Video = no video ( tape destroyed by mold )
Audio = not yet
Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0241 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = none
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = #103 ?
Transcript = See Below
Summary by TK
Tape 241, Dec 30, 1986, runtime 1:13
Everything you think and say should be prefaced by the word "apparently". Related to never putting a period on anything; an expansion of complexity. Scientific discoveries as holographic unfolding of Life's body thru man's 3 dimensional vision, i.e., discoveries come into existence with their discovering vs. pre-existing things revealed. Examples of discovery of western hemisphere ("New World"); disease producing germs; subatomic physics. This thing is an unfolding of further dimension. Man's new observations of himself come into being at that time, for the first time. Consider how, given man's extreme sophistication in technology, can man be so ignorant of himself, his own workings?]
[New word: zipperly: a kind of being happy, not ordinary happiness, not based on The Partnership. Based on happiness in seeing what is good for Life happening. Example of EVOTECK programs; not self-centered. Zipperly is to be unconditionally pleased. It is unnatural. Freud said: "the most psychoanalysis can ever hope to accomplish is to raise extreme unhappiness to general, ordinary unhappiness. Zipperly is in contrast; escapes the general unhappiness of man with his lot.]
[METHOD:The "Action/non-thinking-of-action Booster" to escape into orbit from the gravity of ordinary physical and verbal habits. I.e., either stop the habit or stop thinking about stopping the habit. Either is about equally efficacious if you know how to do it. ]
[The extremely "hip" at this level (ordinary) are "super yokels" at the next one. To be hip is to be a critic, sarcastic, cynical, hostile. This is not a proper hobby for The Few. ]
[New word "psychomathics"]
[1:05TASK: choose 3 people to think of what can be done to promote This Thing publicly whenever becoming aware of daydreaming about personal plans. 3 weeks, then new group of 3. Meet once a week at neutral place to compare and discuss results.
A 4-D PANORAMA OF LIFE REVEALED THROUGH MAN
Document: 241, December 30, 1986
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1986
All of you thought you got something from my idea of not putting a period on anything. It would be reasonable for the ordinary partnership, the Yellow Circuit, to imagine that not putting a period on something would leave the way open for further investigation and understanding. It may sound like an interesting hobby. But I'm going to delve into this in a more complex fashion. All references to events in the ordinary 3-D world should be labeled, prefaced by, adjectived, and adverbed by the words "apparent" or "apparently." You notice that I periodically make use of these words. In all references to anything that happens, internally keep a constant awareness that whatever you are referring to, no matter how straight forward or simplistic it seems, should be conditioned by the word and the reality behind the word "apparently." You would not simply say, "I am mad. That person just insulted me. They went by and threw a beer can out of the window and made an insulting noise." It should be, "That person apparently insulted me, and now I am apparently mad." "I apparently have a headache." "I'm apparently sad."
The use of "apparently" is not simply a trick. I suggest, as strongly as I can, that if you were operating within the consciousness of the nervous system above its basis in language and binary wiring patterns, the reality behind the use of "apparently" would continually exist. Using "apparently" is a refinement of my suggestion to place a comma, rather than a period, after all of your statements and observations. By employing "apparently" you would have a continuing awareness that no observation, no matter how proper it appeared, would be close to the truth unless prefaced by that word.
On a 3-D level, if you have the awareness that everything is "apparently" arising from your observing something and then making a statement about it, the caution of putting a period on anything is lessened, if not rendered moot. Consider what this ongoing attempt to use "apparently" would do to the unrecognized limits of language and its conditioning effect on everything. What would it do to the cutting up of the Infinite Comment?
See if you can follow this jump. Can you see the possibility that so-called discoveries, not excluding those "apparently" scientific, are holographic pictures of Life continuing to unravel itself through man's 3-D eyes? Discovery would not just be the act of men finding things that they previously did not or could not see. What if whatever it was that was currently discovered -- the North American Continent, the laws of gravity, the movements of the heavens -- just came into existence on our level? It would normally be considered that, "The laws of gravity always existed. But no one had codified anyone's observations or had the ability to put gravity in a meaningful framework. Also, it's obvious, is it not, that the North American Continent was always here, but for years people didn't know. They just had to send Columbus to find it." Are you sure it was always there?
