originated above the Line of consciousness. Aspects of Life have put out this message for thousands of years; even in ancient China someone pointed out that a true mystical path or extraordinary effort couldn't be named. If someone says, "Here's the teaching", and presents it, be assured that it's not.
I put out a book supposedly based upon a recently deceased, mystical-type person. I had him tell a story about a man who ran a mystical group; in a fit of insanity (or lucidity) the leader finally admitted to the people, "You might as well leave. I just made up all this stuff about enlightenment." All except one guy left, and the teacher said, "I'm telling you, get out of here." And the guy said, "It's too late. I'm almost enlightened myself." That story disturbed many people. I received letters ranging from death threats to people believing that they'd found some mystical significance and didn't like it. I have said that Neuralizing is "being able to remember something without thinking about it." On the surface that's impossible: but if you've been around my descriptions long enough you will think it makes sense. But remember the warnings; I give I am not just covering myself when I say, "I'm going to give you a description; but please note that it's fatally flawed." If you can describe something, it doesn't exist.
For as long as the Yellow Circuit in man has been ignited, he has apparently been "closing up loops", wrapping up previously held ideas into a seeming system. A philosopher or social commentator will say, "Here's my view. This wraps up some of the things which previously seemed unclear to humanity, and I believe I have a new insight." They seem to add something to the idea, and then call it new information. But it isn't extraordinary if it comes from the ordinary level of consciousness. Extraordinary information is required for someone to pursue This, but it is still a losing battle once something is named. "Considering" never existed: I killed it. So I said, "I'll change the name to Neuralizing," and I changed the description slightly. But Neuralizing doesn't exist either, because if it did, it wouldn't be extraordinary. A well defined something called Neuralizing could be accepted, grasped, and perceived by the ordinary mind: people could act upon the premise of Neuralizing. They could believe "I'm doing it. My experience tells me that I can think about something without remembering it; and that was his description. Therefore it's real, useful, and I can do it."
The fact is, I made it up. Indeed, it would be unfortunate for someone attempting to do This, if Neuralizing suddenly began to exist at the Line-level of consciousness. Because then it would be just another dead map. It could also be potentially dangerous to ordinary people, because that which doesn't exist today would suddenly begin. The scenario would resemble the mythological tales of Pandora's box, and the letting loose of demons. A number of people would believe in it: "It's a quite real phenomenon. I'm not that unusual or mystically inclined, but I heard about it and it's quite useful." If it begins to exist, it's of no value to those in This.
Can you See a connection between the nonexistence of Neuralizing and my pointing out that you can't name This Thing? You can't describe what This is about: whatever you describe isn't true, it can't be true. And if your description became true, it would be worse than if it wasn't true to start with. You can only begin to "wrap up loops" above the level of ordinary consciousness. I have spoken of man's progress as being like a cosmic merry-go-round on a spiral screw. Each time it makes a loop, consciousness has apparently gone through some technological, psychological, or intellectual journey with new available information. The journey starts from one position with one group of humanity being ignorant or unaware in some area; then consciousness makes a loop through some period of time, and this information becomes commonly available. Large groups of people are now conscious in a new fashion; but now the information is of no value -- it has served it's function. But those on the merry-go-round don't See this. They don't See that consciousness went from point A, made a circle and returned back to point A2. What they see is an improvement. But it isn't an improvement, it's movement.
In one of these papers, I opened up with four or five comments which were apparently true and other comments which appeared equally true but totally contradictory. That is the situation in the ordinary universe when things can be stated, and seem to be real. When they can be absolutely stated, they aren't real. They only thing that would be of Real value would be that which doesn't exist yet in the 3D world. Above the routine level of consciousness a particular loop is wrapped up: it closes, and it isn't based on accidental sight. Would-be mystics out in the world do get glimpses into an omni-directional world, where they can See that things aren't fragmented. They may subsequently write a book; but they have no permanent memory of what they saw -- all that's left is a vague recollection which they can try to describe. It's as though they'd looked into someone's supernatural photo album and saw photographs that were astounding to them. They saw to such a degree that they can now attract attention by merely attempting to describe what they had seen. But they do not have the photographs with them. Part of what This is about, and what I am doing, is to get you to be able to construct a personal camera to take and hold these extraordinary views: views which seem at first to be fragmented. They come and go, but it begins the construction of a never-ending folio of new consciousness.
