Audio= Stream in two parts from the bars below.
Kyroots are read as the last 15 minutes of part 2, and can be read in the AKS/Gallery below as well as below the summary.
Summary by TK
Tape 191, Jan 9, 1986, runtime 1:45
"The smothering weight of the 'cut and dried'": the secret stock in trade of ordinary religion. "Cut and dried" = all experience thru the senses.]
[Types of people. Refer diagram 67: levels of circuits correspond to where they touch (interface) each other. Example of lower Yellow Circuit (ie., red circuit interface) where predominant focus of energy transformation in life ("front door" of business) exhibits speech in clichés--common word parcels--very mechanical; right wing reactionary. Mid Yellow Circuit type (Blue Circuit interface) exhibits mechanical melancholy, depression, pessimism. Upper Yellow Circuit: closer to dispassionate thought--philosopher. Also can make classification of people into types by broad categories of how they act vs. how they think of action.]
[Questions: Is there a symbiotic relationship between you and your partner? Does Life make life activity ergonomically efficient? (the two questions are connected). Is the ergonomic efficiency for Life or for man?]
[Ordinary consciousness as the original and consummate social climber. Denial and/or forgetting of its background/context/roots biochemically. Is there anything that could be even more of a social climber? Example of variegated origin of different parts of a car being put together on an assembly line.]
[The overheard statement: "I've got my molecules (of the brain) trained". Question: who is it that is saying that? Consider your answer--could it be vice versa?]
[By what words would one describe that experience not relayed by the senses? How can the experience of This thing be described--i.e., experience not of the senses? All words are tied to sensory experience. Consider what The Partner speaks to you about; what words does it use? It uses descriptions of experience limited to the senses. This is valueless to The Few.]
[Alone with the "front door" of typical energy transformation in a person, there is a back door and at least 2 side doors, i.e, physical mannerisms etc. When your primary energy transformation is no longer needed by Life, death ensues. This need not be an abrupt process: consider slow "extinction" in the form of aging. Those of This thing need to develop a kind of flexibility to constantly grow; transforming needed energies for Life's expansion. Possible definition of This thing: the attempt to make consciousness more conscious of itself and its heritage. Question: If there was an extrinsic god, would he have to create its own partner? Corollary: Would pure C force have to then create D force? What about E force? ]
[TASK: Look for "types" of people. Note how you spot them and how can you describe them?||Notebook--write something creative once each waking hour for 1 week.
Kyroot papers (approx 1:20 to 1:35) ]
[Post Script to videotape watchers out of town: This thing is not a mystical society; it is not more than what you see; no hierarchy or "right-hand man". Seek elsewhere for hidden mysteries.
AKS/News for Talk 0191 - 01/09/86
...and Kyroot said:
An earthling once heard my question of whether one's "I" is a noun or a verb, and after some thought told me, "'I' must be a noun; is it not the beginning of every important sentence?"
I once heard a head-doctor dismiss certain patients with the disdainful comment that "Hypochondriacs are sick people." After pondering exactly what he had said, I thought it might prove interesting to question him on it...then I thought better of it.
If words were truly foreplay to real understanding, most men would reside in a state of terminal hornyness.
And at the northern edge of the forest they found a discarded, aluminized travel brochure that spoke of a place as "The land with no name and phones without numbers." (Those with the greater weariness eventually tried to smoke the metal pamphlet.)
If so-called "facts" are that which is repeatable, are facts nouns or verbs? Are they objects or systems? Be they static or variable? Do you take my comments as "facts"? (Speed is surely a prime number. A true scientist and examiner-of-facts would be he who could think the hundred yard dash in 6.3.)
The longer I associate with Man, the more I wonder, is it his natural condition to always "almost have it"?
A man was once told that "Happiness is just a state of mind." He cut his eyes to the right for a moment, then went into an absolute rage, screaming, "Damn, don't tell me that."
A man once heard a tale regarding a "magic tapestry," which, if one could make and possess, would "reveal all." The man spent the better part of the next twenty-two years roaming the earth, collecting the many various pieces to construct his magic cloth. But after all of his efforts, a small corner piece remained missing. After much brooding over this final incompletion, someone pointed out that he was the same shape as the missing piece.
A scientist involved with exotic experimentation concluded that particles hurtling away from one another at unbelievably fast speeds were still somehow engaged in instant communication. He was hailed and accepted. Then a color blind CPA in Peoria discovered a similar situation regarding what the human mind accepts and rejects, but no one could accept his findings.