What about the world of particle physics or microbiology? In this century, man began to find the molecular basis of many illnesses. It would seem that these little germs were always there, causing plagues and semi-plagues. And a certain period of time had to pass, a certain intelligence had to develop in man, a compendium of past knowledge and observation had to occur before someone was given credit for the discovery. And this person looked into a microscope and said, "Wait a minute. It's not evil spirits and it's not even the appearance of rats causing these illnesses. Nay, look through this. It's these little germs." Are you sure they existed before they were seen?
How about the atomic and subatomic worlds which are beyond the human senses? You've only got photographs and people's word for what goes on in these areas. Let's assume that you are taking at face value whatever cursory knowledge you have of that branch of science. In the last four or five decades we've developed the knowledge to peer into this world. "But it obviously always existed." Are you sure?
What I've presented in the last few minutes is a somewhat rhetorical question. But the assumption that there were things man could not see due only to lack of experience, technology or general intelligence, might not be as straightforward as it appears. You say, "There have been new discoveries, but that which is discovered is not new. It was simply not seen." None of that makes any particular sense in the world of language, but there is no way to go beyond that concept with ordinary language. That's why I mentioned that man's so-called discoveries can be looked upon as being a holographic picture of Life itself. It's an unravelling which is only partially seen through men's eyes. You take it as being your own observations or understanding of other people's observations. But if you can See with your own secret eyes, these observations literally unfold into another dimension, beyond 3-D linear thought. It's not as if Life were sitting around like a big guy looking in his naval or smoking cigarettes and staring out the window. That's still 3-D imagery. But can anyone see the possibility -- forget the examples I made up -- that all discoveries in the 3-D world may have just come into being? They were never SEEN before because they never WERE before. It's a shame that there is no 4-D synonym for "simultaneous" to make this clearer to you.
Now see if you can abandon the world of scientific discovery and enter the world of new observations. If you were a Western oriented person, you could start with the Greeks and note all the observations man has made about himself and his nature from that period on. They might be apparently philosophical, religious, or self-observation. You may have read one of the comments of the great new thinkers in any area -- religion, philosophy, psychology -- and think, "I never thought about that. I love it! What an observation." And you wrote down his name or remembered it. You made a mental note, "I'll read more by that guy. What insight he had. Nobody else had ever seen that," or, "I never read anyone who could express a certain aspect of human nature that way." Can you perceive that what he observed may, at our level, have simply come into being at that time?
Life has rapidly progressed in all ways, specifically intellectually. Let's say that this rapid progress started out like a little choo choo train around Grecian times, and now it's almost out of control. It's moving so quickly that you can't even get a ticket. Or if you get on board, you don't know where you are. But simultaneously, in another dimension, how has man been so stupid about himself? Think about it. He can now build atom smashers. He can build equipment that costs four billion dollars and only two or three people in the world can understand anything about the way it functions. And, of course, man can now send people to the moon and cure once fatal diseases. But simultaneously how has he remained so stupid? People are still arguing over the same old things. So-called serious thinkers today say that they still don't know the answers to the questions that the Greek philosophers were asking. These philosophers and philosophically inclined religious people asked questions about why man operates the way he does. "Why do I do what I do and then regret it, and then do it again?" So the thinkers in every age ponder this serious matter. In a sense, what they're pondering is what makes one native material different from another; what magnetism is; what seems to be attractions between different materials.
Isn't it curious that in four or five decades there can be more technological progress than in the previous two thousand years? Well into our century, unbelievable things began happening. You could turn a knob and sounds came out of a box, traveled through the air and into your head. But at the same time, what progress has been made with the questions, "Who am I? What makes me do what I do? Why do I keep doing things that I regret?" If we brought back the hard scientists of Athenian times, we'd all admit that they would have a difficult time getting a job in the research and development departments of so-called top notch scientific firms. But you could bring in a philosopher from that period and put him in an ivy league university, and he'd feel right at home. Once he got over the shock of what had happened, he'd look at his watch and realize, "It's been twenty-five hundred years and these people don't know any more than we did." And he'd say, "Where's my cap and gown? What time do I start teaching?" Nobody finds that interesting?