In certain respects a similarity exists between what you may experience in This and run-of-the-mill religious conversion. "I no longer have any questions since I found this religion. I used to worry, take drugs, hate people, and now I'm blissed out. I don't have any more questions. I'm just as happy as a pig in a sandwich." Of course, it isn't literally the same; or else you aren't an extraordinary person: you are a pig in a sandwich. You must have the ability to pursue This to the point where you can recall the sightings you have; even though they appear in the beginning to be infrequent and unpredictable. And partial memory is of no use: it must be the total memory of your muscles, mind, and respiratory system. If you can't remember it in all three ways, your efforts are ultimately wasted. Then you're no better off than someone who simply staggers into a tent revival and is overcome by the charisma of the preacher or the atmosphere of the meeting. If you can't remember it in all three infrasystems, you'd ultimately be in the same position as someone who undergoes a routine religious conversion.
The only way that any of This can be of value is for you to Remember what you have seen on your own. (Whether you can conjure it up anytime you want to is another matter.) When circumstances apparently bring it back, you can smell it close by, and you can find out how to make effort. The photograph becomes a hologram, and you actively participate in it in the same manner as when you first Saw it. It isn't simply remembering it and then talking about it to yourself -- that won't do. If it seems to grab your breathing mechanism and you feel, "I'd forgotten how it was to be suddenly freed from hostility! Right now I can almost feel that experience again" -- it won't do, if that's all you have. The muscles may have a crude memory of an inexplicable, supernatural occurrence, but you might as well be with a backwoods preacher. If you can't recall what you Saw simultaneously in the muscles, nervous system, and respiratory system; you can't really recall it.
A connection exists (I haven't changed the subject) between that and the fact that there's no such thing as Neuralizing. You've had ten or fifteen minutes since I started out, and I can't resist: You do understand that it isn't true, when I say that Neuralizing doesn't exist? I'm not trying to tell you that was a joke of some kind. Nevertheless, can you glimpse the fact that Neuralizing on a certain level doesn't exist? If such a thing actually existed, it would be of no value. It would be the same as any other esoteric or apparent mystical movement or religion, and that isn't what I've been attempting with you. What I've been doing with you is dealing with things that don't exist, such as Neuralizing.
By now you might have felt as though you had begun to put your hands on the concept and use of Neuralizing, as though it were a "something," like a function of man's circuits or intellect. As though no one had recognized Neuralizing until I stumbled along; as though a "something" was there and I discovered it. But no, I made it up -- I invented Neuralizing. I didn't just invent the name, I invented the whole thing.
For the sake of illustration, let's say This is a system and it has a beginning, an end, and an apparent aim. We'll further say that you start off here in some kind of condition, pursue my system, and it brings you to a superior position. You go from being a lost soul far from the gods, to a saved, converted, enlightened soul. And the heart of this system we'll say is the method called Neuralizing. If I grant you that, just for the sake of this conversation, how does that fit with the fact that Neuralizing doesn't exist? If I hadn't invented Neuralizing and it did exist, it would be no problem for me to describe it in some lucid manner. But then shortly after one or two descriptions or two, three, or twenty examples, you would think, "Ah, now I have it. I understand and will use it." It would be useless.
Take an example in the ordinary world. When you look at Life's movement in time, you can See a chord progression developing. It appears that you can isolate specific "events," but they're all connected. You can look, for instance, at the time during World War II: but only by naming "World War II" have you made it into something that actually existed and "happened." If it actually happened, you can't learn anything from it. Oh sure, you could become an expert on the "ramifications, possible causes and aftermath of the war." You might even write the book to end all discussions about World War II. But do you understand, you wouldn't understand anything?
Having made that clear, I'll bring up something that can get fairly tricky. (I'll remind you: this has nothing to do with politics.) Note that Life has instilled into man a sense of the apparent injustice of one people in a given area dominating another people. In any area of the world, at any given time, one group has dominated another. (The race or nationality, of course, keeps changing -- some of the modern states in Europe didn't even exist in your grandfather's day.) It always comes down to this, if you can See it in a certain way: the dominators are always people more advanced in the Yellow Circuit, with more advanced technology. One group had swords when the other people were still hitting each other with rocks. If you want to chop up history you can say, "The original people had the right to be there. They were minding their own business and now look at things." Life has the voices in men continually speaking about this domination, that something is amiss here: "How could the European settlers stomp all over those nice, peace-loving (if a bit backward) natives?" etc. But notice, this has been going on forever. (And remember this has nothing to do with politics.) Can you See a reflection of the Yellow Circuit's increasing and non-stoppable domination over the Red Circuit?
Continuing episodes of domination constitute history's progression, and you should begin to have your own suspicions about this. Everyone else sees injustice going on: groups of "trouble-makers" always arise; the Catholics take over the Protestant area in a country; a group of people from a foreign environment come in and subjugate another group of people. Life continues to make people talk about this as being wrong. But there is another way of Seeing this, and you can begin to get your own personal glimpses of it. (But then how is it that in a certain peculiar way you can apparently be more enlightened than Life as a whole is?) Who Sees no injustice in the Yellow Circuit dominating the Red? Who Sees no injustice when one of the internal voices has dominance over the other? Who Sees that nothing would be growing, we would in fact stagnate and be dying if it weren't for one of the Circuits continually subjugating another one?