I once heard of a place where the powers-that-be had secretly placed a man in charge of periodically confronting the leaders, asking them to respond to questions and charges he said had been made, but which the powers themselves had given him. This may strike you as odd, but that area grew and flourished.
With "I's" in the back of one's head, would not the future be then clear.
Now then, children, let us sing today's little song: "Let us learn, learn, learn; Let us forget, forget, forget. Now let us remember all of this, all at once, all the time."
In the midst of a mortal crowd, I once heard a voice cry, "I've entered this damned contest so many times that I've forgotten what the prize is."
Near the city of Farfadia, I once discovered a man whose business consisted of listening to your problem, then telling you to forget about it, that he would take it over, and then send you a monthly bill forever. After his initial meeting with his clients I could never see that he did anything more than send them his monthly bill, but many spoke of the benefit of his services and many seemed to get better.
There was once a man who was convinced that a number was missing from the accepted numerical system, and after many hot years of search and sweat he discovered the "missing number," but he couldn't prove it, for none of the known numbers can add up to it.
Who could enjoy a book with no title? But who can see that a joy with no name is a joy times three.
A man once noted to himself that the intellectuals of the world were without a true spectator sport, and after some thought, he arranged a kind of "thinking match" between appropriate participants, with special EEG's hooked to their heads that projected their cerebral activities into large, colorful holograms. Well, it all seemed to be going pretty smoothly until he encountered a certain snag in his "all intellectual activity" scenario. He found that only certain physically oriented men with gangly oriented tongues could function as commentators. Artists, 2; Philistines, 2 -- as we pause for this word from our sponsors.
What be it that man seeks in the mystical-far-away and in the divine-out-of-reach? What would he say if he found a current that was its own source and a power that to its own amp be true? (I have not the heart to comment upon the shocking implications herein.)
A man was once brought before the bar of justice on two charges and after his trial was completed, the court sentenced him to "death plus 40 years." As they were leading him away, his attorney slapped him on the back and commended him on his luck, in that he could have received 60 years on the lesser charge. (Is this a parable, or what?)
I once attended a lecture on the subject of "Ennui," and afterwards as the crowd was leaving I overheard a man say, "How utterly boring." (I learned later that this was the same person who after reading a book entitled, "The Unrecognized Impact of Theory, Belief and Assumption" dismissed the author's efforts by declaring, "Well, that's his opinion."
Would not the ultimate faux pas be in pronouncing the phrase as "fox pass"? (Or am I being terminally tacky to even mention this possibility to the red-eyed-literati?)
A man once discovered a way to "open doors" into the supporting fabric of life itself, but he found he could make no sense of what he saw therein, and decided he needed to construct some kind of new viewing apparatus through which to study these areas, and which would translate the scenes into comprehensible data. But one Monday, whilst working on said machine, he opened one of the doors to discover another person looking back at him, and before he could blink, the other figure looked over its shoulder, apparently speaking to someone else on its side of the door and said, "Hey, I've found a door that opens on to a mirror."
In the condo-forest just west of the Mimimost Valley, two rival mystical clans arose whose every turn seemed based on the desire to outdo the other. One faction finally put their activities in the form of a systematic religion and built a structure with a sign announcing, "The Church of the Matter-of- Factness." Not playing dead, the other clan rose up, constructed their own edifice directly across the street with the name of, "Yeah, Tell Me All About It." (Those who say that "tolerance is its own reward" have a lot to learn about mechanical design.)
If you'll always smile before you criticize, someone's life will pass before your eyes. (Now that I've said it, I don't know whether this is humorous verse or worse.)
When I first came to this planet I readily fell into the habit of reading man's daily newspapers; that is, until one day while perusing one of these periodicals, being carried along by the passion of its coverage and marveling at its facility to so quickly report on important instant affairs, I noticed that the paper was two years old. (Now, boys and girls: Have any of you ever discovered this, even when it wasn't so?)
I once decided I would write a book and tell absolutely everything I know. But then I thought, "That's impossible; you can't live long enough to ever catch up to date." Then I asked myself, "Well, how long would you like to live?" And I said, "See, now that you've said that, it's even more impossible." (Apropos to little, perhaps, but why does the phrase, "more impossible" have such a satisfying -- no, more than satisfying -- ring?)