This apparent dichotomy is a next level simultaneous process. I repeat that simultaneous is not really the word I mean. There is no word for it. It would be simultaneous going in either the opposite direction or at right angles to it. But linear thought and language do not see two things that look like they're going in different directions as being simultaneous. Someone might say, "These events are occurring at the same time so you can judge them simultaneously. But to say that these events are part of the same occurrence, that's going too far." Someone might fall back on such cliches as, "In the supermarket you can pick up two things at once. But you're trying to compare cantaloupes and prunes, and apples and oranges." And they would think that they understood what I'm talking about. But that's not it. It's only a reflection. I suggest that for Man this process of discovery and self-knowledge is Life revealing itself. From Life's viewpoint through Man, it is an unravelling process.
Shall I go on to the easy stuff? I've had to make up a new word -- zipperly. Zipperly is a particular, non-ordinary type of happiness that's not centered around one's perception of oneself. It's a happiness that is happy almost unto itself. This happiness is based upon an impersonal, and hence, unconditional awareness of what is good for Life and for other people. I'll give you an example. Let's say that you are involved in something creative -- an original play, for instance. You are in some way a part of a production that is good for Life and those involved. And you get a distinct and correct sense that this play is in no way going to be harmful to ordinary people. It's not going to encourage routine imagination, hatred, or feelings of ridicule or sarcasm towards others. You have the feeling that what is happening is good for Life, even if on a very small basis. It is good compared to what normally goes on in Life. The feeling of zipperly is that of being unconditionally, nonverbally pleased; the way you feel when you're attempting to make real effort.
To further my example, say that you were an actor in this play. It's ended, and you walk into the lobby and notice the audience standing around or drinking coffee. You have the feeling of being happy that they enjoyed themselves. But this feeling is not centered on you. That is the key to it. It is not limited or based on a kind of ordinary feeling that by putting words on emotions might be expressed as, "Boy, I'm glad they liked it. I'm going to run downstairs since I was in it tonight. I think they really liked my part. Maybe somebody will slap me on the back, or they'll see me over there in the corner and punch each other." That whole scenario is not evil; it's routine. But the feeling of zipperly is, "I'm glad those people are here and that they enjoyed it." It is being happy that they enjoyed it, and that you absolutely, ordinarily have nothing to gain from their enjoyment. But that description is not the limitation or the defining parameters of zipperly. One must always have the awareness that what he's zipperly about is good for Life and it's good for those involved, although they may or may not know it. Again, it is not the ordinary 3-D feeling of happiness. Ordinary happiness is always conditional.
I suddenly recall some second hand descriptions from the work of a major psychoanalyst. Through his observations in treating the ill, in the early days of psychoanalysis, he came to an interesting conclusion. He said that the best that people who were neurotic and psychotic could hope for, even with treatment, was to reach the level of being just ordinarily unhappy -- like everybody else. To specifically define ordinary happiness, you might say, "My molecules are being neuro-transmitted with happiness." These fluids, these messages, these molecules, these feelings are in direct, simultaneous, continual, unrecognized communication with their anti-parts. Hence, I must say that the psychoanalyst was not that far off the mark by saying that you can either be extremely unhappy, or you might work yourself up to being just ordinarily unhappy in 3-D perception.
Some of you may recall that I have tried to get you to consider the curiousness of a most human feeling of fear and dread over being too happy. It's the feeling that, "Something bad is going to happen. I've got no business being this happy." It can seem like a falsely induced euphoria. You may think, "I'll be dashed on the rocks. My wax wings of false happiness will melt soon and I'll plunge to earth to be my same old unhappy self." Does anyone find that curious?
This example of ordinary happiness came to mind while I was trying to point out a kind of happiness that is unnatural -- hence the unnatural name of zipperly.
Okay, now how about this. To escape and orbit the weight and gravity of physical and verbal habits is the "Action/Non-Thinking Of Action Boost." People continually inquire as to how to handle their habits. Someone asks, "How dangerous is it to smoke? I do smoke and seem to enjoy it," or, "It seems to be a habit that I should stop, and I'm not able to. Would I be better off to stop smoking or just cut down?" Here is the Action/Non-Thinking of Action Boost. And I'm sure all of you will be delighted to hear that it's dualistic. Like any good rocket that will work in the 3-D world, you can use this boost to escape the weight and gravity of the planet.
Now taking the example of smoking -- either stop smoking or stop thinking about stopping. And that's it. If you know how to do it, believe it or not, one is as good as the other. In the 3-D world that surely can't be true. You can say, "There's no doubt that smoking has an adverse effect on the lungs and respiratory system." I'm not arguing with that. If they say that's true, I'll accept it. I don't care. But if you know how to use the Action/Nonthinking of Action Boost you've got your choice. Either stop the action or stop thinking of the action. You can substitute all sorts of habits in the example I gave. But remember, molecularly speaking in this world at the ordinary level, you're either going to act or think about acting.