It isn't simply a matter of the Yellow Circuit once and for all taking complete domination over the Red, whether it be in one person, or a group of people, or the whole planet. That would be death. You may expand your level of consciousness to an extraordinary degree while you're alive, but you're still flesh and blood, you're still an operational Red Circuit. Nor is it a matter of the Red Circuit being in conflict with spiritual desires, though Life still has people talking about that. What else is new? By engaging in This, you're destroying things: you're killing off part of your own past; part of the genetic connections you had with your forefather's religion. You're killing off part of the genetic connection you have with "out there." You're destroying a part of your rightful mechanical place in the grid. Even in This (I hate to have to coin another new term, but...) there's no free lunch.
Just now, we are very close to describing what's going on inside of a human; inside of the invented maps and framework of all This that I've made up. To stay in the external world a bit longer, imagine the Spanish arriving in South America and finding Indians still throwing rocks at each other; with gold lying everywhere. Here were potentially profitable resources that the Spanish had some use for; and the Indians were using the nuggets to play marbles. Apparently one group dominated another for their own benefit, but that's only a small part of the reality of it.
Now jump from that to inside, into the higher circuits. The explorers will go into an area and find something that's of practical value for them but isn't being used in the way that they'd use it. (Now we aren't talking about gold.) The explorers enter and take over an area, but twenty years later, they lose interest and move on. They may have left a few guards there; but by now the Indians have been so mistreated, there isn't much danger of an uprising. The Spanish can just leave two or three people near the Amazon who periodically rattle their sabers, and the populace falls back in line. Or perhaps twenty years later they simply abandon the area, having used up all the resources. Or still another way to look at it (it's all the same thing, by the way): perhaps the settlers subjugate the people and begin to assimilate them. They begin to intermarry and breed with the natives. Twenty years later you go back and can't tell the difference between the Indians and the Spanish. You can't tell the conquerors from those that were previously the conquered. Are you Hearing this?
A direct reflection of that exists in you and in all of humanity. The Yellow Circuit continually dominates other circuits: that is what history portrays, but nobody can See this. I'm not going to tell you much more, but this idea has real practical value: having nothing to do with politics or the external world (other than the fact that it's you).
Change to subject three. Another one of my movie scripts: Someone's standing and commenting, "How beautiful is the view of Athens from the Parthenon." Not just, "How beautiful is the city of Athens", but "How beautiful is the view of Athens from the Parthenon." The setting matters. He doesn't say, "You know I was just on this bare hilltop and the view of Athens was real good." The background of the viewer is somewhow tied to the profundity, pleasure and meaning of the view. The viewer and the act is now tied to the frame; the frame is right behind the eyes, right behind consciousness -- everyone has their own floating Parthenon. Ordinary consciousness is continually setting up a floating Parthenon. A frame continues to move in front of man's consciousness; and yet men at the ordinary level talk about what they're "seeing". What they're seeing is themselves: this imposed frame. At the ordinary level, under ordinary conditions, consciousness doesn't experience Life, it experiences itself: it experiences the Parthenon. The apparent act of viewing and the viewer itself are unknowingly, but inseparably, involved with the Parthenon. You're like a floating picture, even when you think that you're that which is looking at pictures; whether you're looking at Athens, your friend Fred, or the state of world politics. At the ordinary level, you view the world as though an "out there" exists; with people and things and events which a person can witness. But you are also a picture, and a frame's floated around you which you can't escape at that ordinary level.
Next subject. I want to elaborate on my previous discussion of the two voices which constantly interact within an individual (although I could have called them something else). One of the voices has a repertoire that's never performed: it has a songbook, a full score, but it's never performed. And that's one place to start to Understand it. You could ask, "If it's never performed, how do I know it has a repertoire? How can I find it?" If it was easy I'd put a name on it and we'd be out teaching it to cab drivers and school teachers.
Another aspect of it: what would be the possible basis of the idea of the gods talking to man? Don't mark it all down as the ravings of some horizontal nut case. What of the more modern idea of the subconscious? Or even a little more modern by verbal standards, the idea of sublimated desires or drives? What is the basis of the quote, "What I should've said.., " which every ordinary human on this planet voices? (You should be at the point of being able to use that nonexistent thing called Neuralizing on this.) For five or six thousand years people have been saying, "What I should have said," -- ask yourself, "How is it that people don't question this? Why is it that all over the planet the phrase is as prevalent as bad breath?"