I once heard of a doctor who claimed he could cure any human illness, and finding a loose Tuesday, I tracked him to his lair, where I discovered that indeed, he forthwith announced to every incoming patient that he could cure all illness, but when informed of the person's ailment, he quickly added, "Except that one." Eight years ago I visited a planet that staged a curious event. On a multidimensional track people would run off in three different directions. And if you think that was peculiar, their newspaper had an athletic critic.
Part of the intricacy of speaking about This is in making those assured of its complexity see its basic simplicity, and in making those who believe it is simple see their own simplicity. Human sentences do not display the same acceleration and braking speed as do their equations.
I once heard a voice from a nearby galaxy which cried, "No, don't hit me again," and the tone was serious enough to make me investigate. But as I drew near, a voice from another region declared, "Don't be silly, you know suicide is impossible." (People can sure talk funny in other places.)
There was once a man who gained the reputation of a teacher. His words seemed to enlighten, his encouragements became self- fulfilling, and his mere presence appeared to heal and comfort. His activities and renown became such that many people flocked to him as students and followers. One particular person who was herein attracted, although duly impressed and inspired, was nonetheless sorely troubled over the possibility, as he put it, that the teacher could be a "fake." One fine day he found himself alone, face to face with the great-one, and after some hesitation and verbal fumbling, laid out his fears that his chosen leader could possibly be a "fake." At this, the ostensible teacher literally roared with laughter and said, "Never you mind; it's never-you-mind-time. Don't you know what an extraordinary man it would take to fake this."
"ARE YOUR DOORS OPEN?"
Document: 191, January 9, 1986
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1986
If you consider the "cut and dried", for example, whatever is experienced through the senses it has an almost smothering effect on us individually and collectively. The weight of the "cut and dried" seems almost doubled in those activities that might, at first blush, appear to be at Life's creative edge, namely various religions and so-called mystical systems. The building facilities, the volume of people involved in such activities, speak of thriving enterprises. Yet the messages heard therein are utterly predictable. What brings people out for these activities, other than the social energy of sex and just getting out of the house, is the circulatory need at Life's broadest level.
Such business is the lowest denominator of Life trying to keep itself alive, of Life trying to stay in balance. Yet you should have, close to your bosoms if not your brains, an understanding that this level of circulation is not going to forward Life's intention to grow in a certain profitable direction.
The next subject is about the possibility of there being certain types of people. You might have read in history about various conjectures concerning a typology of humans. Even psychology has attempted to come up with a rough paradigm based on Red Circuit manifestations. The question of there being types has some validity or else it would not continue to be written about and people would not ask questions. You can type everybody on this planet by the ways in which they act and by the ways in which they think about acting. There are limited types that continue to be reproduced.
Each circuit has what amounts to three different levels: an upper, mid, and lower level. These levels have to do with where one circuit touches another circuit. This is why you can see a stranger half a continent away and they are the spitting image of someone you know, both in terms of how they move and their social interactions. You can be typed, everybody can be typed, by their specific circuitry connection. I could call the primary place where the transformation of energy is centered in each person a "front door." I could call it the heart of their so-called personality. The front door is the primary place in the circuitry where energy is received, processed, and transmitted. For example, take the lower part of the Yellow Circuit where it touches the Red Circuit. I could call that connection the front door of a certain type of person. Such a person's speech may be almost a living example of mechanical thought. He speaks almost entirely in cliches and the hip phrases of the day. Everybody has met someone like that. Or just listen to your partner sometime, since there is always a lot of mechanical talk going on inside. With this particular connection of the circuitry you would find not only mechanical talk, but also certain political persuasions. Here you find that type of person who all over this planet is referred to as conservative, right wing, reactionary.
Now take the lower part of the Yellow Circuit where it's touching parts of the Blue Circuit. If that is the person's center of gravity, their front door, you have a person whose speech is almost entirely involved with melancholy. You greet this type with, "How did your holiday go?" And they respond, "It rained the whole time." Whatever you said to them, their response would be gloomy. If a person's focus is in higher areas of the Yellow Circuit, where it is as far removed as mechanically possible from the rest of Line-level consciousness, you would be closer to the areas where the energy transmitted would apparently be as close as possible to dispassionate thought.
All of you have met another type, just a real smart aleck, but with a modicum more than average intelligence. In some vocabularies he is called hip. He may have a way with words, be good at puns, and he may be able to make fun and be sarcastic in ways that belie his young age. He may even have some small kind of talent. This is a type and it has to do with where his Circuits are connected.