Ordinarily everyone is full of habits. Think about all the things that your partnership says you should or should not be doing. You should be getting more exercise. You should not be eating late at night. You should be trying to pursue your career with more gusto, or should try to loosen up a little and have more fun. Everyone is looking for a prescription as to "why I'm dissatisfied." And the reason, of course, that you are dissatisfied is because you're alive. The way that ordinary consciousness is built to handle dissatisfaction is to either act upon it or think about acting upon it. But if you could take this booster approach -- either act or don't ever think about acting -- it would cure all problems. And I'm not misleading you to say that one is about as good as the other. There is a beautiful trick behind that. Take something that seems to be a dangerous habit such as smoking, and if you can absolutely stop thinking about stopping there is no problem. You'll be as well off as if you've stopped. It'll put you in orbit. You'll escape the ordinary weight of being dissatisfied, being stuck in a three-dimensional crack between acting and thinking of acting.
How about something on a completely unrelated subject? This paragraph will be entitled "being extremely hip here is to be a super-yokel on the next level." Everyone has their own feelings about what being hip is. Those that would aspire to be hip would say that someone who was hip would be very sophisticated, well read, cosmopolitan, up to date, and in style -- not just physically. But you must recognize that part of being hip is to be cynical and sarcastic, which are refined synonyms for hostile. You're able to, among your peers, point at third parties and ridicule them in a manner that your little community, your friends find humorous. "The comment you made about that pompous so and so is correct. We all knew that about them. But the way in which you put it!" Being hip is, in the ordinary sense, to be a little above average as a critic. Remember, of course, that everyone, without recognizing it, is a drafted critic in Life's unseen daily paper. Everyone has their own daily column and very few read anyone else's. They have no choice.
So in a sense, being hip is to be exceptionally caustic in your own circle. None of this belies my first observation that those who aspire to hipness would describe it in the terms of sophistication and being up to date. And if you can look at it in a certain way, all of you, including those of you who are apparently the shyest and least aggressive, are to some degree hip. Now some of this hipness would fall within the view of the partnership and it would think, "Well, this is based upon observations I can now make about human nature that heretofore went unnoticed by me. But now that my eyesight and my consciousness have been expanded through This Activity, I can see .pasome of the folly, perhaps without being as hostile about it as I might have in earlier times." This is a form of being hip.
Everybody who gets involved with This thinks that they're hip. You believe you're keen of sight, able to pierce through the facades, the shams of ordinary existence. And, in that sense, you believe you're hip. But at the ordinary partnership level, hipness is still hostility. And it's going to render you, on another level, a super-yokel. I don't mean this literally, of course, but you might wake up in another human existence and you've got a cape on and the funniest suit you've ever seen in your life. You are with a capital S/Y recognized as Super Yokel! And you've got all the attributes that you had -- all the hipness, hostility, cynicism, all the aggression and vitriolic wit. And almost in a flash of an eye, you go from being the center of attention, with your glass of champagne, or whatever is hip, to suddenly standing in the midst (on another level) of people who think they're hip. You're dressed in the S/Y uniform and you can't hide it. You're just suddenly there.
If you tried to follow what I said, everyone here, unknowingly, within the partnership, considers themselves to be hip in some unusual way. You consider yourselves hip due to your imagined insight and your dissatisfaction with the ordinary, mundane pursuits of routine men and women. Can you see the possibility that the more you begin to See and Understand, it would be almost impossible to be hip? But, all right, I'll give you another way out. From the view of the partnership, it would be "oh, so expected" to be able to cut down almost everybody with your rapier tongue -- from all the great religious prophets to contemporary gurus, to people who think they're intelligent, to other people who think they're hip. In some lateral manner you could almost become super-hip, at least to yourself. Although you may be wired up not to run off at the mouth anymore, you may listen to talk radio or watch news programs on the TV box or just listen to your own partnership in the privacy of your own head. WDNA has become so hip that you can cut up anyone, past or present. Can you see that the partnership can imagine that being super-hip is quite possible, if not expected and necessary -- a proper payoff for all this effort? It sets you up; it's measuring you right now for the uniform and you're going to come back -- I'm not talking about reincarnation -- as a super-yokel.