I'll remind you again, this isn't the proper description of Neuralizing because if you can talk about it, you're not really doing it exactly right. I have given this example for those who need it and for those who don't. (Of course remember, there's no such thing as an example. You shoot a bird in flight when you make an example. You're no longer examining a bird or talking about flight: you're talking about something that's dead.) What possible purpose is being served by people saying, "I should've said"? Something's going on -- nothing's being wasted; especially something that's lasted five thousand years.
Is it not reasonable to conclude that I may be on to something, even if you don't See it yet? Men from the Caesars to you speak, and later say, "You know..what I should've said." You should be nonverbally asking yourself, "After five thousand years, why doesn't somebody just go ahead and say it? Further, why do I keep feeling as if I'm being pulled apart by ambivalence? As though I'm having to be nice to people? Every time I'm around a certain type of person I get tongue tied. I take a deferential position in the way in which I respond; in the way in which my muscles stand. My breathing will even change when I get around figures of authority, the police or a judge. At other times my mind just runs around in circles. I'm trying to think what to say to people, wishing they would hush, or that I had the ability to command a larger audience so that I could say what's on my mind. But even when I do, I get away and I wished I'd said.." What is the urge of "I wish I'd said"? The voice that originally said something seemed to have full command of the audience and the bodily processes which create sound -- why can't it say whatever it wanted to say? Why can't it "learn from it's mistakes"?
I want to say something about humility. The word's almost as misused as "love". Once you understand humility correctly, you understand that you have no equals. But notice, I didn't say you were superior. It is that you have no equal and no external means by which to judge yourself. It isn't a trick -- I'm not coming up with some strange idea that will free you from any responsibility and make you a god unto yourself. But once you begin to understand, doing This Thing in a contemporary time and place, you begin to See on your own. You will have no external means of judging yourself anymore. You will understand more than the level of Life which operates humanity. It's goodbye fear. It's almost goodbye hope, faith and charity; goodbye ordinary plans, villains and heroes. You simply See things as they are: but you're not superior in any way that ordinary people define it.
Another change of subject. A rather quick one: some of you wonder about what you should pursue in Life. You thought you were interested in architecture, painting, dancing, or being an insurance salesperson, but you now wonder if it's incompatible with doing This. Let's take two ordinary words in the ordinary sense: "ability" and "motivation". Just two ordinary words, but they do reflect a reality. Certain people can just sit down and noodle on the piano after hearing a song just once, but they'll say if asked, "No, I don't really play." Others have collections of recorded piano pieces that fill rooms. They have pictures of Chopin in their bathroom, they go to concerts, but they have absolutely no ability. Notice how far removed the two can be from each other at the ordinary level of consciousness. People are apparently driven by one or both, ability or motivation, or one can be in conflict with the other. You might have the motivation or real desire to play the piano, but have absolutely no ability to play. And it can be vice versa. A person can have ability and no desire to pursue it.
Next change of subject. As you properly pursue This, you may experience weird "states," feeling as though these little land mines that I have been laying out for you are all about to explode at the same time and it will all come together. Well, it won't. This feeling of being on the verge of exploding will keep happening. But it is that you will have completed a loop. This Thing won't explode in a way such that it will all come together once and for all. The first time you begin to get glimpses it all seems out of control, but you can't profitably allow yourself to be dragged along by uncontrollable states. If it isn't under control, you can't fully remember it. I also want to point out that you can't let This become suicidally serious in a private, personal way. Periodically it may feel like a death-defying game in which you are "getting behind" and need to bear down. You have to find your own way to alleviate some of this strain: to almost take a break. That doesn't mean you should run out and get a porterhouse steak, beat up a stranger on the street corner, and snort cocaine. But it's momentarily being able to stand back and to ease off of This a bit. Go out and run. Tell yourself a joke. You must not get lost in maps; even my maps. What if I got lost in them? Where would we be then? I don't care to think about it.
I'll touch on another topic which I'll discuss more at another time. It concerns the absolute necessity to have a destination in mind. If you don't have a destination, you can't go anywhere. This is true in the ordinary world: you can hear this idea coming from popular psychologists. You've heard it from the prophets and from Norman Vincent Peal. (And if you knew my second cousin Albert, he used to say it.) Marcus Aurelius said it. If you don't have a goal, you can't tell what you're doing. Presently the goal for some of you is to be dragged behind me. I'm furnishing the energy and have the extraordinary connection to make that possible. I've intended (and admirably succeeded to some degree) to discourage you from comparing what I'm doing to other religions or forms of mysticism: the intent "to go from here to there." But after breaking down that kind of artificial, mechanical structure in your wiring, I am now saying that you must have a goal. There must be some feeling: you are going to have to face up. You have to focus, in a certain way, on yourself.