I cannot resist one last example. All of you have someone in your family who seems to have almost an innate charitable nature. You have never heard them express any great hostility or prejudice against other people. Even their facial countenance puts out a message: "Not that life is a bitch, but isn't life a sorrowful journey." If someone said to this type, "Did you know Miss so-and-so is drinking again, her husband left her" -- just ordinary gossip -- their response would at first sound philosophical. This person may well say, "Well, none of us know the real personal problems another person has." If we isolate these words at the Yellow Circuit level, we apparently have a down home philosopher. The emotional message that comes through, however, is that the speaker is placing himself among those with personal problems that no one appreciates. The emotional message is, "You don't know the quiet desperation I endure."
How about some questions. Can any of you perceive any sort of symbiotic relationship between you and the partner? Try and abandon the feeling that the partner is your enemy and look at what is meant by a symbiotic relationship whereby there is some kind of attachment between two animals or insects and they are both serving one another. Just confront the question, "Is there any possible symbiotic relationship of any kind between one's self and the partner? Question #2 is closely connected to this: has Life in any way made mortal existence ergonomically efficient? And if so, for Life or for Man?
Question #3. Can you see that ordinary consciousness is the original and consummate social climber? Ordinary consciousness appears to have completely forgotten, or else it absolutely denies, its most common molecular background. This is similar to people in Life who just pop up with all the trappings of money and success. Nobody knows where he came from, though he drops hints about a cousin married to the pretender to the Greek throne. A very small amount of investigation reveals this proverbial social climber made his money trucking rutabagas. If someone were to question him, he either denies his background or else he has forgotten it. Is it not interesting that common, ordinary people could give a better rundown on the history of where their shoes came from or where their automobile was built? Or come up with a background apparently for almost anything better than consciousness can reveal its own source? Does anyone find that curious? And isn't it more curious that no one thinks about that?
On to weightier matters. I was sitting in a restaurant recently and overheard two people sitting at an adjoining table, who evidently had been exposed to some of my material. Suddenly, I heard one of the people say, "Well, I've got my (and he pointed to his head) molecules trained." I gave it serious consideration, thinking of the ways in which that could be used, and I could go a long way with that map. I could expand it four or five different directions, not just with this fictional person I just made up. But as I sat there, a new question arose. Who was saying that? And whoever you say is saying that, what molecules is it that he has trained? If you can come up with any kind of ephemeral answer as to who would be saying, "I've got my molecules trained," then I have got to ask, could it not be whatever you come up with, could it not be vice versa? Of course, turning around the comment and saying the molecules have me trained is too simplistic. No, you have to do better than that.
Let's try another viewpoint. By what words would you describe that which was not experienced by the senses? Here I could define the "cut and dried" as anything experienced by the senses and put it in words. Words are descriptions of only one thing, (it's really a process) that which has been experienced by the senses at Line-level consciousness. That's it, that is all you can talk about. And what is This Thing about? Experiences you See beyond the three dimensional world. These experiences are not via sensory input. In retrospect you realize about these extraordinary times: it is not that you saw something and it is not that you heard something, although it may have appeared to have been triggered by something. For example, there you stood and one guy said, "Sometimes I think that women are more trouble than they are worth." And another guy replies, "Hey, you can say that again." And you have one of those moments of Seeing. If suddenly somebody grabbed you and said, "I saw something strange run across your face, what happened?" The truth as far as you can tell in a linear sequence would be, "I would not have had that experience had I not been standing there at that time, at that place; and if they had not said that little dialogue, surely the little moment of Seeing something would not have happened. But it wasn't that I heard their voices say, 'Hey you can say that again,' the experience was not via the senses." So you cannot tell anyone in an ordinary manner, since you would only be describing the experience of your senses.
Here is where Life, you could say, has its own problem: that is, to put words on experiences that are not limited to the senses. Life makes people have experiences that are not simply of the senses. People throughout Life's history, whoever humanity says they are -- religious prophets, mystical men, more enlightened people -- have had experiences not limited to the senses. Let's assume that is true. Then we are back to one question I often present, "How is it that certain words are inefficient for any Real profit today, yet they still seem to have some impact." There are words said 5000 years ago, translated three times from one language to another and they still have some effect. But they are missing something. Again, how are you to describe that which is not experienced through the senses?
For the Few, a source of proper and necessary food to stay active in This Thing is generated from experience beyond the limitations of the senses. Nourishment of this kind feeds the expansion of higher circuits and is astounding, mystical, cosmic, enlightening, awakening, shocking, anything you care to call it. But if you had any sense you wouldn't call it anything. Then back to my question, "How are you going to describe it?" Words will not lend themselves to an experience that is not a function of the senses. When there appears to be no discernible source for certain experiences, what words can you conjure up to describe them? Words can only bring the experience down to a level of what is perceived by the senses. So, can you see: anything that can be experienced through the senses is, for a Few people, nonnutritious?
My one definition of the cut and dried is "anything that has been experienced through the senses." Anything that your partner talks about can be lumped into the "cut and dried" because it's experienced via the senses. If you cannot find anything nutritious from your own murmurings, where can you look? And more importantly, how will you know when you find it?
Here is a useful hint -- whatever you plan to do when you decide to do something, do not tell yourself what you are going to do. Otherwise you are going to preordain your action to experiences through the senses, via the words that you tell yourself.
Let's tie this all up. Remember my description of a person's front door energy, how the front door of someone's consciousness would apparently be their personality, their individuality. I pointed out that everybody could be "typed" in a sense based on their circuitry connections.
My description is limited to what can be molecular conveyed by words. But if you isolate these connections, for example, where the lower part of the Yellow Circuit touches the mid part of the Blue Circuit, and if you could actually see it in a person, then the experience would be beyond the senses. You would See that they take in certain kinds of energy, they are interested in certain kinds of things, they are attracted to certain types of people. There are certain thoughts and feelings that they express over and over. Their front door is the place where they operate their part of Life's business through the kinds of specific energy they take in, transform, and pass along. And this transfer is helping to circulate energy within Life's body which keeps Life growing. We are all doing it whether you want to or whether you see it.
In addition to what appears to be one's center of focus, one's center of gravity or one's front door, I could point out there are at least two side doors. These side doors are not necessarily the most important part of how he is transforming energy. The side doors can be seen in the little things a person does which, once you See them, you know you could have predicted it. They have to do with the ways in which their circuitry is connected. Once you See them, you will catch something fairly crude. I have described the kind of person who speaks mechanically and in cliches, but also with great passion. Say you saw him sitting at a bar yelling, talking, making a scene and when he got up to go to the bathroom, you knew that the guy was going to move the way that he did. There is nothing in your past experience that made you predict it. What you saw was not sensory experience limited to molecular activity of the eyes, ears, smell, etc. If you can see the front door and the back (though I'm not going into the back door here) there are always at least two side doors to see. Another angle: once your front door energies become unnecessary, Life extincts you. Life begins to gradually extinct you anyway, which is commonly referred to as aging. There is a wearing down of the Red Circuit, observable as less of a desire to move about. Beyond the Red Circuit there is less of a passion to worry about things or to get involved in activities such as world events or political situations around the world. Your front door energies become gradually unnecessary for Life at the time zone in which you are operating, so Life extincts you.
For someone involved with This Thing, you have to develop a certain kind of flexibility that comes from not having the circuits operate in a completely stagnant manner, and a kind of flexibility that will free you as much as possible from this fate. Of course, molecularly and biochemically speaking, you have a body with built-in limitations. Remember the man who was physically active in his work as a carpenter, but retired at 65 and sat around for six to eight months. He began to deteriorate. Then he started running. He had never done any exercise in his life, and now at age 83 he still runs ten miles a day and looks great. Now the question. There are two possibilities. Is it the exercise that made him live so long and be so healthy, or is it because he is so healthy he has to exercise, he has no choice? You could say it came from will power and perseverance. Yes, but where does will power and perseverance come from? Isn't it biochemically based? My words are of value only to those with a particular biochemical makeup. Only those of a sturdy molecular type are properly attracted to This Thing.
In conjunction with consciousness being totally unaware of its background, I could quite literally say that the aim of This Thing is to make consciousness conscious of itself and of its heritage.
Question 2E. Alright, Question 3. How could one grow without a partner? How could Life grow? If there were gods -- something outside the system -- would they, if this planet weren't already in existence, have had to create their own partner? What if there were simply C Force at one time? Would C have had to create D? Would C also have had to create E? Or is there a possibility that E would have come about in some way if C created just D?